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.

Where do we go from here?

After yesterday’s impeachment charade, I suppose all that could be said about it has been said by somebody somewhere, or will be, shortly.

Most of us were likely not surprised by the way this staged event played out. I know I wasn’t surprised.

Some of us may follow Q and the ‘predictions’ or riddles that are doled out to us. Do I believe Q absolutely? I would say I’m not a denier or a complete skeptic, but more of an agnostic, who is open to being convinced, looking to see if the ‘predictions’ or whatever prove to be valid.

I have noticed that Q often tells readers that “they” (TPTB) “want us divided.” Dividing the populace so as to solidify control is a very old idea in the minds of the more manipulative people who rule over others, or who want to rule. But are TPTB the ones who have divided us, and who keep ‘us’ divided? They like us to be divided; it makes things easier for them when we take out our anger and hostility on our neighbors or even kinsmen instead of focusing it on the people holding the reins.

The ‘civnats’ and mainstream conservatives like the mantra about those in power dividing us. They appear, these civic nationalist types, to think that once upon a time it was otherwise; we all lived in happy harmony in a rainbow America where all that mattered was our belief in holy Democracy and Brotherhood and Equality, until the left came and taught us to distrust one another and stirred up trouble amongst us, which was something new and unprecedented. Why, for example, during the Revolution (against King George and the villainous ‘redcoats’ who had somehow gotten the whip hand over us) Crispus Attucks was our hero , proving that there were no divisions among us apple-pie Americans. Or so the story goes.

It may be that the people who seem to believe this view of a once-idyllic America don’t actually believe it, but feign belief in the hope that believing in it really hard will bring it into being.

Forgive me for being a little cynical here; when I began this blogging business some 13 years ago, I was a little more idealistic. Still I was not as naive as to believe that America was ever a peaceful “pluralistic” (pre-multicult) country; ‘E Pluribus Unum‘ and all that. I think some people still don’t know that the Latin E Pluribus Unum never referred to multiculturalism and ‘world citizenship’ or any such fairy-tales. It referred to the states, the sovereign States, a confederation forming one nation. Only the South, or what is left of it, remembers that rather important fact. America has always had problems stemming from its ‘pluralistic’ origins.

But since the Civil Rights contretemps, the ‘Late Unpleasantness’ in the South, it’s required that we speak as though we were once a big happy family until The Left divided us, an event which would never have occurred otherwise, as we were all like peas in a pod, living side by side. The ‘right’ manages to give the appearance of believing this, but the left and their client ‘victim’ groups don’t believe this, and never did; why would they? There’s no advantage to be had from believing it. No grievances, no payoff.

So when Q (or are there multiple Qs?) talks of ‘Them’ wanting us divided, he means the invisible PTBs. Sure, they want us divided, but it wasn’t their doing from the beginning. Nature divided us, or God divided us. The Bible itself says that God ‘sets the bounds of nations’. In speaking of this dividing, the great Bible commentator Matthew Henry, in his commentary, said, of this division amongst the various peoples, ‘What God hath set asunder, let no man join together.’ He had a sly sense of humor, apparently, did Matthew Henry, but he was serious in his meaning.

The whole point of the Babel story was that there were meant to be differences; that we were not all made identical and interchangeable, and it was God-ordained, and for a reason.

Now, I can see that there is a need for strategic alliances in certain circumstances, and that there ought not to be perpetual hostilities between peoples, as is now the case. The events in this pretend impeachment story are the result of the out-of-control animosities between people, even people of a common origin and language and history. The left has stoked those flames of anger and hostility, and they continue to do so; it seems a deliberate decision they’ve made, evidently looking to provoke some aggressive action on the part of the right, providing them with a pretext to — – what, exactly? Only they know what they are thinking, if in fact they are capable of thought; we can only guess.

The powers that be, those Q says ‘want us divided’, are sitting back watching this as their surrogates or puppets stir up more conflict. The latter seem unmoored from reality, whereas many of the ‘mainstream’ right choose to live in some kind of civnat fool’s paradise, where we’re all really the best of friends, brothers and sisters, if only the Left wasn’t stirring the pot, bringing it to the boil.

