Again, one is entitled to ask: What has happened to these people that they have been turned into willing servants of a programme that would draw the approbation of any revolutionary Marxist?

This is just an obstinate question, GW. These are conservatives, for heaven’s sake. They have just spent one hundred years - or more - capitulating to the tiniest whims of the Opposition. Why should they start resisting now? That you evince such surprise at their behavior demonstrates that you are reasoning and acting from unexamined presuppositions.

I’ll be more blunt, since this question has given you especial difficulty over the years: what is deemed ‘conservatism’ has three primary components. The first is moneygetting, which we distinguish from the pursuit of livelihood by the degree to which the pursuit of money displaces other values. Moneygetting, for the conservative, is also mixed up with status competition, not only ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ - though that is vital to the conservative project - but also doing harm to the working classes, when this is possible. The passion for distinction leads to cruelty just as reliably as other passions, if not more frequently. Despite the fact that moneygetting and status are intertwined for the conservative, we must persist in our attempt at differential diagnosis: these are two drives at work, not one. The conservative is not a moneygetter solely on account of status.

Moneygettting also explains (partly) the oft observed impotence, if not outright betrayal, of societal interest by conservatives. For the conservative, the first question must be, is my money safe? In order to guard the safety of his money and position, he will make any number of tactical retreats (a limitless number, in fact). To stave off revolution brought about by bad conservative management - or even just Jewish mob-agitation - a simple act - like tossing the colleges and the whole of academia to the wolves - is nothing. What is culture for a conservative? Another trading chip and nothing more. Conservatives traded the means of transmission of culture and the means of creating and legitimating public opinion when they caved to sixties radicals and student demonstrations. Now, forty years after this particular great betrayal, they all alone bemoan their outcast state. How has the world grown so foolish? they yawp, unaware they are barking at their own shadows. The world has grown old through the ministrations of ‘conservatives’, who now regard their handiwork with equal parts of shock and scorn. Are we supposed to laugh or cry?

You will note that, though our cultures and nations are rotting before their eyes, the first law - moneygetting - has actually been safely conserved. The fact that a larger proportion of the population slips into poverty on account of rampant inflation, increasing land prices, and the destruction of a living wage - why should this bother a conservative any more than the handing over of our universities? It doesn’t because his money is still safe. So, from a short and medium term perspective, conservatism must be accounted a partial success on its own terms. It has conserved the material fortune of the families that prop it up, and it has passed off the negative externalities to the larger society.

The moneygetting of the conservative and the moneygetting of the Jew should be distinguished: the Jew knows that money is a means to power, and uses it as such. With enough money, the opinions and actions of the whole world could be manipulated like a puppet on a string, as Walter Lippman and Edmund Bernays saw almost a century ago. Lippman even coined the phrase, “the manufacture of consent”, a process he not only named, but initatied in the modern world. The conserative vaguely understands that money can be used, via lobbying and newspapers, to make moneygetting more profitable. His conception of what money can do, other than make more money, is very limited vis a vis the Jew. Whatever else one might say of George Soros, he knows how to use money to the best effect: how many hundreds of colleges and newspapers and NGO’s has he founded in Eastern Europe? Teaching “tolerance” (race replacement) 24-7. What ‘conservative’ has ever shown such foresight?

Never. Not one. The very idea is oxymoronic. “Foresight”, for a conservative, is buying only blue-chip stocks. It does not extend to matters of culture or metapolitics. Indeed, we might label “foresight” the prototypical anti-conservative act. Since it accepts and refers to the one Reality which the conservative fears most - Change - it is simply never indulged in. The idea of environmentalism - to take but one example - is the province of Progressives (Teddy Roosevelt), Fascists (Hitler), and the Left (Rachel Carson). Any “conservatives” to add to that list? I didn’t think so - though all conservatives now carefully toe the party line that the Left has prepared for them on this issue. The Left (Progressives, Communists, whomever) leads, and the conservatives grumble and then give in. There has never been an exception to this rule so far as I know. Even Edmund Burke eventually moderated his rhetoric on the French Revolution so as to not appear to be at odds with Providence itself.

