Can conservatism be conserved?

Some of you may have read an article by David Azerrad on the subject of the ‘failure of conservatism.’ Of course a piece written to condemn conservatism’s failure will get a lot of ‘Amens’; people on the right (or the ‘right’) have been denouncing conservatives and conservatism for years now but it looks like the ‘respectable’ conservatives who write these kinds of think-pieces are now realizing this.

Talk is always dirt-cheap, and it’s easy to jump on a bandwagon rather than to start a new movement. And it’s quite safe and easy to say ‘conservatism is a failure because “conservatives never conserve anything.” We can all recite it in unison; we know it by heart.

But do the people who say ”conservatism never conserved anything” really want conservatism to conserve anything? Is there anything left that they would conserve if they could? I see no sign of that, except maybe among social conservatives (who are pretty thin on the ground now) lamenting the loss of morality, civility, civic order, decorum, manners, good taste — and also the apparent loss of the guts or the gumption to even try to preserve or conserve anything of value.

I do see the ‘sour grapes’ attitude among the critics; they are prone to say that America is the villain in every international dispute or war; that America was on the wrong track from the start (the Founders were all Masons or atheists like Thomas Paine (he was a ‘humanist’, it’s said.)

The attitude of disaffection is another reason why conservatives never conserved anything; the will is not there.

But back to the author of the piece on the failure of conservatism. I’ve been looking at what he has to say, and what I am seeing is that he ultimately wants Americans to embrace ‘born-again’ multiculturalism under other names. He is promoting a kind of civic nationalism in which we accept ‘Brotherhood’ as the rightful order of things; we forget any cultural/ethnic/religious differences and just learn to live together as we are all Americans.

The Canadian-born Azerrad refers at times to influences that lead to divisiveness. He warns against ‘identity politics’ and even Identitarianism. Identity politics is seen as a bogeyman among mainstream Republicans and ‘conservatives’; I remember in my younger days believing it to be bad, but is it ‘identity politics’ per se which is bad? I would say it’s unhealthy only if it’s ‘grievance politics’ or the politics of victimhood, of constant racial guilt accusations, the politics of reparations for past wrongs, real or imagined. That’s what is bad and it’s what we have had far too much of, yet it only ever escalates, as it is doing now.

And yet Azerrad seems to think grievance politics good when Frederick Douglass or MLK espoused that attitude. He has written of his admiration for MLK.

Azerrad seems to be taking both sides; he writes as if he opposes political correctness, the victimhood cult, and all the dishonesty and hypocrisy therein. But then in the next sentence he sounds like another multiculturalist who believes in diversity and all the baggage that it carries with it.

I notice that he emphasizes ‘Unity’ and ‘Brotherhood’ and in this he sounds very much like ‘Q’, who stresses those things frequently. Is ‘brotherhood’ undesirable or is unity bad? If we had an organic unity, a natural unity, that would be the only genuine kind. The Bible has the precept about being ‘unequally yoked’ and I know those things are there for a reason; we ignore them to our detriment.

And what about this:
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Amos, 3:3

We are hardly in agreement with those we are asked to ‘walk’ with. And even less are they ‘agreed’ with us.

I see this idea of compulsory ‘unity’ and ‘brotherhood’ being pushed by increasing numbers of people on the ‘right’; this is being preached to counteract the dissident right, or as a lure to those people who are inclined to want to like and be liked by everyone. It appeals to the ‘civic nationalists’ who never met an ‘Other’ they didn’t like. It’s popular amongst women.

I risk being derided for saying the following, but I see a Masonic influence here; the language used by Freemasons (as well as their emphasis on unity and brotherhood}, as well as the desire to be ‘inclusive’ and universalist.

TPTB are trying to preserve, or salvage, their Babelist empire, by persuading us that we just need to work a little harder at the multiculturalist project, or as one Q follower said, we have to lose our ‘tribalism’ and learn to live with people from every country.

A Patriot doesn’t see race”, so they say over at the Q channel.
So, round and round we go; more of the same of what we’ve been conditioned to over the last few decades.

Not much is being ”conserved” except for the multicult and ‘colorblind’ civnattery.

2 thoughts on “Can conservatism be conserved?

  1. The globalists have their errand boys in the coastal think tanks running interference for the growing anger towards their decades long experiment that has totally hollowed out the nation—materially and most importantly, spiritually. They pay attention to the internet grumblings and see a swell of “nothing to lose” sentiment emanating from the former right wing of American politics. People who cynically viewed Trump as a last resort for staving off civil war; depression; rides on box cars to work camps under a leftist regime. Whatever the theory. Azerrad is Jewish and he’s not so stupid to see that the base of Republican Party that watched Republican President after President get us into Middle East Sears for Israel, is finally done. They not only lack interest in fighting wars for foreign controllers but lack the belief in democracy itself; as it has revealed itself as just a matter of who is elected mayor of hell.


  2. “A Patriot doesn’t see race”, so they say over at the Q channel.

    I don’t read the “Q channel” (and, moreover, I’m not especially inclined to read it), so whatever information I get of “Q” and the Q following is always second-hand at best. In any case, all I can say to the above quotation is that, if a so called “Patriot” doesn’t see race, (s)he’s either closing his eyes, or is otherwise blind as a bat. I guess that is how the term “blind patriotism” came into being. In either case, there is also a biblical injuction against ‘the blind leading the blind’ and the inevitability of both winding up in the ditch. This is of course why some of us ironically state from time to time that “if I close my eyes, you can’t see me.” Albeit the point of that message is very often lost on people, so why we keep stating it, I’m not sure I know. I guess it is mostly because it is the ‘remnant’ we’re trying to reach, and not the broader public who are unreachable in any case. “He who hath ears to hear,’ and all that, I suppose.

    Patriotism means different things to different people. I’m very much one of those ‘old school’ types, and as such it means something very different to me than it does to the younger generations, but also to the older generations who learned and imbibed their lessons well. Between the two sides in the so called “Civil War,” e.g., the side that can genuinely be said to have been true “Patriots” was of course the South and the Confederacy. This almost to the man. If Webster’s original definition of the word “Patriotism” impresses any appreciable influence on the mind, this is the only conclusion honest students of that history can reach. Problem is, there are way too many dishonest students of that history, and they wield way too much influence to my mind. Which of course is very unpatriotic of me to say, so there ya go.

    Concerning your broader point about conservatism conserving (or not) anything, well, we’ve discussed that before and, if memory serves, I said then, as I reiterate now, that the problem I have with ‘conservative Inc’ or ‘mainstream conservatism,’ etc., is that it isn’t genuine conservatism; that it masquerades as conservatism, when in fact it is ‘liberalism lite,’ for lack of a better term. There’s nothing wrong with genuine conservatism, and in fact everything right about it. To my mind, at least. I don’t like that people have co-opted Dabney’s iteration, and in fact have bastardized it, any more than you do. I’m not sure what more, if anything other than what you’re doing, to do about it though.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s