One advantage of conservatism is it can exist without liberalism. In contrast, liberalism cannot exist without conservatism. Even without liberalism, conservatives have their values, traditions, customs, identities, attachments to land, and sense of hierarchy that makes for social order. Conservatism can exist without liberalism as opponent; it can be played alone in the way that tennis cannot be played alone. Indeed, all throughout history, there have been many societies, cultures, and civilizations that were almost entirely conservative; and the main threats to their survival came not from liberalism but from other tribal conservatisms and/or from indifference/apathy resulting from too much stability and stasis; tyranny and instability could lead to mass rebellions, but such were about power, not about liberal principles as the ‘new boss’ ruled as the ‘old boss’ did, albeit with more brutal efficiency.
The sense of truth in most traditional conservative societies was received, retained, and revered truth; the kind of social, political, and intellectual changes that defined Ancient Athens was a true anomaly in pre-modern history, and of course, even the dynamic Athenians couldn’t keep it up for long. Most traditionally conservative social orders didn’t feel a fetish or obsession for new or ‘radical’ things. They were content with what they had, which they regarded with reverence as matters of sacred value. And as history changed incrementally, if at all, for most of human history, there was hardly a consciously dramatic contest between the old and the new, between the continuous and discontinuous, between the stable and subversive. If many conservative political/cultural/social orders eventually decayed and fell apart, it was less the outcome of challenges of the new than of the end-result of increasing corruption, apathy, and tiredness Decadence need not be liberal. Conservatism can lead to cynicism, dreariness, complacency, fossilization, and boredom. One of the valuable contributions of liberalism to civilization has been its power to revitalize future generations with new challenges imbuing them with a sense of purpose, meaning, drive, and competition. The energies can be directed at endeavors and enterprises that are economic, scientific/technological, cultural, political, and moral.
If an order were to arrive at a certain point in history and declare that everything good and noble has been achieved, then it can slumber into the long night of conservatism. Such sense of stability may be welcome to people of conservative bent, but it can also lead to weakening of the spirit, dissipation, and complacency. Consider the scene in EXCALIBUR where Lancelot and Arthur contemplate the changes in the Knights of the Round Table at Camelot:.
Arthur: They miss the battlefield. I think we do, too.
Lancelot: We have lost our way, Arthur.
Arthur: It is not easy for them without the hard teaching of war and quest. It is only your example, Lancelot, that binds them all.
Or consider the funereal culture of the Ancient Egyptians who, at some point, decided to mummify their civilization into a permanent stasis. Or consider what became of the Byzantium civilization that grew stale and corrupt. And think of traditional China, the so-called Middle Kingdom that thought it had achieved everything it needed and sealed itself from foreigners(who might have fresher ideas) and the future. So, conservatism, even without liberalism, can bring forth its own decadence and dissipation, thereby bring about its own destruction. Consider the Eternals-turning-into-Apathetics in ZARDOZ by John Boorman, a film director with a (Oswald)Spengler-ian view of history and mankind. It’s the ever newer sense of challenge that revitalized and energizes a people. While Chinese thought they didn’t need any new science and technology, the West embraced the challenges and excitement of making new discoveries in science, math, medicine, and weaponry. Such endeavors stimulated the energies of smart people of Europe as smart people naturally want to their minds to be tested. It’s like mountain climbers look for higher peaks to climb. It’s like athletes try to win the next championship belt or trophy; they try to set the new world records. Every year, there is a new Superbowl. We don’t say a team that won the Superbowl this year won it forever. We want more games and new winners. Thus, a civilization, instead of growing static, complacent, and apathetic, is able to regenerate and re-energize itself and grow stronger. This was the great contribution of liberalism to the West. (Generally for most of human history, stasis was associated with peace and prosperity while change was associated with tumult and disorder, and yet, almost imperceptibly at times, stasis led to decadence and downfall. The great achievement of the Modern West was the discovery of greater order by taming the forces of revolutionary disorder in science, technology, and economics.) Indeed, liberalism and progress became such norms in the West that conservatives had to make an extra effort to preserve the past. They had to become ‘reactionaries’. Prior to the rise of liberalism, reactionism wasn’t necessary since society moved at a snail’s pace. Science and technology changed bit by bit over the centuries. Cultural values changed gradually if at all. Though there were the rises and falls of dynasties, the world continued to be ruled by kings and aristocrats, and it appeared such would be the case forever. So, there was no need for conservatives to try to ‘stop time’ or ‘turn the clock back’. If you’re on a train that stands still or inches forth one-mile-per-hour, you hardly feel the motion, if indeed there is any motion. So, there’s no need to try to stop the train or push it back. But if the train moves ‘too fast’, you might want to pull the brakes or even drag it back to whence you came.
In a way, one could say that liberalism was the best friend of conservatism(or best of conservatism) since it had a revitalizing effect on societies. Indeed, compare the rise of the liberal West to the conservative Ottoman Empire, Persian Empire, and Chinese Empire. Compare the rise of liberal Britain and Germany compared to relatively conservative Russia in the 19th century. Though Germany was ruled by politically conservative elites up to the end of World War I, forces of liberalism had taken hold of much of the nation in the arts, culture, science, math, philosophy, economics, technology, and etc. Even many on the German Right embraced the dynamism of change and progress. Change had become such a norm that many people began to feel that change was happening TOO FAST than not fast enough.
In this regard, there was some agreement between the right and the left, even though their proposal for a stabler order differed drastically. The aristocratic right wanted restoration of old social certitudes and hierarchies; it thought only such a stratified society of order, discipline, and respect would save society from the dangers of capitalist transformation, the effects of which seemed chaotic and uncontrollable. For the left, the solution to all the havoc caused by capitalism was a society of enforced equality. In such an order, ambitious capitalists and adventurous entrepreneurs wouldn’t be able to push through new ideas and enterprises that might be disruptive to the masses for the sake of more profits. In a communist order, decisions affecting the people would be made collectively under the dictatorship of the proletariat. While communism didn’t oppose technological progress, all progress had to be conceived and enacted in a way that would be sensitive to the needs of everyone. And yet, paradoxically, such an order would arise, at least according to Marxism, only through ultra-capitalism’s headlong charge into the future. Capitalists with big bold ideas would create the new sciences and technologies for the sake of more profits and thus would transform farmers into workers in big cities. Capitalism would make rapid progress in all fields since it’s ruthless/relentless and has no concern for human life or well-being. Capitalists would do anything for a profit, even if it led to dissolution of social cohesiveness and well-being for the masses of workers. But eventually, capitalists were bound to fail since rising inequality shall lead to a world of fewer ‘haves’ and increasing numbers of ‘have-nots’. Eventually, the ‘have-nots’ will eventually rise up and take the power. But in a strange way, the workers will be the ultimate beneficiaries of capitalism since they will inherit the vastly productive economic system conceived and created by capitalists. Since this system confiscated from capitalists will be so productive, the pace of change could be slowed down and the masses would be able to take it easily and work less and enjoy more leisure and even have time for arts, culture, and ideas. They could lead the kind of lives of thinkers and artists of Ancient Greece but without having to rely on the slavery of others, as Greek elites did in their time.
At any rate, both the right and the left wanted to slow down the pace of change. They found change under capitalism to be overly alienating, hectic, disruptive, chaotic, disorienting, inhuman, and etc. It’s no wonder that Luchino Visconti the aristocratic Marxist had a special love for THE LEOPARD, the novel by reactionary Sicilian author Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa. Though the old order had been unequal and unfair, at least the aristocrats made time to enjoy life and take things easily. And at the very least — according to social ideals — , there was the custom of nobless oblige whereby aristocrats sometimes made allowances for the peasants during hard times out of a ‘familial’ bond between the master class and the servant class. It’s been said the Marxist historian Eugene Genovese had a similarly empathetic — if not necessarily sympathetic — view of the master-slave relations in the Old South because it wasn’t only about dollars and cents but about emotional bonds between the master and slave, whereas capitalist employers and employees only thought of each other in materialistic terms of profits and wages. Though slavery was wrong, at least the master felt that he had ‘paternal’ obligations to the Negro. If the Negro done work hard all day long, the master might let the Negro munch on some watermelon for free than selling it to him as a Jewish merchant might do so for profit. Under communism, the new elites composed of scholar-king intellectuals would manage the economy out of humane concern for the workers. They would not make economic decisions based on profit above all else. Such bias against ‘greedy’ profit existed in Confucianism as well, which may explain why, despite Mao’s hatred for Confucianism, the ideas of Marxism captivated so many Chinese intellectuals who wanted to create a new order for modern China.
Where the impact of Confucianism was weaker in Asia, such as Japan, Marxism had less of an appeal though, to be sure, plenty of Japanese intellectuals did lean toward Marx — though when the war with the Capitalist West broke out, many were willing to support the militarists, but then, socialists of most Europeans sided with pro-war policies on the eve of World War I.
Anyway, even though right-wing reactionaries looked to the past and left-wing revolutionaries looked to the future, both believed that time must have a stop. Capitalism was moving time too fast, making it impossible for humanity to retain a sense of equilibrium, balance, direction, and meaning. It was as if, even before you got to sample one serving in a restaurant, it was replaced by yet another and then another. Capitalism was productive and progressive in many ways, but it led to massive social, political, economic, and cultural indigestion — at least for those who wanted a clearer understanding and control of society. Capitalism was like trying to shoot a moving target. Thinkers preferred motion of thought and stillness of the objects of thought because it was difficult to think about something that was restlessly moving and changing; similarly, it’s nearly impossible for a painter to draw someone or something that is always moving; the painter wants the object to remain still so that the monopoly of movement could rest in his hand with the brush. Traditional thinkers — and old leftists also had traditional habits of thought — had a difficult time grasping capitalism since it was always moving and shifting as their minds were trying to make sense of it. Traditional minds, conservative and Marxist, wanted the world to remain still so that active minds could make sense of it. But capitalism worked more like movies than like paintings or still photography, and this may explain why someone like Martin Heidegger became so influential in the 20th century; despite his partiality to Nazism that sought to create a perfect order, his ideas seem to favor the process than the product of thought; it was in state of flux and always in motion.
Anyway, even before something could be fully digested and understood, overly dynamic capitalism replaced it with something else and so on and on. How could there be any meaning in such a life? Capitalism made for many new freedoms, and in that regard, it was indeed liberating and exciting, but what was one to do with these freedoms if nothing was constant or stable in the world? What was the meaningful thing to do when meanings changed constantly along with material changes? As time must have a stop, freedom must have meaning.
Such anxieties can be found in films such as Michelangelo Antonioni’s ECLIPSE(or L’ECLISSE), Federico Fellini’s 8 ½ and TOBY DAMMIT, and Hiroshi Teshigahara’s THE FACE OF ANOTHER(based on Kobo Abe novel). In all three films, there is the possibility of new freedoms. The world of ECLIPSE is prosperous post-war modern Italy of the ‘bourgeoisie’. Privileged individuals are freer than ever but atomized and alienated, unsure of what their lives and the world around them are about. Where will all this freedom lead? And what does it mean to be free in a disjointed world of sterile modernism and rampant capitalism? In 8 ½, a film director who made his name with more conventional films is overcome with both the thrill and anxiety of embarking on a new kind of film that breaks all the rules. It’s as if modernism has finally come to cinema. A part of him clings to the established values, old truths, and proven conventions, and yet another part of him relishes in the possibility of total creative freedom. And yet, where will this freedom lead? The darker aspect of 8 ½ can be found in TOBY DAMMIT, the final segment of THE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD. In it, the modern liberated artist is lost and hasn’t a clue as to what to do with his freedom. He gets on a sports car and drives like a maniac but all roads lead to nowhere, into dead ends — like with the guy in TRUMAN SHOW. It’s as if freedom without direction or meaning is like an open prison. In THE FACE OF ANOTHER, a doctor comes up with a facial-masking technique that could allow people to don new faces and change identities. Thus, individuals could be free in ways unimaginable in the past. And yet, thus disassociated from one’s identity, personal relations, and obligations, what would be the meaning of such freedom? Is there any meaning to freedom for the sake of freedom and nothing else? This is why the character of WOMAN IN THE DUNES chooses in the end to be ‘imprisoned’ for he found a meaningful ‘freedom’ within the confinement of the dune that he never found in modern society that is overabundant in freedom.
Oddly enough, the philosophy of freedom became more problematic when there was plenty of it and many people could take it for granted. Before most people were free, they lived in rigid societies with fixed meanings, rules, and possibilities that were burdensome but also provided a sense of purpose and meaning.
In such a society, both conservatism and liberalism held great meaning. Conservatism meant the repository of received truths and wisdom passed down through the ages and the obligation of new generations to preserve and guard them. And liberalism meant a committed struggle for more freedom and individuality since freedom was such a precious commodity.