A group of people who deny the Dynamic nature of reality is in no position to fend off change - which they couldn’t do anyway - or even to effectively anticipate it. From a standpoint of practical politics, there never was so lame a beast as “Conservatism”. He is the ultimate loser in the Red Queen’s race: he thinks that he can hold his position by standing in place. But the fact of the matter is, to even do that, one must run and run and run, endlessly. It is no accident that Lewis Carroll’s literary diversion has become a metaphor for Darwinian reality: all must run just to stay in place.

Moving on: the status drive of the conservative must be examined. Though central to conservative identity, the universal passion for distinction takes on a particular flavor in the conservative psyche. It is not an overweening pride, like Lucifer or Napoleon, nor is it a passion for notoriety, as might drive a criminal or an artist. It is not even garden variety hankering for fame, as we see with actors. Rather, it is the very peculiar passion to be as much like one’s neighbors as is humanly possible. We might even recast the phrase ‘the passion for distinction’, in the case of the conservative, as ‘the passion for indistinctness’. The conservative wishes for the neighbors to see he has a nice car, but does not wish to be seen in an ostentatious one - though often, because he has not cultivated his tastes, he ends up in one anyway! Conservative status drives are not univalent, as we have seen in the examples of world conquerers, criminals, artists, or actors. It is always tempered by the ideal of respectability.

The conservative does not ask, “Who? Whom?” His life is not an elaboration of that premise. The conservative does not ask, “How then shall we live?” or “Who benefits?” or “How do the Many proceed from the One?” or any other similar question, (possibly excepting “Am I my brother’s keeper?").

Rather, the conservative life is an elaboration of the principle, “What will the neighbors think?”.

So, between the first principle of conservatism, moneygetting, and the second, the passion for indistinction, we are already in a position to not only describe, but to predict, conservative behavior. However, there is a third leg to the stool of conservatism that we should examine: the law of requisite moderation, and its primary correlate, physical and mental ease.

This is a subtle point, so I beg the reader’s indulgence. The Law of Requisite Moderation states that any any activity which does not further moneygetting or status is illegimate if it is pursued to a degree which interferes with the above stated objectives. And yes, this does most certainly apply to religion and every other pursuit: love, the arts, the sciences, literature, invention, etc. ‘Conservatism’ is an eros-killer and eros-hater. Whatever is not money or respectability is a regarded as a mortal enemy of these supreme goals.

Again, I wish to state: this is description and not judgement. Since scientific, religious, and artistic pursuits most likely will either result in the pursuer either not realizing his earning potential OR violating the ‘status with indistinction’ law, conservatism correctly , and let me repeat that, correctly identifies these pursuits as prima facie illegitimate. A man can have a hobby, even two or three - but a passion, never. The man who regards religion as something more than a visit to church on a Sunday and a smattering of moral guidelines is a fanatic. A man who writes poetry has a hobby. A man who is a poet is probably an anarchist and therefore to be avoided. And so forth.

I hardly need add that anyone who talks too much about the Jews is endangering both his earning potential and the possibility he will be talked about, and is therefore an almost perfect object of hatred for the conservative mind: a mind capable of passion and foresight, a veritable anti-conservative. Someone who has a passion for the life of his race is already convicted by conservatism: he has placed a value on something that is not money or status with indistinction and is therefore a blood enemy. That this passion will likely expose its holder to comment by others - and negative comment at that! - makes it further unaccaceptable to conservative tastes.

Don’t take my word for it: go and talk to some conservatives.

Finally, I should mention the chief correlate to the Law of Requisite Moderation: physical and mental ease.

