Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The triumph of liberalism and the failure of conservatism

The Social Pathologist diagnoses the problem with conservatism:
An objective analysis of socio-political history would have to conclude that, in the battle between conservatism and liberalism, liberalism has been the winner. Even today's modern "conservatism" is not the conservatism of 1900. It, too, has been heavily influenced by liberal thought. The dividing line between the two ideologies seems more economic rather than social and on socially corrosive issues like divorce, promiscuity, multiculturalism and moral relativism  there appears to little in practice to separate the two mainstream political actors. From this vantage point in time one has to conclude that Conservatism in the 20th Century has failed. In fact, on every issue that Conservatism has taken a position liberalism has trumped it. Some might disagree and argue that conservatives won on economic issues, to which I reply, "Gold standard, anyone?"

The problem with Conservatism is that it has swallowed much of the liberal Kool-Aid and whilst there may be particular factions which espouse a particular truth quite forcefully, for nearly every faction that espouses one conservative truth it does it with an admixture of other liberal errors.  Modern American and British Conservatism seem to bee prime examples of this admixture. In fact, it's my opinion that American conservatism could quite easily slide into some form of South American (Not German) Fascism if it is not too careful, so bad is the mixture.
It's more accurate to describe American conservatism as right-liberalism. An American conservative is whatever an American liberal was thirty years ago. The conservative is someone who basically accepts the liberal frame but recognizes that left to itself liberalism will self-destruct, and thus it needs the occasional homeopathic injection of tradition to keep the whole thing afloat. But if liberalism is ultimately self-destructive then trying to prop it up is to confuse disease with health. Vdare's James Kirkpatrick takes a look at right-liberal Dennis Prager's proposition nation:
Prager takes this to the logical conclusion: not just the “proposition” nation, but the “proposition family”! He writes that the job of a father is not to “pass on my seed, but pass on my values.”
Of course, no nation, even one with a relatively progressive record like the United States, can possibly compete with an absolute dream that “all men are created equal.” The vision of perfect equality will defeat the national reality every time. After all, whatever the fantasies of contemporary “colorblind” conservatives, America was created by an ethnic core of White Anglo Saxon Protestant settlers—who did it, in the words of the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble, for “ourselves and our posterity.”
Nor can any real family hold together on the ground of ideology. We love our parents and our children because they are ours—not because we agree with their view of the Constitution.
 Liberalism is about freeing the liberal superman, self-created through his own reason and will, from unchosen shackles such as family and country. These unchosen realities only matter if the liberal wills for them to matter. He will not be bound by anything he himself does not choose. At best, the truths of nature and nature's God are "values" that the liberal is free to embrace or reject, not laws that define reality and his place in it.
Prager's column comes off as defensive, apologetic, and most of all, defeatist, like so much of the commentary coming from the Beltway Right. In contrast, in Europe there is a movement of youth who are rejecting their parents' values—because they think their parents are Leftists. Frustrated at the hostile takeover of their country, these young rebels are taking the offensive.
Generation Identity, based mostly out of France, has characterized itself as a resistance movement against the multicultural system. Its manifesto, authored by a 21 year old named Markus Willinger, urges the overthrow of the “'68ers”—the former radicals of the May 1968 rebellion who have now entrenched themselves in the European Establishment. To them, Willinger offers an upraised fist and what he calls a Declaration of War.
While the American Beltway Right takes refuge in abstractions and slogans, the European New Right is taking the offensive explicitly on the grounds of defending its people and homelands. Willinger writes: “A new political current is sweeping through Europe. It has one goal, one symbol, and one thought: Identity.”
 Count me in as an enthusiastic counter-revolutionary ready, willing, and eager to cast down the 68ers and bask in their agonized wailing and gnashing of teeth as their ideology burns in the fires of a resurgent traditionalism. I used to self-identify as a conservative, but now I proudly accept the label of reactionary. I don't wish to conserve modernism - I want to see it explicitly repudiated and condemned as the heresy it is.


  1. The sad thing is that mainstream "conservatism" is probably the best we are going to get for the foreseeable future in major media and politics. Real conservatism is way the hell outside the Overton Window.

  2. By the way, by "Overton Window" I am referring to the concept of socially acceptable range of political opinion, not to that book by Glenn Beck's ghostwriters.