Yet, in the democratic West and Japan following World War II, there was both relative affluence and plenty of freedom for great many people. The old ways were fading fast, so conservatism no longer provided the meanings and answers. But as the struggle for freedom had been won and could be taken for granted by so many people, freedom was no longer a sacred prize but a dime-a-dozen commodity. Also, unmoored from conservative values and meanings, freedom had a divisive and dissipating impact on society — it’s amusing how Western liberals attack traditional values but then praise immigrants from more traditional societies for their family values, work ethic, and social discipline; Liberals say we need more such immigrants shaped by traditional values since they have what it takes to ‘work hard’ and ‘make sacrifices’ whereas Americans are too ‘spoiled’ and ‘tired’; I guess it’s like the theory of comparative advantages: the West has innovation and freedom but have been spoiled by too much success and affluence; the non-West is backward and repressive, but poverty and traditionalism made for a tougher population that is willing to ‘work hard’ to succeed in life; so the innovative elites of the West would do best to hire the energized immigrants from the non-West who are willing to roll up their sleeves, grit their teeth, and work long hours. Anyway, though even poor people were free in the modern West, freedom didn’t really offer them much except for senseless entertainment on TV. You can be free, but without power and privilege there isn’t much that can be done with your freedom. But then, your freedom can FEEL bigger than it really is through the associative fantasy of popular culture. So, poor fat ugly women can dress like celebrities and feel sexy and popular. Poor and dumb kids can listen to Rap music or Heavy Metal and feel like they’re superstars. Worse, such ‘fantasization’ of freedom can have a socially and morally destructive impact on the poor who’d do better to use their freedom more carefully and lead more stable & meaningful lives.
As for the rich, smart, and powerful, their great wealth means they can do lots of things with freedom. And since they are no longer attached to(or hampered by) old truths and meanings of the past, their use of freedom can become ever more nihilistic and outlandish. It’s no wonder that the #1 moral priority of the elites today is ‘trans-gender’ rights, which opens the doors to what’s called ‘transhumanism’ in general, an anti-humanist ‘philosophy’ that says humans should use technology to morph themselves into higher/superior/more advanced beings of elitist/narcissistic imagination. Though the elites talk a good game about ‘equality’, they don’t want to be equal with the rest of us dummies. They’re high IQ people who marry other high IQ people, and they generally have high-IQ kids. And if they get their hands on bio-technology, they will go for immortality and genetic boosting, and etc.
Personally, I’m not necessarily opposed to use of technology to improve the human species. Indeed, one neat thing would be to create a super strong race that loves and is subservient to whites but dislikes blacks and kicks their ass every so often. Imagine such a big powerful gorilla-like race that is servile to whites as dogs are to humans but has a natural genetic-programmed animus against blacks. They’d be kicking black ass all the time, especially when blacks mess with whites.
But such fantasies aside, there is a problem of freedom in our culture. Though there were divisions between elites and the masses in times past, most people shared the values and identities in most parts of the world. There was a time in American when the rich whites, middle class whites, and poor whites all shared the white identity, took pride in their roots, believed in the family and true marriage, and etc. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s personal/cultural values weren’t all that different from those of, say, Dwight Eisenhower. The Frankfurt School was culturally ‘conservative’ in many ways too.
But today, the elite-favored agendas like ‘gay marriage’ and ‘trans-gender rights’ have nothing to do with most people. They are divisive, setting elites apart from the masses. And even if the masses were to accept ‘gay marriage’, they’d only be embracing the triumph of elite privilege as homo elites are the main allies of the Jewish elites who rule this country and much of the world. So, all the talk about ‘equality’ is just a ruse used by the Jewish-Homo elites.
It’s amusing that so many on the Right still think the main problem is ‘egalitarianism’ when it’s the last thing on the minds of people like George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and etc. The elites want to hog the rhetoric of ‘egalitarianism’ so they can morally browbeat the white masses who are growing restless. Nasty Jewish Elites fear and hate the Angry White Male. As the white masses try to climb the social ladder, they are accused of defending inequality by those already at the top who, by pretending to care for the poor, claim to be for ‘egalitarianism’. As the elites on top are making as if to lend a hand to the poor — in and outside America — , they appear to reach down, when, in fact, they aren’t doing anything of the kind. I mean if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are really into sharing their wealth, how come they still keep getting richer and richer?
The only true Right of the future must be national socialist for history has shown that the capitalist class may favor globalist profits over national interest and racial identity unless it is checked and threatened by the power of the people. While communism has little value, national socialism would allow capitalism but also exert political pressure on the capitalists to serve their own nation and people than betray everything for the sake of more profits and vanity.
Anyway, conservatism without liberalism is bound to grow tired, stagnant, and stale. It will likely become moribund and begin to decay, like so many civilizations and empires that institutionalized the conceit of ‘end of history’, as if they’d attained the absolute peak of human achievement and there was nothing more to be learned, discovered, or accomplished.
While such social orders may manage to keep things as they are, they become like closed pools in which the water grows putrid, fills up with algae, and becomes depleted of oxygen. For a social order to be healthy, it needs to re-supplied with vigor, just like a lake needs new water via rainfall and streams. And as a lake takes in new water, there must be ways to let out of the old water.
Human body works the same way. Old blood cells die and are replaced with new ones. New fluids are ingested and old fluids are released through the urinary tract.
And the rise of liberalism provided a great plumbing system for the West. It not only connected the West to new sources of vibrancy and vigor in all sorts of creative and intellectual fields but also found efficient ways to be rid of stale ideas and values, usually without overly violent revolutions: a kind of sped-up evolution. Thus, social orders that might have just grown tired, stale, and degenerate were regenerated over and over with new challenges in economics/business, science, medicine, machinery, travel, new disciplines of study, and etc.
But there is a danger to liberalism as well, and it too can lead to rot and decadence. When newness becomes fetishized for newness’s sake, even stupid, ridiculous, and even dangerous ideas, trends, fashions, and proposals can become celebrated, promoted, and disseminated on the basis that whatever is ‘radical’ or ‘subversive’ must have great value as something cutting-edge, progressive, innovative, and meaningful. Indeed, this partly explains why most radical ideas and movements arrive at a dead end sooner or later. So fixed on the notion that a certain idea or movement was so tremendous for its ‘newness’ or ‘originality’, the ultra-liberals failed to properly and sensibly examine its true worth, which may not have been much or even totally worthless. Also, they often failed to consider its dangers and pitfalls. And paradoxically, by pushing the radical idea as a very super idea, many radical movements also faced the danger of becoming ‘conservative’ in the worst way; and indeed, that is precisely what happened to every communist movement where the Marxist dogma became the static truth that could tolerate no other. So, Leninism became the stagnant ideology and system of the Soviet Union, and Maoism turned into a suffocating social system in China from 1949 to the late 1970s before the market and social reforms finally revitalized China.
Granted, one should make a distinction between liberalism and leftism, not least because many modern conservatives insist that they are not so much traditional conservatives as they are classic liberals — the TRUE liberals — of the 19th century mode, i.e. what they’re trying to preserve isn’t traditional social norms & values but the very engine of capitalism, liberty, and individualism that brings about the fastest and greatest amount of change. Therefore, much of what passes for American conservatism — especially in places like Wall Street — is paradoxical since it wants to conservative the rapid pace of change brought about by economic growth and technological innovation. Many conservatives argue that their brand of conservatism is the true liberalism in stark contrast to today’s ‘statist liberalism’ that is actually ‘soft-totalitarian’ that tries to take away individual freedoms and make people ever more dependent on ‘big government’. According to such conservatism-as-the-true-classical-liberalism, today’s Liberals are really dogmatic Leftists who espouse the iron dogma of ‘social justice’ over principles of freedom, individualism, and liberty.
And yet, even today’s conservatives-who-claim-to-be-classic-liberals do have a certain connection, however tenuous it may be, with social/cultural conservatives. They believe that, in order for people to be free as individuals, the people must believe in personal responsibility, which happens to be rooted in traditional values of family, community, and identity. Unless people have a moral compass rooted in culture and community, their individual freedom won’t amount to much more than infantile hedonism. Freedom without values is animalistic or Negro-ish. So, even libertine-centric conservatives have some degree of respect for social/cultural conservatives. And even though social/cultural conservatives don’t much care for the individualist libertine-ism of conservatives-as-classic-liberals, they are agreed that one’s freedom should be restrained and controlled by culture & community than by the ever-increasing power of the state. Thus, the two groups were bound together by a distrust of the state. But more recently, the alliance has been coming further apart. For one thing, Wall Street is swarming with two-faced swindlers. Though Wall Street Journal has been bitching since the 1980s about how big government should take its hand off big business alone and de-regulate the economy every more, it was the first to endorse and even demand that the government bail out the Wall Street sharks who’d sunk the economy in the 2008. Also, as Bill Clinton steered the Democratic Party toward Big Business at the expense of Big Labor, the super-rich no longer felt that they had to stick with the social/cultural conservatives of the GOP who, by the way, came to be associated with uncool-ness and embarrassingly ‘backwoods’ or ‘white trash’ tropes. Also, the cult of ‘anti-racism’ has become something of a chic thing among the rich, what with MLK as the new national religion. Therefore, it just wasn’t cool and hip for the vain super-rich to be associated with the ‘racist’ GOP, the white man’s party of the South. It was better for them to join the ‘diverse’ and ‘vibrant’ Democratic Party. Besides, what did it matter as long as rich Jews, whites, and homos hogged everything in the Democratic Party while other groups groveled for much less. The Democrats may be more diverse but it also means it’s far more unequal than the GOP. It’s the party of super-billionaire Jews, super-rich Liberal Wasps, and super-privileged effete homo snobs at the top, but it’s also the party of the blacks of Detroit, the looters of St. Louis, the lawn-mowers from Mexico, and fruit-pickers from Central America. As the economic policy of the Democratic Party is only slightly different from that of the GOP, rich Jews/whites/homos can have the cake and eat it too by joining the Democrats. They can be showered with pro-rich and pro-business policies from guys like Bill Clinton & Obama, but they can also take ‘moral pride’ in being members of a party that is so richly ‘diverse’. As long as billionaire Jews can keep their billions and don’t have to hand the riches to poor blacks and browns, why not just go for photo-op with the blacks and browns to show that you’re not only filthy rich but ‘caring’ of the less fortunate? And the way to do that is to join the Democratic Party. Democratic Party is essentially the photo-op party for rich Jews and rich Liberal Wasps to show that they are for ‘diversity’ because other than the photo-op antics, there’s little in the Democratic Party platform that requires rich Jews and Liberal Wasps to fork over much of their wealth for the sake of the white working class, blacks, and browns. Super-rich Jews can enjoy their riches and privileges like Donald Sterling does — before he got outed as a ‘racist’, though he still has his billions and lives like an emperor — while also going for photo-op publicity stunts with their arms around NAACP. Indeed,
even the so-called ‘far right’ Koch Brothers foundation recently donated $25 million to the NAACP though it won’t give a dime to American Renaissance organization. Even so-called ‘far right’ organizations want photo-ops with symbols of ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’.
Democratic Party, having become so dependent on the support of the super-rich, is not going to hurt Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and etc. for the sake of true equality. It’s not going to take trillions from Jews to give to blacks, browns, and ‘white trash’.
Also, the rise of Ayn Rand libertarianism that is entirely value-less has made many ‘conservative’ elites into soulless creatures. Who can stomach the likes of Grover Norquist? Such people are so lacking in values, morality, and meaning that they will eagerly embrace ‘gay marriage’ and amnesty if such happen to be the hottest thing in the name of ‘liberty’.