Regarding the first, we may take it as descriptive of conservatism that there is no excess in the pursuit of physical and mental ease. The path that leads to hot baths and blessed quiet in the home, and not hard questions about life or politics (except as they relate to money and status) can never be an excessive one. Therefore the pursuit of physical ease can never violate the Law of Requisite Moderation, nor can the pursuit of mental ease. Mental toil is as disdained as physical toil, and is regarded by the conservative as twice as unpleasant.

Hence no conservative Gramsci - the conservative does not play to win, he plays to preserve money, “kept appearances”, and maximum personal comfort while trying to pretend that a life and death game isn’t going on all around him.

To review, the three laws of Conservatism:

1)Moneygetting: all values are subordinate to the acquisition of cash.

2)Status with Indistinction: After cash-acquisition is initiated, status should be pursued, though not in a way that draws attention to the status seeker.

3)The Law of Requisite Moderation: all human pursuits, including but not limited to: religion, painting, communion with nature, science, invention, poetry, sport, etc. are and must remain subordinate to A)Moneygetting and B)Status with Indistinction. The pursuit of these other goals, if they conflict with A or B, have exceeded what is moderate and must be discontinued or attenuated.

3a)The pursuit of physical and mental ease is intrinsically incapable of becoming immoderate, and is therefore exempt from the third Law.

Given these three laws, is there any conservative act of the past century which is not predictable, including the very story above which you find so alarming?

There is not.

Therefore we may may deduce from this, that conservatism, far from being an optimal strategy for the goal of the preservation of this Race-Culture, is in fact its enemy, and must be torn out, root and branch, that we might have any chance of success.

More specifically, you - GW - should cease to be surprised at the things that conservatives have been doing since before you were born, and lay down the burden of your endless apologia. The Holocaust Deniers will sooner be invited to White House dinners, than conservatism will be of some aid to the White Race.

Finally, I would like you stop retreating into counterfactuals during our discussions of conservatism. This is ‘bait and switch’ at its very worst. Everytime discussion of real conservatism appears, you repair to the Forest of Arden. No-one appreciates misty Druidism more than myself, but your Stonehenge-upon-Avon appeals to ‘wise kings’ and such as useful instances of conservatism are just laughable. Likewise your other favorite retreat, C.S. Lewis’ appropriation of Taoism for his book, The Abolition of Man. Taoism is not conservatism, and the attempt to make it appear so is both a slander against Taoism and an unearned accolade for conservatism. If you adhere to the ideals as presented in Lewis’ Abolition of Man, call yourself a Lewistonian or a Taoist. The “Right”, as it is presently constituted, has only two varieties: haute and petit. Because if the apologia for conservatism I constantly see here is for something besides the interests of the bourgeoisie, including their mental comfort, I cannot make it out.

I do think you have real political ideals, GW, but you’re going to have to articulate them outside the realm of reaction and foggy idealisation. Your current state of outraged surprise at conservatives and conservatism, expressed above, indicate that you are inwardly positing a period when conservatism was something besides the three laws that I describe. In other words, your feeling while perusing conservative websites, that you have been betrayed, indicates to me that you have been holding false ideas about conservatism and protecting them from scrutiny, precisely by retreating to Lewis or sometime before legal memory, when they are discussed.

In many ways, your stated ideals are nothing more than an elaboration on the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. No true conservative would . . . ah, but they do and they always have.

A word of friendly advice: you will not emerge from the struggle you have allied yourself with unscathed. Specifically, your petty nationalism, your atheism, and your conservatism will be joining your economic opinions on the the ash-heap of memory. I know you to be a very stubborn man, we have been arguing the same topics for three years now. The longer you put off the sacrifices entailed by your committment to your Race-Culture, the more terrible they will be when they come. Therefore, I commend to you a willing spirit and not a conservative one during these unavoidable changes. You cannot have continued life for our Race-Culture and conservatism at the same time, to grasp the next rung on the ladder it is needful to let go of the one you are clinging to.

I wish you as painless a transition as is possible.

Posted by wintermute on Monday, April 2, 2007 at 09:53 PM | #

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_law_and_the_conservative_party_is_gay/