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.