And as their concept of individuality is so debased, they think of marriage as nothing but a ‘legal contract’ that can be rewritten and remolded in anyway that shallow decadent individuals demand. If we follow such logic, then ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy should be legalized too. But then, of course, if ‘incest marriage’ were put on the agenda, many Americans will likely wake up to the ludicrousness of the argument for ‘gay marriage’. People will realize that IF they accept the ‘moral’ and legal argument for ‘gay marriage’, THEN the logically necessary thing would be for them to accept ‘incest marriage’ as well — and if they didn’t, they’d be a bunch of hypocrites who don’t really believe in this thing called ‘marriage equality’, because, after all, if ‘marriage equality’ favors homosexuals over incest-sexuals and polygamists, then it’s not about equality at all. In waking up to this fact, many Americans will come to question the ‘moral’ and legal basis for ‘gay marriage’. (It is truly amazing how people can become lost in their own twisted logic, following a false thread as the real one and reaching a conclusion that seems to make sense but really doesn’t. It’s like what happens to the Alec Guinness character in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. According to one thread of logic, what he’s making his men do — build a bridge for the Japanese military machine — is perfectly sound and honorable because it’s all about discipline and working in accordance to international standards. What the commander fails to realize is that he’s aiding and abetting the enemy to the point of treason. Similarly, supporters of ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same sex marriage’ are so fixated with the cartoonishly angelic image of homos — as disseminated by the Jew-run media and academia — and so obsessed with the notion of ‘equality’ that they totally forget that, biologically and morally, homosexuality can never be the equal of true sexuality involving men and women using proper sexual organs. Saying homosexuality deserves equal recognition as true sexuality is like saying a plastic tomato deserves the same recognition as a true tomato in the name of ‘vegetable equality’.) Indeed, if marriage is, as libertarians say, nothing more than a contractual agreement among individuals based on sexual love/lust, then why should society allow ‘gay marriage’ but not ‘incest marriage’ when surely there are family members of adult age who have the sexual passion for one another and might want to marry? Of course, such a notion would befoul the moral meaning of marriage because incest is sick. So, true morality would necessitate that marriage be defined in a meaningful way. It should not be associated with something like incest even if, say, brother and sister sincerely love one another and are nice/decent clean-cut people. Love doesn’t redeem everything. No matter how much a son and mother love one another sincerely, it doesn’t redeem incest biologically or morally. Similarly, no matter how much two homos lust after and love another, it doesn’t make their putrid form of ‘sexuality’ biologically or morally the equal of true sexuality and true sex. And if we value marriage as a moral institution, it should not be associated with fruitboys who practice fecal penetration and use the anus as a poo-sy. ‘Gay pride’ is about poo-ride. It is putrid, poo-trid, and gross. But if some were to argue that there’s NOTHING moralistic about marriage and that marriage is just a legal contract that should allow any individuals to define their own meaning of marriage, then marriage should allow ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy as well. But notice, the game is played with utter inconsistency. It’s like how Jews always yammer about equality but have rigged the political and economic system to favor themselves over all other peoples. So, even though Jews denounce Wasp elites of the past for having rigged immigration policy to favor whites — especially Northern European whites — over other groups, Jews see nothing wrong in controlling US foreign policy to favor Jews in Israel over gentiles in other nations even though American immigrants came from all over the world.
According to the Narrative peddled by hideous Jews, all wonderful Americans — Jews, Liberal Wasps, ‘anti-racist’ white Conservatives, blacks, yellows, browns, immigrants, etc. — worked together to topple the two evil towers of Wasp Privilege and Southern White ‘racism’. As a result, America has been a nation of equality for all — except for pockets of ‘white racism’ and ‘white privilege’ that still exist. But in fact, Jews led the charge and brought down the Old Boss of Wasp power not because they wanted all Americans to be equal with one another and with all the world but because Jews would be the New Boss towering over everyone else and giving orders. Only an idiot would think Jews and non-Jews are equal in America. Jews can pretty get away with anything since they control nearly all the top institutions. Indeed, for a people who are only 2% of the population to maintain elite power, they must be MUCH MORE powerful than all other groups. If Jews were 50% of the US population, they would only need to be somewhat richer and more powerful than other groups to be dominant since there would be so many of them and their cumulative power as the 50% of the population would be pretty formidable. But as Jews are only 2% of the population, they must be much more powerful than everyone else in order to be the dominant force in America. It’s like the British elites had to be much more powerful and privileged in India to rule as overlords. Asian-Americans are substantially better off than non-Asian-Americans, but their power simply isn’t great enough for them to be dominant force in America. Jews know that being rich enough is not enough for them to be rulers of America. They must be much much richer and much much more powerful in order for them, as a small minority, to rule over the rest, and that’s why they seek so much power but also don’t want us to notice their power as the rat will be out of the bag.
Jews push their Narrative since the truth would make us realize that we went from being ruled by the Old Boss of Wasps to being ruled by the New Boss of Jews who, by the way, are much worse and more hideous, venal, and turdy than Wasps could even imagine being.
If we realized that Jews are indeed the New Boss, we would come together and unite against Jewish power, privilege, and wealth as Wasp power, privilege, and wealth had been targeted.
(To be sure, even if non-whites knew that Jews are the dominant power in America, they might stick with Jewish power as it takes from whites and gives to non-whites. Also, as the Jew-run media and academia have instilled in the hearts of so many non-whites a fearful hatred of whites as ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’, many non-whites might feel that they need the protection of Liberal Jewish elites — just like Christian minorities and secularists look to the protection of Assad in Syria out of their fear of majority Sunni masses. This is why Jews fear whites more than non-whites even if non-whites might be more ‘antisemitic’. Non-whites feel that they must depend on an allegiance with Jews in order to ‘protect’ themselves from ‘white power’, and indeed, Jews have sold themselves as such protectors. This explains why the Hispanic community refused to rally around Rick Sanchez when he was fired and blacklisted for spelling out that Jewish elites pretty much run the media and, by implication, much of the country. So, whites must realize that Jews are the hostile elites who are out to destroy the white race by using non-whitse. Even though Jews are working 24/7 to undermine and destroy whites as a race and power, no people in America honor and worship Jews as much as white gentiles do. White race, what a disgrace.) At least the Wasp elites had the decency to admit that they were powerful and privileged and even tried to make amends for past wrongs. Jews, though more powerful than Wasp elites ever were, refuse to even admit that they’re the new elites in the US. Instead, they fan black rage, brown anger, yellow resentment, and immigrant hostility against ‘white power’. This is all the more surreal since Jews like Frank Rich, Tim Wise, Dana Milbank, and others never stop gloating about how the white gentile race is all finished in America due to demographic changes. So, on the one hand, Jews gloat about the downfall of the white race, but on the other hand, Jews prop up the bogeyman of the Eternally Evil White Man to keep blacks, browns, yellows, and immigrants in line. Given such vileness, it’s hard to stomach the amount of American Conservative sucking up to Jews. Of course, Jews not only throw their weight around as the New Boss of America but around the world. Most of the wars in the Middle East wouldn’t have flared up if not for Jewish-American and Zionist intervention. And there would be peace today in Ukraine if Jews hadn’t triggered a conflict there. Meanwhile, even as Jews say America is a ‘nation of immigrants’ and therefore should treat all nations around the world equally, Israel is showered with special prizes, special treatment, and indeed even with the special privilege of being allowed to spy freely on America. If Jonathan Pollard were a spy today, he wouldn’t be arrested and locked up but given prizes by Bush II and Obama.
Anyway, conservatism without liberalism is still possible — though not ideal — since humanity can carry on with the old and without the new. Even if there were to be no more progress or change in any area for the next one hundred years, we would carry on by using what we know and what we know how to do. After all, Ancient Egyptians went on for thousands of years without changing much. Same can be said for China where, in the 19th century, farmers were farming as their ancestors had pretty much done 500 years earlier — and scholars were thinking and writing as their predecessors had done in the previous 500 yrs. If American society had not progressed and advanced beyond its conditions and values in 1900, it would still have carried on with the old ways and means. And the Muslim world, never as dynamic and innovative as the Christian West, was stable and continued on for over a thousand years, and there’s no indication that the Islamic culture will fade in centuries to come. So, while progress made by liberalism can do wonders for a society, it’s not necessary for a civilization to survive and continue.
But can we conceive of a liberalism without conservatism? What would be worse? A 35 yr old man who has a storage of old memories but cannot take in new memories or a 35 yr old man without old memories but who can take in new memories? A man who remembers his childhood, his parents, his identity, his friends, his precious formative experiences, the places whence he came, and etc. still has a powerful sense of self because the self isn’t just about the here-and-now but about memory of origins and roots. (This is why Rachael is different from other replicants in BLADE RUNNER. Even though her ‘memories’ aren’t really hers, they did and still do give her a deeper sense of what it means to be ‘human’.) Tragically, our hypothetical person would not be able to take in new memories from the age of 35, but his memories up to that point do provide him with a sense of wholeness, belonging, and roots. But what about a 35 yr old man whose memory has been wiped clean and has no idea of where he came from, of what and who are dear to him, and of what things have been most meaningful to him? Sure, he can take in new memories and try to form a new identity, but it’s difficult for a full-grown person to develop a sense of wholeness without memories of his childhood, growth into adulthood, his great passions over the years, and etc. Besides, even if he were to henceforth and eventually create a new identity and meaning for himself in about ten or twenty years, he would have to rely on the memory of all that had happened to him since the moment he began to store new memories.
Such storage of new memories implies a psychology of conservatism as his newly constructed identity depends on a sense of the past. So, while one can be conservative without being challenged by liberalism, it’s nearly impossible to be liberal without being grounded in conservatism. Indeed, what would be the meaning of being liberal without the conservative groundwork from which to draw inspiration and/or against which to push oneself against. It’s like a child cannot exist without the parent. The child may eventually rebel against the parent, but the child has had to learn from the parent, and even his breaking away from the parent has meaning because he someone to push up against. It’s like in order to shoot a rocket into space, there needs to be the ground from and against which the rocket can blast off.
All of this should be a no-brainer, but because of how language is used in our political/partisan debates, many people have to come to see either ‘conservatism’ or ‘liberalism’ as an absolute good, as if we must choose one as the good, thereby automatically relegating the other as the bad. Such simple-mindedness has a way of blinding us to the contiguity of conservatism and liberalism. If there had been no liberalism, Western conservatism would still be mired in something like Muslim theocracy in the Middle East. Without conservatism, liberalism would be total fluff with no grounding in everything; it’ll be like dry soil during the Dust Bowl era that just blew away with the winds.
Even the most Liberal professor in college is practicing some measure of conservatism as universities are the repositories of past knowledge and wisdom. Without such to draw from, what would be the point of education? Education is about teachers who have gained knowledge passing their knowledge to students who have yet to learn. As students know little or nothing and must rely on the knowledge of those who know more, most of education from kindergarten to college is actually conservative in nature — not to be confused with political Conservatism. Education becomes truly liberal only when students reach graduate level and have sufficient knowledge with which to challenge their professors and present their own speculations and theories. But to arrive at such point, students must rely on the established expertise of teachers and professors with a deeper knowledge of human achievement. So, what is called ‘liberal education’ is really ‘conservative education’ even if this ‘conservative education’ is a means to prepare students for the ideal of liberal-rational-speculative thinking. The goal of producing liberal-minded thinkers in the long run is necessary for progress since only a truly liberal-minded person will question the veracity and validity of what had been taught him as a student. Most of what is called ‘liberal education’ and ‘political correctness’ is actually a form of ‘new conservatism’ since children are taught PC truisms as established or even as eternal truths. (So, even though ‘gay marriage’ is only a recent phenomenon in some parts of the world, so many young dufuses think its moral validity should have been self-evident since the Big Bang.) Impressionable students who know nothing are taught by ‘experts’ and people-of-knowledge(teachers) to accept certain ‘established’ truths such as ‘race is just a social construct’, ‘white racism is the greatest evil of all time’, ‘Jews are perfect angels’, and ‘homos are ever-so-wonderful, and it’s homophobic to think otherwise’. Such ‘truths’ are not discussed or debated but presented as incontrovertible and uncontroversial facts. Most young people swallow them whole since they grew up learning from teachers who’re supposed to know everything. In this, American students are hardly different from Muslim students in Madrasas or Chinese students in old Confucian schools who accepted as totally true whatever was taught to them by their elder-masters. Nevertheless, Western intellectual tradition has been different in that it didn’t merely teach knowledge-as-product but knowledge-as-process that could challenge old truisms with new truths. So, while non-Western education was conservative only to be conservative, Western education was paradoxically conservative to encourage the growth of liberalism. Western education relayed and passed down the truths/wisdom of the past(and up to the present) in order to encourage the smartest students to think new thoughts and to challenge established ‘truths’ that might have become stale ‘conventional wisdom’. And the ideal of liberalism did wonders for the West. The danger today is that so-called Liberals have replaced old conservatism with the ‘new conservatism’ of Political Correctness, but since PC is sold as ‘progressivsm’ at its best, the New Liberals are loathe to produce true liberals who, as free thinkers, may question PC truisms. Proponents of PC fail to understand that their ideology is the ‘new conservatism’ that relies on ‘conventional wisdom’. They are so fixated on their ‘liberal’ and ‘radical’ credentials that they mistake PC orthodoxy as ‘free thinking’; so they are capable of saying stupid things like ‘hate speech is not free speech’; some even say truths about racial differences should be suppressed in order to defend ‘progressivism’. So, genuine liberalism that encourages free thinking is seen as ‘conservative’ and ‘reactionary’ whereas political correctness in the form of ‘new conservatism’ is seen as the only true kind of ‘free thought’. When society had been ruled by genuine conservatism, genuine liberalism served to break through the shell of ‘conventional wisdom’. But when society is ruled by PC that is labeled ‘liberal’ but really operates as the ‘new conservatism’, society becomes held back by both arch-conservatives and arch-Liberals because conservatives, by their very nature, don’t want to think new thoughts and PC Liberals, under the weight of their own dogma, have forgotten how to think freely(at least on certain topics such as race, sexuality, and Jewish power, which are the most important issues today).