Meantime, does the POTUS really believe in the civic nationalist ideals he expresses so often? Does he really believe that we need ‘more legal immigration, much, much more’? Does he really believe that Israel is our friend? I don’t know. Only he knows, I suppose.

I think I wrote on my blog years ago that it seemed we were in a car with no brakes, careening toward the edge of a cliff.

Somehow, though, I believe that there is someone in charge; I have complete faith in a Creator who knows the end from the beginning, and I trust Him completely, though all looks to be out of control. Isn’t it increasingly obvious that we humans are not able to extricate ourselves from this dangerous situation under our own power?

Does that mean we should do nothing? No. We have a part to play, and we are to be actively trying to do what we can to right things. It’s obvious that we are not really in charge — and neither are the other guys. But they are at a disadvantage because they are blinded to their own wrongness.

Do Q and the others (whoever they may be) know what they are doing? There are a lot of verbal reassurances that they expect success, and a reversal of the dire conditions. Some are putting their trust fully in the mysterious Q et al, and in the President, saying that it’s all a grand plan, a ‘strategy’, as they said about G.W. Bush during his bungled presidency. Obviously, though, “W” did know what he was doing — but he was not on our side. Things are seldom what they seem.

Right now praying seems the best plan.

In my opinion.

People’s Party of Canada vs. multicult

Maxime Bernier, candidate for the People’s Party of Canada, is proposing a new policy regarding the increasing ‘diversity’ of Canada. Sometime ago I seem to remember that the Canadian government was sending out a call for ‘more diversity’, that is, more immigrants ‘of color’.

So why the need for rethinking the policy on increasing immigration, specifically, requesting immigrants unlike the founding — and once dominant — ethnic group?

David Grant at the Council of European Canadians blog, writes about this.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but one thing that jumps out at me, as an American, is that Bernier’s ‘new’ ideas are not exactly new; those same ideas have been foisted on Americans, to replace our early beginnings as a nation made up mostly of people of British Isles descent, as well as some Northern and Western Europeans. As more and more disparate peoples were entering our country, and we soon had a polyglot population as increasingly exotic peoples immigrated here, it was gradually taught in schools that our nation was a set of propositions.

And this is the track on which Mr. Bernier would put Canada. Canada, at least officially, prides itself on its ‘diversity’ and its many cultures.

Bernier, it seems, wants to make Canada a proposition nation, in which people are Canadian by virtue of accepting a set of beliefs and ‘values.’

David Grant rightly points out that language, ethnicity, and history are ignored in Bernier’s plan:

Already he has shot himself in the foot. If Canada was just based off a sense of belonging and common values than why did the English and the French have to fight a war for the land? How will Maxime Bernier explain the distinct Quebecois identity that has been trying to tear away from Canada almost from inception? In these things Maxime’s belief makes it impossible to objectively understand Canada’s history. “

Bernier apparently repeats the line that we’ve so often heard from our politicians in the U.S.: the statement that Canada has ”always been diverse.” This is the official dogma in our country and in most Western countries. Both in Canada and in the U.S. it is false; both Canada and the U.S. had homogeneous populations early on, with the greatest percentage being of British descent — English as well as Scots and Irish. Just as this country was not ‘diverse’ according to the PC definition (meaning mostly POC’s). But this mantra ‘we were always diverse’ is a glaring bit of gaslighting, to condition people to accept the changes in their homeland(s).

It appears Mr. Bernier’s list of ‘values’ that should be core values of Canada include the usual: ‘freedom’ (in a vague general sense), freedom of religion, equality between the sexes, democracy, tolerance, pluralism, etc. Read the whole list at the link.

The question of what makes a nation is always very relevant these days. The comments below the article are worth reading; despite the official dogma about these subjects, the comments show that there are people in Canada who are not easily fooled, and they take issue with ithe status quo regarding, as Trudeau says, ‘what makes a Canadian.’

I believe that most thinking people in Western countries see through the offical rhetoric and propaganda, but even if Bernier’s new policy were to be implemented, I don’t see it making much difference; multiculturalism and multilingualism will prevail unless someone is finally able to gain influence and freedom to offer real changes inot imposed from the top down, but from the ground up.

Civic nationalism, as a substitute for natural ethnonationalism based on shared descent, religion, culture, and language, has always been a poor replacement.