Anyway, even a Liberal professor who bitches about ‘dead white males’ will have to know something about Shakespeare(among others) since so much of the richness of the English language goes back to the Bard. If one totally rejects the old in the name of building the new starting from scratch in Year Zero — as Red Guards in China in the 60s and Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the 1970s tried — , what would the new truth be? How can new truths be formulated and arrived at without the knowledge of the past? And even if new truths could eventually be constructed from scratch, what are people to do until the day when the bright new truth is to be realized? Until such a day arrives, won’t they have to rely on something in order to make society work and function? It’s like what the US discovered when it dismissed the entire Baath Party bureaucrats and officials in the Iraqi government after the invasion. Such individuals may have been tainted by their association with loathsome Hussein, but they at least knew how to run the infrastructure and manage things. But the American Year Zero project of Iraqi governance following the invasion meant that there was no one to effectively run Iraq. It would have been one thing to keep the Baath Party officials and bureaucrats until a new class of bureaucrats and managers could be trained and appointed, but their sudden dismissal led to a vacuum in the governance, administration, and management of Iraq; and it wasn’t before all of Iraqi society imploded. But then, it’s been said that Neo-Conservatives are psychologically Trotskyites at heart who lack a conservative temperament and think in terms of ‘purging’ the system of people they don’t like. So, just as they purged Iraq of all the Baath Party members(who actually knew how to run society),
they purged the GOP of all the ‘Arabists’(in favor of Jew-ists of course) who, in their more conservatively cautious view of things, urged the Republican Party to be somewhat wary of Jewish power and be more judicious & balanced in its handling of Middle East affairs. Neo-Cons or Zio-Cons had no use for such caution, balance, moderation, or conservative temperament. Though no longer Marxist, Neo-Con ex-Trotskyites were habitually used to purging the other side totally and absolutely. Though some on the Left have lionized Leon Trotsky as the humane Bolshevik who’d been purged and killed by Joseph Stalin, the fact is he was just as ruthless and cunning, and if he’d prevailed over Stalin, he would have set about purging the Communist Party of all the people he didn’t like. To be sure, Neo-Conservatives can be said to be genuinely conservative in their sense of Jewishness, loyalty to Israel, and distrust of outsiders, the goyim. They are a tribal bunch, but in some ways, their tribalism and nationalism tend to be emotionally radical than conservative. In some cases, it could be said that they REDISCOVERED Jewish-ism and Zionism as their new radical dogma. They were Jews who’d once forsaken Jewishness in the name of some radical universalist ideology. In having lost faith in their Marxist ideology, their radical souls looked around for something else, and they settled on Jewish nationalism. Thus, their sense of Jewishness isn’t deeply rooted in a profound tragic sense that had imbued Jews with a degree of patience and perspective over thousands of years. Instead, their political outlook is triumphalist. As Marxists, they’d dreamt of a victorious communist order that would change the entire world. But when their dream failed to materialize and when they grew disillusioned with the form of communism that did triumph — Stalinism — , they turned to Jewish-ism and Zionism as the new triumphalist ideology. So, Neo-conservatism or Zio-conservatism is a sense of Jewishness driven more by radical passion than by religious patience. Just like Trotsky and his fellow Jewish communists demanded the policy of Permanent Revolution and hasty expansion of Soviet communism to Germany and other parts of Europe, Neocons are restless in their dream of power and domination, thereby incapable of sitting down and taking a breather. They must always breathe fire and demand fresh victories followed by yet more fresh victories.
If Judaism, over thousands of years, had been about remembrance of the past, Neocon Jewish-ism is all about looking into the future so that Israel will kick the asses of all Arab nations and so that Jewish globalists will gain absolute control over America, Europe, & Russia and rule over goyim as cattle. Indeed, how many American really cared much about Ukraine or Russia? Most Americans have had a live-and-let-live attitude. But Neocon Jews like Victoria Nuland, Donald Kagan, Anne Applebaum, and others are always looking for some reason or excuse to wage new wars and ‘revolutions’ — based on whatever bullshit they cook up next — to ensure total Jewish domination all over the world. And in this, the so-called Liberal Zionists/Jews aren’t much different, which is why a magazine like The New Republic offers ample space for both Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews. They are all into the ideology of Jewish-ism of the future than Judaism of the past. On the issues of Israel, Russia, and white gentiles of US & EU, there’s hardly any difference between Leon Wieseltier and Paul Wolfowitz, between Michael Kingsley and Richard Perle. It’s all about "But is it good for the Jews?" Actually ‘good’ isn’t good enough anymore for Jews. The new question is ‘But is it GREAT for the Jews?" Just as Hitler went from trepidation to caution to confidence to arrogance to megalomania, Yidlers — Hitler-like globalist Jews — have gone through the same stages and are now rabidly and megalomaniacally impatient for total world domination.
Anyway, it’s impossible for anyone to be entirely liberal, and even Liberals are conservative to some extent. Indeed, even the fact of wanting to attend a university — even one with the most radical reputation — is conservative in many ways because students want to join an established order with its hierarchies, systems, and methods. If indeed students have no use for past knowledge, why learn about literature, history, philosophy, and such things at all? Why not just lie on one’s back and think new thoughts and dream up new values? But even if one were to do just that, where would one draw inspiration from? Even new ideas grow from the soil of the old. Beethoven, as revolutionary as he was, would have been lost without the German traditions in music. Though great individuals can make huge leaps and bounds at a young age, they cannot do it without something to spring from. (Because certain young people are full of genius and exhibit great talent so early in life, we assume that it’s not necessary/essential to know much about established truths and wisdom in order to do great things. Consider Mozart, a musical star when he was just a boy. Or Orson Welles, a star in theater and film at a young age. But what such an assumption ignores is the fact that young geniuses are able to absorb a great deal of ‘old knowledge’ at tremendous speed. Indeed, Welles probably read more by the age of 10 than most people did by the age of 30. Mozart mastered more of established music by the age of 12 than most music students learned by the age of 30. So, it’s not so much that young geniuses ignore old knowledge but that they pick them up and absorb their lessons much faster than the rest of us. If Welles hadn’t read all that Shakespeare by the age of 12, would he have been a master of theater? Most great young novelists read more by the age of 20 than most of us will read in our lifetimes.) It’s like people who are adrift without gravity in outer-space cannot do anything unless they have something to push up against. Even if you push up against something in opposition, your spring in motion comes from the reaction. This is why not much came of the 60s Counterculture freaks who decided to drop out, tune in, and turn on? Initially, they felt free and liberated by rejecting normal society, but after awhile, they felt meaningless, directionless, and pointless in their own little worlds or communes since they had nothing to oppose or overcome. Freedom becomes meaningful as a weapon against repression or as tool for improvement, which is like a struggle for the future yet to be. If there’s no repression and one is free to do as he chooses, then one must find some new challenge to overcome to make his freedom urgent and exciting. (In this sense, as burdensome as the concept of Sin has been throughout history, it provided meaning to a community that was overly stable and without want. Sin burdened freedom with moral and spiritual gravitas. Something about human nature wants a measure of substantiality. It’s like a body builder wants to lift heavy weights than light weights. What’s the point of bench pressing 10 lbs? The problem of freedom is it can be fluffy-duff and frivolous-like, and so, there is an appeal to burdening of freedom with Sin, whether it be Judeo-Christian concept of sin or Political Correctness, if only to stave off the unbearable lightness of freedom.) Also, by rejecting so much of established society and its systems of knowledge, Counterculture freaks sought new ways WITHOUT a sound grasp of and ready access to all the knowledge that had been stored and passed down through the ages. It is then no wonder then that the boomers who eventually took control of society were not the hippie dropouts who exited society but the committed climb-ins who entered (the core institutions of)society. Given their interest in entering into academia and other venerable institutions, they should have had an appreciation of conservatism. So, why did they become so hostile to the very notion of conservatism when their decision to be part of the system had much that was conservative about it?
Part of the reason was the simple political dichotomy that saw the world in terms of conservative vs liberal — or even liberal vs radical — , as if one had to be one thing or the other but never both. But there has also been the Jewish factor. Even though Jews were entering into institutions founded and built by Wasp elites and even though Jews had so much to learn from the system and did — before they came up with their own ideas that improved the system in key ways — , it didn’t sit well with the Jewish temperament that they owed so much to another people who, in the modern world, had achieved even more than the Jews. Indeed, if one were to name one people who did most to advance mankind from the 1700s to the mid 20th century, it’d be the Anglos and Anglo-Americans. But Jewish cultural attitudes and temperament simply could not show much respect or reverence for other peoples. Just like Chinese had their Middle Kingdom idea, Jews have long been shaped by their Chosen People idea, and Jews don’t like to take second-seat to anyone. So, even though Jews were learning so much from the Anglo/American order and its accumulated achievements of the past, Jews were loathe to be properly ‘conservative’ in their appreciation. Instead, Jews were hellbent on besting it even if it meant tearing it apart. Of course, in order for Jews to tear it apart, they had to master it and know it as well as or even better than any Anglo/American did, but if conservative Anglo/Americans were learning about their past and heritage in the spirit of reverence, Jews were learning in the spirit of irreverence and rebellion. (It’s like spies gain information and knowledge of another society/nation not to serve and appreciate it but to subvert, undermine, and even destroy it. To be sure, in some cases, learning about an ‘enemy’ culture/society can have a ‘turning’ effect. Consider the midget woman in POLTERGEIST who can commune with evil spirits. She accesses the spirits to read their intentions, but the danger is spirits can take hold of her, and at one point, she almost loses her original sense of purpose of saving the little girl. Thus, Jews always had a love/hate thing with gentiles. Jews were learning about gentiles to best them and to destroy them, but some Jews fell in love with the gentile world, and this combination of love and hate led to fearsome complexes in the Jewish soul. The more Jews felt the love, the more they felt the hate for being seduced by wicked gentile ways. For Jews take ownership of gentile culture, they had to ‘Jewify’ it by turning it upside down, e.g. Christianity is acceptable to Jews if the main goal of Christians is to worship MLK, Holocaustianity, and ‘gay marriage’.) Anyway, some part of the Jew couldn’t help but appreciate much about Anglo and Anglo-American history and culture, and indeed, a whole bunch of Jews have been Anglophiles, not least because Great Britain, more than most parts of Europe in the 20th century, managed to avoid the extremes of antisemitism; English cult of manners kept antisemitism dry and aloof than wet and swampy. But even Jews who came to admire the Anglo and Anglo-American culture with a shade of conservative emotions felt they should take ownership of the gentile narrative so that their versions, interpretations, and revisions of events took precedence over those by Anglo and Anglo-American historians and thinkers. So, the two most dominant historians in the UK in the latter half of 20th century were Jews Eric Hobsbawm and Simon Schama. And much of American history has pretty much been rewritten by Jewish historians. Such historians are ‘conservative’ in the sense that they are deeply concerned with the past. They have great passion for history and try to learn a great deal by revisiting past events. However, as Jews, they feel that they should rewrite and revise histories of gentiles in the spirit of "Is it good for the Jews?" So, Jews not only write Jewish history but also rewrite the history of Anglo-Americans so that Americans of all stripes will come to accept and appreciate the Judeo-centric perspective of events that, of course, serves the interests of Jews. And since white gentiles — among others — will thus come under the influence of Jewish media and academia, their minds will turn to putties of Jewish scholars. They shall become mental toybots or goybots of the Jews.
Anyway, if some radical leftist and/or tribalist Jews rewrote history to make Anglos and Anglo-Americans come across as wholly bad, other Jews rewrote the history with a degree of sympathy and appreciativeness in order to gain control over the soul of white folks, and in a way, such an approach has been more effective, as well as more insidious and dangerous. If a bunch of Jews merely spit on the history, heritage, and culture of your people, you can either totally surrender to them or react violently and tell them to fuc* off. If indeed all Jews were wholly hostile to whites in an unrelenting manner, whites would likely eventually grow tired of Jews, put on brass knuckles, and turn the faces of Jews into hamburger meat. Whites would say Enough is Enough. But there are Jews who claim to feel great admiration for Anglos and Anglo-Americans... but... but... But... and that ‘but’ is a Big But. Jews hint that so much good has been done by Anglos and Anglo-Americans BUT Anglo/Americans committed some very grave ‘historical sins’, and in order to be redeemed by winning the love of the Jews(the holy Holocaust people), white folks need to adopt the Jewish revision of Anglo and Anglo-American histories and follow Jewish advice on how their blood could be cleansed of the sins of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’.(There’s a great irony at the heart of white gentiles seeking redemption through Jews. Such a Narrative ostensibly seems to be about powerful and privileged white folks finally choosing ‘right’ over ‘might’ through the wisdom of Jews who epitomize powerlessness in association with the Holocaust. And yet, the Jews at whose feet white gentile elites grovel are many times more powerful and richer than most white gentiles. So, white gentiles pretend to act in the name of the powerless in their service to the most powerful people on earth. If indeed white gentiles are genuinely redemptive of their past ‘historical sins’ of having crushed powerless peoples, they should favor powerless Palestinians over powerful Israeli Jews, but they shamelessly and cravenly bow down before the all-powerful Jews. Jews want all the power in the world but also want to own the cult of powerlessness as an eternal Jewish essence so that even when Jews control all the media and banks and tanks, they are still ‘the most powerless people’. For all the talk of ‘white redemption’ for past ‘historical sins’, it seems most white gentiles are only submitting themselves to the greatest power in the world, which is Jewish power. So much for serving the powerless for a change.)
Such a deceptively friendly and constructively critical approach hoodwinks a lot of white people, and it’s especially effective because it’s premised on the superior holiness and total blamelessness of Jews owing to the Holocaust. Since Jews suffered what was supposedly the ‘greatest evil’ in the history of mankind in the center of Western Civilization, Jews are to be seen as an especially sacred and tragic people who can never do wrong. And if anyone had, has, or might have any reservation about Jews, he was, is, or will be harboring the poison of ‘antisemitism’. So, we must all look upon the Jew as holy and saintly and so wonderful. And there is nothing greater than winning the approval of a people such as the Jews. It’s almost as good or even better than winning the approval of Jesus Christ. So, Jews use such an exalted status of themselves as they approach people with a smile & handshake and implicitly promise them moral/spiritual elevation if they were to take some nice, kindly, and friendly advice from the Jews. I mean it’s like being visited by angels!(The pitiful thing is the more we comply with Jewish demands, the more they despise us and hold us in contempt because, deep down inside, Jews know it’s all just a con-man trick for dumbasses or craven cowards. Jews know that one has to be really dumb — like Christian Zionists — or really low-down and opportunistic — like Chris Christie and GOP hopefuls — to fall for the Jewish BS about their holiness. Jews admire wit, cunning, and chutzpah, not earnest childlike innocence or pants-wetting cravenness that is so common among GOP politicians in their self-serving deference to Jews for campaign money. Jews look upon white goyim as Woody Allen looked upon
the horrible comedian in ANNIE HALL, the one who made a dumb crack about ‘Jeanne Dark’ Jews may keep smiling, but they’re thinking, "what a dumbass.") Indeed, without the exalted status of the Jew as holy Holocaust angel, the Jewish agenda would be far less effective, especially as so many Jews are loathsome types like Abe Foxman, William Kristol, Tim Wise, Morris Dees the sleaze, Cass the Ass Sunstein, Alan Dirty Dershowitz, Leon Wieseltier the weasel, and Abe Foxman the henhouse fox. Without the Holocaust cult, we would look upon Jews as powerful, smart, shrewd, nasty, and cunning. It’s their holy Holocaust status that makes us hallucinate and see them as angelic arbiters of higher morality and spirituality. Call it Holocination. Would GOP hopefuls have groveled before Sheldon Adelson if not for the fact that Adelson is a Holo-man? Adelson is a nutjob who thinks US should drop a nuke on Iran to teach those people a lesson. The man is psycho. No less loathsome is the bullying, lying, and conspiring Benjamin Netanhayu, but so many American Conservatives listen to him with rapt attention if they’re listening to an angel sent by God. It’s Holocination that makes American Conservatives — and even many American Liberals — see Netanhayu as anything other than a sleazy, corrupt, and vicious politician. Netanhayu is just as loathsome as Silvio Berlusconi, but whereas we have no delusions about Berlusconi — he’s just a ‘greaseball’ after all — , something clicks in our head whenever someone is Jewish as if we aren’t seeing a mere person but a resurrection of a Holocaust victim. As if the Magic Negro wasn’t ridiculous enough, we have to deal with the cult of Tragic Jew(who is seen as holy and tragic forever even if he or she is just some nasty piece of turd like Sarah Silverman or Joan Rivers). The power of the media, academia, and entertainment is such that even shit can be turned into gold. I mean who is Oprah but some gross fat black woman who talks nonsense on TV? But she was made into the conscience of America — something like Martin Luther Queen — by the mainstream media owned by Jews. And as American Conservatives were so eager to win some ‘anti-racist’ plaudits, they happily played along with this charade of Oprah cult. Or consider the fruitkin homosexuals. Now, there are homosexuals who are decent workers and good neighbors. But most of them are not saints or even upstanding citizens. And their idea of ‘sex’ ranges from ridiculous(among lesbians) to downright gross and foul(among fruiter males who are into fecal penetration). But because the Jew-run media’s non-stop barrage of homomania and homo-infatuation, so many Americans now think there’s something special and magical about homos. They are so proud to be able to say, "I have gay friends", as if being friends with fruitkins will somehow rub some of that fairy magic onto themselves. Sad but true, most people are that stupid and childish, so easy to manipulate and control.
Anyway, for a better understanding of truer conservatism and truer liberalism, we need to define them more clearly. In a way, they shouldn’t be regard necessarily as opposites but as two sides of a continuum. There can be no liberalism without conservatism, and all forms of conservatism is bound to spark some forms of liberalism as human species is curious and creative. (Both simple-mindedness and complex-mindedness can foster either conservatism or liberalism. A person can be conservative because he’s too simpleminded to think outside the box of received wisdom, but then, a person can be liberal because he’s too simpleminded to have an appreciation of roots and heritage; being flighty and a slave to latest fashions, his simple-mindedness could make him shallowly liberal and easily distracted/obsessed with new trends. At the other end, a person can be conservative because he’s very complex-minded about the deep roots of identity, culture, values, and heritage of his people passed down through the ages. But then, a person can be liberal because he’s very complex-minded about new possibilities and truths that may go against the common grain and what passes for conventional wisdom. So, it’s not an easy case of simpleminded conservatives vs complex-minded liberals.) Even so, conservatism in the way I want to define it is impossible without some degree of cultural sophistication, richness of heritage, and wellspring of memory. Though all human societies have their folklore and tribal memories, a truer and deeper conservatism isn’t possible without written language and a rich body of text. Oral tradition is too unstable to make an effective conservatism feasible. Oral tradition keeps alive some memory but never enough for a sense of deep-rooted heritage and tradition. Oral tradition is only about ‘living memory’ — memory kept alive by constant storytelling around the campfire. There is no collective memory beyond what is kept alive at any given moment. The memory of an oral culture is only as deep as the memories of individuals who keep re-telling and re-embellishing the stories. In contrast, a written culture develops a large body of texts, and there’s no need for any individual to be the repository of all the memories of the culture, society, or civilization. Thus, the memory of the culture becomes richer, deeper, more expansive, and more multi-faceted than the memory of any single individual, however extraordinary his memory may be. Also, written text allows individual study and independent scholarship in ways that oral tradition cannot. In an oral culture, one needs to consult the storyteller for the details whereas in a written culture, one can do the reading(and writing) alone. And even if things are forgotten by the storytellers, one can always go back to the texts to rediscover and rethink certain issues and items. Thus, the culture and the history become much bigger than the mental capacity of any one man. There can be no genuine conservatism in an oral culture since the most that can ever be conserved is the stories stored within the minds of storytellers. The would-be storyteller listened to the previous storyteller, and he tells the stories to the next would-be storyteller. It’s like the passing of the flame from one torch to another, where the only thing that is conserved is the flame. If the flame were to be extinguished, the culture is lost for good. There is nothing in reserve in oral culture. If the storytellers are lost, the culture is lost, and the entirety of the culture is stored in the limited memories of the storytellers. But in a written culture, a body of knowledge is held by the community as its coals and matches of knowledge. So, even if the flames were to go out with the passing of certain voices, new flames can be relit from the stored matches and coals of knowledge. Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, Christian, and Muslim cultures are, of course, unthinkable without written texts, and it may be that the Jewish and Chinese cultures have been most resilient since they were most obsessed with texts. Jews even rejected idols and images in favor of texts(and almost nothing but texts), and Chinese even turned their text into form of art in calligraphy. And Egyptian civilization lasted a long time before finally fading away, and maybe this had something to do with how, as with the Chinese, it transformed language into art and vice versa via the hieroglyphics.
Though
Satoshi Kanazawa came up with an explanation as to why liberals(and atheists) are more intelligent than conservatives, one could argue that his definition of ‘conservative’ is too broad while his definition of ‘liberal’ is too restrictive. Kanazawa assumes that most people are ‘conservative’ since they just believe what they are told and/or stick to routines, don’t think independently, and follow the orders of others. But such people, who make up the great majority, are not necessarily conservatives. It’s more accurate to call them ‘conventionals’. Most so-called ‘conservatives’ in America are not really conservative since they have almost little knowledge of their heritage, no interest in history, and hardly any desire to remember the lessons of the past. Their memories tend to be very selective and largely dependent on ahistorical likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Evangelical churches who are more into partisan agendas than deeper loyalties and values. They just want to feel good and made to be feel good. Though we are all part of a written/literary civilization, most American ‘conservatives’(who should really be called ‘conventionals’) really practice a kind of oral tradition. They barely read anything and instead rely on what they hear on the radio or see/hear on TV. They prefer the conventionality of here-and-now and confuse it for ‘timeless truths’, which is why so many American ‘conservative’ Christians think Jews are their natural allies. Never mind that for most of Christian history, Jews were regarded as the enemy. If American Christian ‘conservatives’ were truly conservative, they would be much more mindful of the problematic history between Jews and Christians. They would ponder why Christians had harbored such distrust of and antipathy toward Jews. But as most American ‘conservatives’ are really conventionals who want to conform to the partisan-promoted-and-permitted truisms of the here-and-now(determined by the likes of Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg), they are at the mercy of the controllers of the levers of the here-and-now. Since the great truism of the here-and-now is the sanctity of Jews, the holy Holocaust people, American Christians like to see themselves as the best friends of the Jews, and they cannot conceive of how any one could dislike Jews or how anyone in the past could have hated Jews. So, they either ignore the long history of Christian animosity toward Jews or they apologize profusely, as if they find it impossible to ponder how Christians in the past could have held such negative feelings about Jews.
Of course, Christians(at least those who are cognizant of the troubled history between Christians/gentiles and Jews) think their stained history in regard to holy Jews will be cleansed IF they hand over to Jews everything the Jews demand, which is why so many American Christians fanatically support the Zionists against the Palestinians, Iranians, Arabs, and Muslims. You see, good decent Christians are now the BEST FRIENDS of Jews while it’s the vile and disgusting Muslims, the ‘muzzies’, and the ‘ragheads’ who are the true enemies of Jews. In other words, the evil of Nazism and ‘antisemitism’ have been mostly cleansed from the Western soul but has passed over to the hearts and minds of Muslims who are now the true enemies of Jews. (The ‘evil of antisemitism’ going from the European soul to the Arab/Persian/Muslim soul is like how the evil spirit in Iraq ends up in the soul of some fresh young girl in America in THE EXORCIST.) Only a ‘conventional’ without a genuine memory or understanding of the past could think like this. Though a conservative can and should reject and revise certain ideas, values, and assumptions of his forebears, he should at least be knowledgeable of them and be empathetic as to why his ancestors thought and felt as they did. Surely, it couldn’t have been the case that Jews were always good and those who’d acted against them were always bad. That’s like saying Japanese were always good and that any people or nation that hated or fought against Japan were wicked for their ‘anti-nipponism’. But what about cases where Japanese had been the aggressors and provoked others to resist and fight back? Shouldn’t the Japanese be blamed for the counter-violence against them? Likewise, wasn’t it the case that, sometimes, violence against Jews erupted because Jews acted badly? Even if we argue that the violence against Jews got out of hand — like the US bombing of Japan got out of hand during WWII — , Jews surely did certain things throughout history to piss off gentiles in a big way. Whare the chances of Jews having been always right in every one of their historical altercations with gentiles? That’s like gambling and winning every time, which is impossible in the realm of odds. But Jews have taken over history and rigged the slot machine of memory/morality so that Jews win every time. No matter who did what and what happened, gentiles were to blame and Jews were wholly blameless. Indeed, consider the Jewish role in Soviet communism’s killing of millions of Christian Slavs, but the Narrative only focuses on how Soviets were ‘antisemitic’ due to its ‘paranoid’ ‘anti-Zionism’ and how they pushed ‘anti-Jewish affirmative action’ that favored dimmer Slavs over Jews — it’s all the funnier since Jews in America push ‘affirmative action’ for blacks, mestizos, and even white Hispanics at the expense of smarter white gentiles; of course, the game is rigged so that top colleges will continue to admit Jews at the rate of 25%(of the overall student population), which, at places like Harvard, is above that of white gentiles. Jewish historians rig the roulette of historical morality just like Jewish hoods in the past rigged machines in casinos so that Jews would rake it all in every time. And of course, scum like Sheldon Adelson now own and run much of Las Vegas. And Google Jews and big media Jews rig information so that Jews and their allies, especially homos, are elevated and promoted to holy status while white men who care about their own race, own mothers, own sisters, own wives, and own daughters are accused of waging ‘war on women’. Never mind that it’s Jews who run the porn industry, it’s blacks who are the big rappers who sing about women as ‘bitchass hos and it’s blacks who commit most interracial rapes in this country, and it’s Democratic ‘Latinos’ who are likely to be more abusive toward their women in both Mexico/Central America and over here. Somehow, the ‘war on women’ must be blamed on guys like Mitt Romney who’s been a good husband all his life. And yet, craven cowards like Romney are always sucking up to the foul Jews who are waging War on the White Race. Indeed, Tim Wise and David Sirota admitted as much. And the likes of
Dana Milbank say that white blood is ‘tired’ and the only way whites can save themselves is by having their nations overrun by yellows, browns, and blacks. This is like saying the only way you can save your wife and daughter is by allowing others to screw them.
Anyway, given the short memory span and mass ignorance of most American ‘conservatives’, they are not truly conservative at all. They are dimwit ‘conventionals’. Indeed, consider one of the cliches oft heard among American ‘conservatives’, namely the notion that it was the Democratic Party that was the home of southern racial segregationists while the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, had stood with blacks. Only a moron with no historical sense could possibly believe the past was so simple. Though the Republican Party was indeed the party of Abolitionists, Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, not because he cared for blacks, whom he feared and dreaded. Also, soon after the war, whites who ruled the Republican Party had no real desire to punish Southern whites by empowering blacks. Also, the GOP was the party of big industrialists more than anything. It was also the bastion of Wasp power in the late 19th century and early 20th century that became increasingly racially minded and opposed to immigration out of racial fears and anxieties, justified or not.
Also, many whites in the South supported the Democratic Party not only for segregationist reasons but for egalitarian ones. Though, ideologically at least, the Democratic Party was more tolerant of racial inequality(at least when it came to blacks in the South), it was the GOP that was more tolerant of economic/class inequalities. So, naturally, white Southern farmers supported the Democratic Party for a larger slice of the economic pie, even as they did sough to maintain their privileges or ‘racial rights’ over the blacks. (Though past segregation has been attacked as indefensible in having privileged whites over blacks, it can be defended on grounds of ‘racial rights’. As biology and evolution made blacks bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than whites, whites need social and legal advantages to counter-balance their bio-physical disadvantages. Without such protections, blacks would attack, rape, rob, and humiliate the white race, whup white boys, and take white girls. And indeed that is just what we’ve been witnessing since the days of the Civil Rights Movement. So, if every race has a right to live in safety and security, the white race has a right to live safely away from the ghastly Negroes who turned Detroit into a little Africa.)
Anyway, while there is some truth to Kanazawa’s contention that liberals tend to be smarter than conservatives, a true conservative isn’t someone who is merely content to conform to the conventionality of status quo, which is what most American ‘conservatives’ do. A true conservative must be intellectually, spiritually, historically, and morally connected to and mindful of his own heritage(and even of the heritages of great civilizations all over the world, as no great civilization did everything on its own but learned crucial things from others). Also, conservatism is a kind of resistance in the name of deeper and/or eternal truths against the fashionable conventionality of the here-and-now that prefers to ‘live for today’, seek out easy pleasures, and settle for comfortable ‘truth of the hour’. It requires a good deal of self-control, discipline, and commitment. The book lovers of Ray Bradbury’s FAHRENHEIT 451 are true conservatives because they take great risks to preserve the knowledge of the past. They are up against the conventionals who are addicted to modern technology controlled by the corporate state. Conventionals prefer to focus on whatever is thought to be trendy, proper, happy, useful, and correct at the moment. They are conformist, and under capitalism, their conformism has been made more palatable because the modern globalist agenda has been sweetened with hedonism. So, even though something like ‘gay marriage’ would have been a hard sell if sold only as ‘gay marriage’, it’s been an easier sell because it’s been associated with fun-and-happy celebrity consumer-pop culture and with clean-cut, happy, jolly, and pretty-looking homos.
If people were made to honestly think about the true nature of homosexuality, they would find it gross(with all that fecal penetration among male homos) , but homosexuality has been sold as ‘gay pride’ — or simply as ‘Pride’, as if ‘gayness’ and ‘pride’ are synonymous — and has been associated with ‘rainbow’ colors. People generally don’t want to be forced to conform to something since such would imply coercion and lack of freedom, but when politically correct pressures are sold and presented as pleasurable, fun, colorful, cool, hip, and joyous, then people are far more likely to comply and conform; indeed, they are likely to confuse their conformism with individual freedom and choice, as if they, all on their own, decided on the rightness of something like ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same sex marriage’ or ‘marriage equality’ or whatever.
In this regard, most American ‘conservatives’ and most American ‘liberals’ are little more than conventionals who just like to go along. And they prefer ‘news sources’ like Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart since such figures turn politics into spectator sports of laughter and pleasure.
Jon Stewart has recently been praised for bringing up the sensitive issue of Gaza, but notice how he turned it all into a joke and encouraged his audience to laugh like tards. So, his faux-sympathy for Gazans being slaughtered in the Zionist attack became something to laugh about than something to reflect about. If that is sympathy for Palestinians, it’s worse than honest hatred. We are supposed to praise him for being more fair-and-balanced than Fox News on the Israel-Gaza conflict, but it’s all a dirty shtick. Imagine if US was being bombed by a much greater power and if American children were being maimed, blinded, and killed, but some news-comedian in the Arab World feigned sympathy for American victims with jokes that made the audience laugh like tards.
By the way, will Stewart have the guts to mention that the US media and government are rabidly pro-Israel because Jews run the nation? But of course, Stewart is on the same page as the Jew media bosses who fired and blacklisted Rick Sanchez for speaking truth to Jewish power in the media. David Duke is attacked and vilified as a ‘racist’ and ‘hater’,
yet his video about what is happening in Gaza is a hell of lot more humane and sober than Stewart’s Jew antics and the laughter of his childish audiences filled with moral-narcissistic pride as so-called ‘progressives’. It takes a bunch of a**holes and retards to turn what is happening in Gaza as a series of jokes and clever quips to laugh about. How would Americans have felt if the tragedy of 9/11 had been given the Jon-Stewart treatment in the media around the world? Imagine all the media pundits around the world feigning sympathy for Americans by cracking jokes and making the audience laugh like smart-aleck retards. Let them eat jokes?
Anyway, a truer conservative isn’t so much at war with truer liberals as with the conventionals who are duped and led like sheep by the cynical and power-hungry elites. The power-hungry tend to be fixated on short-terms gains. Businessmen will say and do anything to make more profit. A politician will say and promise anything to get elected. They do not operate on the basis of deeper truths, values, or principles. They operate on the desire to be king of the hill. True conservatives, on the other hand, must remain true to their values, principle, loyalties, and doctrines in spite of the changing and shifting fashions that shall always be at the mercy of the elites who manipulate the childish emotions of the mob. To the extent that truer conservatives are committed to preserving what is true, meaningful, valuable, and/or beautiful, their best friends are truer liberals for it is the liberal spirit that thinks new thoughts, sees new horizons, and experiments with new possibilities. Though extreme liberalism can become arrogant and foolish with the conceit of rationalism’s power to solve all problems, extreme conservatism is no less arrogant for it assumes that all the truths have already been discovered and established, and therefore, all that’s left for us to do is preserve what we have and know. But such an attitude would implies that we have the power of God or gods. True humility should makes us realize that we can never know all the truths or all the wisdom, and therefore, we should always strive to learn a little bit more, to gain a bit more knowledge and understanding. It should remind us that even the vast amount of knowledge that we do have is a mere drop in the bucket of yet deeper and vaster knowledge to be gained in the future. Thus, our wanting to know more isn’t an act of arrogance against God, the universe, or the truth, but an act of humility that implies that because we will never know the whole truth, we will always have something more to learn. It’s like what
Akira Kurosawa said when he received the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Oscars:
"I am very deeply honored to receive such a wonderful prize, but I have to ask whether I really deserve it. I'm a little worried, because I don't feel that I understand cinema yet. I really don't feel that I have yet grasped the essence of cinema. Cinema is a marvelous thing, but to grasp its true essence is very, very difficult. But what I promise you is that from now on I will work as hard as I can at making movies and maybe by following this path I will achieve an understanding of the true essence of cinema and earn this award." One might say Kurosawa was being either being funny or falsely modest, but I sense sincerity and humility that could only have been attained through a lifetime of work and reflection. Had he received the award decades earlier, there might have been some false modesty as he was, in his younger days, full of himself(deservedly so to some extent) as the master-emperor of cinema. But having lived as long as he did and having evolved in style and world-view, he came to realize that there was much more to life and art than he’d ever realized. Despite all his achievements as one of the supreme masters of cinema, he realized he’d only scratched the surface of all that cinema could be. Such an attitude combines the best of conservatism and the best of liberalism. For a conservative to say that all the truths have been discovered, he’s essentially saying that man is the equal of God since through his creativity and intelligence, he’d arrived at all the truths mankind ever needs. For a conservative to truly appreciate and practice humility, he must be willing to admit that there’s as yet so much to be learned, understood, and mastered. He must appreciate liberalism as a partner of conservatism because, after all, unless there are conservatives to maintain and preserve the old truths, liberal-minded people won’t have anything to work with. Even Picasso and Stravinsky didn’t just come out of nowhere. They learned from and were inspired by established systems of tradition.
Sometimes, the new knowledge and approaches could be so explosive and astounding that they appear to be anti-conservative, but if they have any long-lasting value or hold any long-lasting truth, they will owe something to tradition. And if their value and truth are indeed of lasting value, they will serve as the basis for future conservatism. Consider how the styles and methods achieved by Picasso have become an established and ‘conservative’ form in art. Everything new that is of genuine value is fated to become part of the new conservatism, whereas everything new that has no genuine value will be forgotten sooner than later.
The problem of today’s Liberalism is it is so intoxicated with the conceit of ‘radicalism’ that it embraces and promotes things of obviously no value that only waste the time, energy, and resources of our collective culture. But just as everything new of no long-term value is fated to fade and be forgotten, it’s also true that everything old of no genuine value should be discarded as part of the living/relevant culture. Consider the hideous practice of ‘foot-binding’ in China that lasted for thousands of years. It became one of the conservative hallmarks of Chinese civilization, but it’s gone for good because Chinese finally broke out of the straitjacket of their extreme conservatism that was filled with arrogance, chauvinism, corruption, tyranny, narcissism, dementedness, and decadence. Chinese, overflowing with Middle Kingdom conceit & arrogance, came to believe that many of their customs were of great & higher value. They were so filled with civilizational arrogance that they failed to see the sheer horror of crippling girls’ feet. This is what happens when a social order becomes overly arrogant, and we now see the same kind of defense of barbarism in the modern West. Consider the sheer lunacy of putting homosexuality on the same biological and moral pedestal as real sexuality. The idea that two guys doing fecal penetration on one another is biologically and morally equal to a man and a woman using proper sexual organs to produce life is demented. But as the modern West is so filled with the arrogance of being so ‘progressive’ and ‘more evolved’, it is blind to its own lunacy and barbarism. Though ‘gay marriage’ is sold as ‘progressivism’ and ‘liberalism’, it actually has much in common with the extreme conservatism in China that made ‘foot-binding’ not only possible but prized. As ‘foot-binding’ came to be associated with superior culture, better breeding, and social privilege, more and more Chinese aspired to such an ‘ideal’ and had the feet of their daughters bound as well. Similarly, as all this ‘gay’ stuff has become associated with the fashionable elites, rich celebrities, and ‘popular’ stuff, it has become the ‘new normal’ favored by Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. It is now associated with privilege, power, wealth, success, fashionableness, and the ‘new morality’. It’s the new puritanism or poo-ritanism. Today’s ‘gay’ brigade acts no differently from arch-puritans of old; in their alliance with all-powerful Jews, they use media and legal power to attack, demean, and destroy anyone who refuses to bend over and ‘evolve’ from sub-humans who defend traditional marriage into ‘true humans’ who associate homosexuality with everything wonderful and beautiful under the sun.
Anyway, truer conservatism must make allowances for truer liberalism to make way for a better conservatism. The point of remembering and preserving the past isn’t only to remember the past but to use the lessons of the past to make for a better present and better future. If we should learn from and remember the past just to honor the past, we might as well be robots programmed with the same codes forever and ever. Culture, like life, must evolve.
Besides, even if we were to stop creating anything new or different and were to only stick with the knowledge and achievements of the past, there’s still the issue of what-things-of-the-past should we remember and honor? Suppose one is an extreme literary conservative and lives in a world where no more new books are written and no new theories & interpretations are presented. Instead, one can only read books written in the past and pay heed to interpretations of past scholars. Even so, given the sheer number of books and analyses produced in the past hundreds — or even thousands — of years, what of past literature should be remembered, what should be ignored, what should be revived, what should be suppressed, what should be condemned, what should be especially praised, and etc? Thus, even if one were to be entirely conservative and stick with the past, one is confronted with the need to re-edit, rethink, revise, and re-interpret the vast body of literature since there are so many books and so many ideas about them that disagree with one another. It’s not as if the past is one big agreement and as if disagreement can only exist with new stuff. Even the Bible, supposedly the sacred text of God, is filled with great many contradictions and arguments. The problem for Fundamentalists who espouse literalism is that the Bible literally contradicts itself in so many ways. So, to make sense of anything, one is forced to think and rethink. Therefore, it’s too simple for American Conservatives to claim that they are for preserving and honoring the great classics of the past, whereas American Liberals and Leftists are for attacking and dismantling the past in favor of trendy and trivial ideas that don’t make sense. While it may be true that many — maybe most — Liberals and Leftists in today’s academia are conceited and demented, they still understand that Western intellectual tradition wasn’t only about reverently admiring great writers/thinkers of the past but about challenging and even surpassing the achievements of the past in new and bold ways. Thus, in some ways, a creative irreverence is a form of reverence for every great pupil wants to surpass his master — and a true master with a big heart and soul appreciates the rise of new masters than reverential sycophants who kneel at his feet. Would Mozart have felt flattered if Beethoven meekly knelt at his feet and sheepishly praised him as the greatest composer who could ever be? No, Mozart would have been disgusted by such a sheepish and subservient creature. He would have been impressed by someone with the will and talent to surpass him. Of course, since most of us are without talent or special skills, it’d be foolish for us to think we should surpass the great artists, visionaries, and prophets of the past. Most of us would do well just to learn and appreciate the achievements of others. But the point of elite culture isn’t merely to admire and respect the past but to critique it and go beyond it. True conservatives should never fear something that is new as long as it holds new truths and values for it may serve to improve conservatism with deeper insights and greater truth. It’s like a woman mustn’t try to prevent the birth of her child since it will cause some pain. (It may be that today’s academia is so intellectually corrupt and stagnant since a monstrous concoction that might be called ‘intellectual subjectivism’ overtook both intellectual objectivity and personal subjectivity. Though individuals committed to intellectual objectivity could be wrong in their theories, at least the validity of their arguments can tested by a set of agreed-upon objective standards within the academic community. As for someone committed to personal subjectivity, usually in the arts, there is no pretension that his endeavor holds any objective scientific or social truth. Rather, he’s about expressing beauty, depth, and/or sublimity as an artist or appreciating such qualities as scholar or critic. As wrong as Marxism may have been, it was part of the culture of intellectual objectivity, and its truth could be argued and proven or disproved according to economic data and observation. As for arts, music, and literature, they were supposed to be admired for their beauty, power, genius, or brilliance. They didn’t have to convey any kind of indisputable social, political, or intellectual truth. But then, possibly based on the theories of Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, the New Left after WWII began to fuse together elements of objective intellectualism with personal subjectivity. Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism did this by fusing individual subjectivity with the materialist objectivism of Marxism. As wrong as Marx was, at the very least he offered his theory as ‘scientific’, ‘materialist’, and ‘objective’. He contended that his views were correct and could be proven by data and discourse. But there was no need to prove the objective truth of anything according to New Leftism that prioritized the truth of something on the basis that it FELT right. It’s like the god-awful film TREE OF LIFE by Terrence Malick, who spent his entire life studying Martin Heidegger. According to TREE OF LIFE, the personal life of Malick and the objective history of the cosmos might as well be one. Thus, the new Liberal sensibility disassociated intellectualism from objectivity and fused it with subjectivism that was disassociated with the personal. So, rationality of intellectualism came to be fused with the power of one’s ideological subjectivity, and the dangerous product of this unholy marriage was the world-view that certain things had to be indisputably true because they felt right. If intellectualism is about rationality and the mind, it must be attached to logic and objectivity even if total objectivity is impossible. If subjectivity is about personal biases and passions, then it mustn’t be confused with objective truth. But what happens when the intellect is fused with the subjective? It means the rise of the New School of Thought that mistakes Feelings for Absolute Truths, and so, you have Political Correctness that is so emotionally crazed yet so intellectually dogmatic as if its ‘truths’ have the veracity of scientific formula. Today, most people in the Humanities, the Arts, the English Department, and Social Sciences are not chosen and promoted on the basis of objective intellectual truth or on the basis of personal subjectivity of creative genius or special insight but on the basis of the ability to spin their PC passions into pseudo-intellectual jargon-ese. The New School fails as both intellectualism and subjectivity since it offers no objective truth for the mind to aim for and no personal passion for the subjectivity to find a meaningful place in.) Granted, some new truths are so startling that they threaten to usurp destroy what had been held as true and sacred for as long as people can remember. Consider the discoveries of Galileo and Charles Darwin that overturned the some of the most sacred and core tenets of Western spirituality. But then, a truer conservative should favor truth since the basis of sound conservatism must favor truth over falsehood. (One problem with truth vs falsehood dichotomy is we can never know the absolute truth. We can only know the truer over the less true. Therefore, we mustn’t think that whatever we regard as the truth is the final truth. Another problem of truth is that psychological truth works differently from material truth. For example, suppose it’s true that a people have been programmed by evolution to work harder when told lies and work less hard if told the truth. Though truth would still be truth and lies would still be lies, it would also be true, psychologically at least, that the people work and get along best when they are told lies. If indeed so much of civilization and human well-being owes to our collective embrace of rosy lies, doesn’t the truth of human nature necessitate the telling of lies and suppression of certain truths? It’s one of those paradoxical questions that can never be resolved.) But then, not everything of conservative value has to do with objective facts and reality. They have to do with feeling, and this is a much thornier issue as there is no logical or rational solution to emotional attachments. Even so, the human mind is complex and rich enough to find sacred and poetic meaning through metaphor and imagination. For example, modern Japanese no longer literally believe that their island nation is inhabited by gods or that the Japanese people originated from the Sun gods. Even so, there is a sense of sacred attachment to the land via shared myths and memories that came to define the Japanese character, culture, and imagination. Besides, every nation is like a giant cemetery as all the bones of the ancestors are buried there. So, letting waves of foreigners invade one’s nation is like letting them desecrate the graves of one’s ancestors. Why else did Russians fight for the Motherland when Nazis came invading? The fact that white people no longer feel a sense of desecration when so many non-whites are flooding into the West indicates that they’ve been emotionally and spiritually severed from the spirits of their ancestors, not least because their minds and souls are possessed by the demonic phantoms of mass media controlled by Jews. In contrast, there are plenty of Palestinians who are still committed to fighting for their sacred ancestral land — where the bones of their forebears are buried — against the Zionist imperialists. At least when the Nazis dug up Jewish graves in Germany and Austria, they were removing Jewish bones from sacred European soil. But in Israel/Palestine, Zionist conquerors have desecrated and removed the graves of Palestinians who’d been living there for many centuries as majority inhabitants. There’s been so much hue and cry about how the Nazis removed Jewish graves, but there’s total silence about how Jewish communists played a major role in the destruction of tens of thousands of Churches in Russia & Ukraine or about how Jewish Zionists dug up & destroyed countless graves of Palestinians. And of course, Jews are hard at work in desecrating and removing the symbols of white Southern heritage and pride. Jews are doing to white Americans the same thing they did to Palestinians. Given how Jews have destroyed the sacred markers & memories of gentile populations for the sake of Jewish supremacism, it shouldn’t be difficult for us to understand why National Socialists felt as they did when they removed Jewish markers & memories from European soil. (It’s too bad that German National Socialists were ultimately evil and invaded the motherlands of other peoples such as the Poles and Russians.) When Jews take over a nation or society, they go all out to desecrate, defame, and destroy all the things that are sacred to the majority population so that it will lose the connection to its past, its identity, and its confidence, thereby coming under the control of Jews who bait them with ‘collective guilt’ and/or collective amnesia of inane pop culture centered around scum like Jay-Z and Lady Gaga.
At any rate, there are more than one way a sacred ‘truth’ can survive. We don’t have to literally believe in the Greek myths to be inspired by them, draw lessons from them, and gain insight about history, psychology, and human nature from them. And we don’t have to literally believe in stories in the Bible to derive profound truths from them. And a true conservative should be adaptable, adroit, and creative enough to absorb new truths while reconfiguring old ‘truths’ in order to make way for a better conservatism, which shouldn’t be an iron-cast dogma but a never-ending process. For this reason, a conservative needs to be familiar not only with religion and history but with arts and poetry, because when a matter of religion that had long been held as literal truth is discredited by science, its essence can still live on and hold meaning as literature, philosophy, and culture. The problem of rigid conservatives of the Religious Right is they can only feel and think in one mode, i.e. the Bible can only be true as religion, and therefore, anything and everything that threatens such an absolute truth should be derided, disregarded, or distorted to conform to Biblical dogma. Such folks cannot accept evolution as scientific fact nor find new ways to appreciate God in the spirit of poetry, history, philosophy, and wonderment. For them, the Bible is true in the most literal way, and everything, including science, must be molded and forced to confirm its Narrative. And so, the Christian Right holds onto such lunacies as Creationism. To be sure, there is no monolithic Christian Right, and there are indeed Christian Conservatives who do accept science & evolution and well understand the foolishness of taking every word of the Bible written thousands of years ago as literal truth. Not long ago, even Pat Robertson told Creationists to give it up and stop making such damned fools of themselves. He said facts and data are so much on the side of Earth being billions of years old and of evolution being true that it’s a fool’s game to keep insisting that all of history — since the beginning of time — goes back only 6,000 yrs.(Oddly enough to an extent, some of the biggest fans of Creationists are members of the pro-evolution crowd. Dumb, ignorant, and pig-headed Creationists provide an easy target for not-too-bright pro-evolution people who want to feel good about themselves. To understand every facet of evolution is difficult, and one has to know a lot about chemistry and all that stuff, and most pro-evolution people don’t have the brains, the time, nor the energy to learn all that, and so, the only way they can feel as part of the ‘smart crowd’ is by berating dummies outside the club. Indeed, the political psychology of belonging isn’t necessarily about mastering the tenets of one’s own club but about berating those deemed as hopeless outsiders. Consider all the religious people through the ages who were illiterate and knew very little about the Bible & theology; and yet, they could be judgmental and hostile against those who outside the faith. So, how could they have been so sure of the rightness of their faith if they didn’t know much about it themselves? It was because they conveniently contrasted themselves with heathens and non-believers. So, even if they were illiterate and couldn’t read the Bible, they could still feel superior by attacking and castigating those outside the faith. Same goes for evolution. Many pro-evolution people only know the basic tenets of evolution and have no clue as to the details. Some of them are even New Agers who mix evolution with kooky mysticism; or they have pop culture notion of evolution taken from stuff like STAR TREK. But they feel so smart because they lean on the all-too-easy crutch of contrasting themselves with Christian Right dummies who believe in the FLINTSTONES version of pre-history. Same goes for the ‘gay marriage’ crowd. Most pro-‘gay marriage’ people are pretty dumb and don’t know much about the true nature of homo power and its alliance with Jewish supremacists who’ve manipulated the masses via their control of media. They are so ignorant and stupid that many of them think 25% of Americans are ‘gay’ based on what they saw and heard in pop culture. But as long as they contrast themselves with the demented Westboro Church, they feel so smart and enlightened. So, just as dumb Creationists are the favorite target of not-too-bright pro-evolutionists, the Westboro church is a useful target for dimwit proponents of ‘gay marriage’ who’ve been duped by the Jew-run media. But then, American Conservatives also rely on cartoonish images of hard-left figures and crazy Muslims to make themselves feel moderate and sane.) Still, conservatives of a certain rigid mind-set can only think in one mode, and they are incapable of adapting to new realities or processing new discoveries for new paradigms.
But the truer kind of conservative relishes new findings since his or her conservatism is always about improving itself, and there can be no improvement unless old truths are challenged and re-thought by the perspectives, new findings, new discoveries, and new speculations.
Besides, even if a people were to do nothing but contemplate about received wisdom and old truths, they are practicing some degree of liberalism because they might stumble upon some new insight about something old. Suppose you did nothing but look at the same painting day in and day out for a full year. The chances are you will not only see the same painting over and over but begin to notice new & different things in the same painting with each viewing. You will realize that the ‘same painting’ is actually ‘many different paintings’ because there’s always something new to discover in it. Also, there are many ways of thinking about the painting: as art, as cultural product, as spiritual statement, as a system of hidden clues, etc. After all, consider the amount of scholarship on Shakespeare that has accumulated over the years. Every scholar of every generation read the same plays but found something new, something different, something original. In this sense, pre-modern Jewish culture and history was both profoundly conservative and profoundly liberal. While Jews were revisiting the old texts over and over and over, they were finding new ways of approaching, understanding, and interpreting them in every successive generation. Indeed, one can appreciate the old in new ways, and one can depreciate the new in old ways. Consider the many ways in which the works of Bob Dylan — which is now part of ‘old Rock music’ — have been appreciated, understood, and reevaluated since the 1960s. Though every generation of scholars return to the same music by Dylan, they keep finding new meanings in what has become the sacred text of Rock.
On the other hand, when the cult of the New is everywhere and its manifestations are so over-abundant, we’ve become so accustomed to the preponderance of the New that we treat them as the ‘new old’ or ‘instant old’. There are so many new works of art, music, films, books, and etc. being produced every week that they hardly raise an eyebrow, and we take it for granted that there must be lots of ‘radical’ artists out there doing ‘something new’. Of course, it doesn’t help that much of the new — even or especially those with the ‘radical’ label — tend to be lackluster and mere recycling of something that’s "been there, done that" a million times. In the long run, a truly great work, no matter how old, is endlessly new, whereas a frivolous & trivial work, no matter how new, becomes old really fast. There is something eternally mysterious about true greatness, which is why certain works like the Bible and the plays of Shakespeare are startling to every generation, to every scholar who finds new meaning in them. This is why nearly all of Stanley Kubrick’s films will continue to fascinate as long as cinema exists, whereas nearly all of Jean-Luc Godard’s films since the late 60s will be forgotten despite the cult status he enjoys in the hipster or would-be-radical cinephile community. Despite endless praise from ‘radical’ intellectuals or controversies surrounding something like HAIL MARY, who really cares about any Godard film since the late 60s? Each may have been hailed as ‘radically new’ or ‘revolutionary’ or ‘twenty years ahead of its time’ or whatever, but they all seem so trivial now, the silly antics of a solipsist recording his neurosis on the big screen, indeed as if he’s so preciously important that we should pay heed to his brilliance and wisdom even when he has no idea what’s going inside his head. Granted, something — especially in the arts — doesn’t have to be clear or rational to be of value — if anything, excessive clarity can undermine the mystery of creativity and vision — , and we can appreciate how Godard was less trying to present fully formed ideas than offering glimpses of the process by which fragments of art, history, philosophy, and cinema were being pieced together into some kind of puzzle or mosaic that, whether true or not, served as an invitation to thought. Even so, there are artful ways and drearily confused ways of doing this, and Godard’s morbidly sullen & sour navel-gazing since the late 60s has tried surely tried our patience. Opaque at best, we wonder if his hide-and-seek antics are merely to conceal the fact that he has nothing to say or show. The proper way to do such — if it’s worth doing at all — is F FOR FAKE by Orson Welles and SANS SOLEIL by Chris Marker that, even though confounding, confirm the oddities and originality of creative insight and gamesmanship.(To be fair to Godard, he hasn’t really been into the fetish for the ‘new’ for quite some time. Indeed, his approach since the 1970s seems more monastic and near-Platonic, as if he meditating inside his own cave of the divine light. Though still engaged with worldly politics on occasion in films like NOTRE MUSIQUE, there’s no sense of urgency, as if all his thoughts and emotions are taking place on a bed inside a room. In this sense, one might say Godard has been a forerunner of all those bedroom radicals you see on youtube who never seem to leave their rooms but pontificate endlessly about everything while staring into webcams.)
Anyway, the ultimate key to art isn’t whether something is new or not new, not least because everything new becomes old very fast. The question is whether it has the organic power to take root and grow. Generally speaking, a work of art is most powerful when it simultaneously makes sense and remains mysterious. If something makes total sense, there’s nothing more to think about. If something makes no sense, there’s no way for us to enter its domain. In this, the rules of art aren’t all that different from the laws of nature as explained by Carl Sagan:
"If we lived on a planet where nothing ever changed, there would be little to do. There would be nothing to figure out. There would be no impetus for science. And if we lived in an unpredictable world, where things changed in random or very complex ways, we would not be able to figure things out. But we live in an in-between universe, where things change, but according to patterns, rules, or as we call them, laws of nature. If I throw a stick up in the air, it always falls down. If the sun sets in the west, it always rises again the next morning in the east. And so it becomes possible to figure things out. We can do science, and with it we can improve our lives." Just as God or the Big Bang created a universe that is both strange/mysterious and discernible/orderly, an artist has the divine-like power to create his own universe, and the universe he creates needs the balance of the strange and the familiar, of the insurmountable and the navigable, in order to both engage us and challenge us. This is why stuff by Norman Rockwell bores us because it’s all too familiar, and it’s also why much of Modern Art fail to captivate us because they just seem pointless and messy, parts of failed stillborn universes that makes little or no sense at all. This is why, in the long run, Jean Sibelius has come to tower above most modern music composers who are being relegated to the dustbin of history.
Sibelius’ symphonies have a ring of familiarity to lovers of classical music, but they also plumb the depths of moods and emotions far beyond the reach of most classical music or any other kind of music. This is also why Sam Peckinpah’s THE WILD BUNCH, Ingmar Bergman’s PERSONA, and Alain Resnais’s MURIEL are great above and beyond mere greatness. It’s less special to make a work that is wholly recognizable and integral, however pleasing and expert as it may be. Of course, there’s no reason to knock such a work if it delivers what it set out to deliver, and it’s no easy mean feat to create a work of art where everything falls into place.
Actually, the easiest thing in the world is to make something that makes no sense at all and tag it with the ‘radical’ label, and this explains why so many Art Schools across the country are filled with no-talents who lean on the crutch of ‘radicalism’ to justify their paltry no-talent as ‘original’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘subversive’, and etc. Some even like to pontificate how ‘profound’ their works are simply on the basis of their nonsensicality. You see, they are so profound that they have X-ray or Infra-red eyes that can see profundity where most people just see stupidity and boredom.. It’s no wonder that so many young people in the art community think JEANNE DIELMAN by the insipid Chantal Akerman is a great ‘radical’ film. How convenient and self-serving for students of film and art to hold such a view. After all, while almost no one can make a film as great as CITIZEN KANE, BARRY LYNDON, TAXI DRIVER, and SEVEN SAMURAI, just about anyone can make a film like JEANNE DIELMAN and make excuses for its greatness through pseudo-intellectual sophistry of the most laughable kind — of course, so often as is the case, those who most ardently and tirelessly spout this kind of joke don’t get the joke. The Akerman fixation among the art-house crowd is a paradox. On the one hand, she is lauded as one of the most difficult and intellectual directors, but on the other hand, just about ANYONE can make the kind of films she does. So, you can have the cake and eat it too. You can emulate Akerman and make totally boring films but then pat yourself on the back as being so ‘intellectual’ and ‘profound’. But to make a film like LOS OLVIDADOS, VERTIGO, JULES AND JIM, ALPHAVILLE, LA JETEE, MEAN STREETS, THE GODFATHER, HUSBANDS, THX 1138, SEVEN BEAUTIES, EXCALIBUR, THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY, RESERVOIR DOGS, DAZED AND CONFUSED, L’APPARTEMENT, TIME REGAINED, MULHOLLAND DR, TWILIGHT: NEW MOON, and KINGS OF SUMMER, that is a real challenge, and of course, most art/film students aren’t up to the challenge, and so, they lean on the crutch of Akerman who makes Ed Wood look like a genius. But
Akermania is to be expected in a world of homomania where ‘millennial’ dummies cannot tell the difference the value of real sex and true marriage AND homo ‘sex’ and ‘gay marriage’. Jewish-homo neuroses are supposed to be the basis of our social, moral, and aesthetic values. Popularize Akermania into mainstream culture, and you have the utterly worthless spectacle of GIRLS by Lena Dunham.
 |
Chantal Akerman the Lesbian-Marxist-Jewish-Feminist Pseudo-Intellectual Whore. Wow, She's
Sooooo 'Radical'. |
At any rate, the truest liberals are also profoundly conservative since they understand the need to preserve, appreciate, learn from, and draw inspiration from the past. While trashy ‘radicals’ are only interested in the past to dig up ‘dead white males’ to spit on them — and too many of their ilk dot the academic landscape that’s been turned into a vengeful theme park in the spirit of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE — , truer liberals have a much richer and more complex relationship with the past. To the extent that more American ‘liberals’ than American ‘conservatives’ are interested in history, literature, classic studies, art, and music, they may actually be better conservatives in many aspects. Too many American Conservatives yammer about preserving Western heritage but know far less than many liberals do. Of course, most people who call themselves ‘Liberals’ and ‘Progressives’ today are just as ignorant, insipid, and stupid as most people who go by the label of ‘Conservative’, but because of the cult of intellectualism and creativity on the liberal side, many more American ‘liberals’ aspire toward cultural and academic matters. Suppose there are two people of equally average IQ and ability, but one happens to embrace the cult of books while the other embraces the cult of guns. Even though the book cultist, being of limited IQ and ability, won’t get much more out of books/culture than the gun cultist might if he so tried, he will at least possess and exercise an interest that will make him more aware of ideas, thoughts, and expressions of people of higher intelligence and creativity. If the book cultist listens to NPR while the gun-cultist listens to Rush Limbaugh, the former will get more in the way of ideas and culture, even if there’s no guarantee that exposure to such will make him more intelligent than the gun cultist. But then, innate intelligence isn’t everything as much of the meaning of life for people of average intelligence comes from exposure to people and ideas of higher intelligence and value. Liberals on average may be no more innately intelligent than Conservatives, but they are more into the Exposure to Intelligent Things. It’s like if there are two dumb black guys, and if one at least tries to appreciate some art and culture beyond stuff-in-da-hood while the other’s just happy rap and jive with his pants hanging low, the former is going to be a more interesting person even if not necessarily more intelligent than the rapping mofo.
So, even though most Liberals are pretty dumb and shallow — and won’t get much out of arts, culture, books, and etc. — their fetish for the creative side of life at least brings about increased contact with higher and more complex thoughts. They become more aware of talent, insight, and genius beyond what exists in comfort zone of conventionality. In contrast, a lot of American conservatives have no use for anything that pricks the bubble of their comfort zone, and so, they remain intellectually and culturally genetic. Of course, there are high brow conservatives who, though generally wary of overly Modernist or Avant-garde stuff, do have a considerable appreciation of traditional arts, literature, and history. They find cultural meaning in something higher than NASCAR, gun collecting, attending feely-good dimwit Evangelical Churches, and etc. Even so, it is a cult of comfort since such conservative snobs value art and culture more for status reasons, moral righteousness, or matters of prestige than out of genuine interest or passion.
It was in the cause of waging war against such ‘bourgeois’ Culture of Comfort that some of the more radical ‘progressives’ decided to wage war on the entire cultural heritage of the West. Anything that gave comfort to the enemy had to have been bad and had to be destroyed. For the sake of Progress and Revolution, mankind must be made to reject all that is ‘comfortable’ and ‘bourgeois’ and embrace all that is difficult, challenging, and subversive.
Whatever value such radical attitudes may have had as theory, the truth is that radicals found their own kind of insular comfort in the conceit of revolution and ‘resistance’. It is, after all, pretty comforting to attain tenure in colleges, live in your own intellectual bubble, feel assured that you know more than anyone else, and hang around only those who pat your back as you pat theirs. Indeed, many university departments are little more than soft beds for childish egos sucking on their thumbs of moral indignation and intellectual narcissism. Those who make the most noise about fighting ‘bourgeois comfort’ live in a world of nothing but ‘bourgeois comfort’ wrapped in ‘radical’ packaging. Same goes for the art world with its curators, favored ‘artists’, buyers and sellers, ‘experts’, and critics.
In contrast, the truer liberals combine the best of conservatism and liberalism. They study the past not for comfort — as highbrow conservatives like Heather MacDonald do — but to be challenged and to challenge it in turn. They know the best of the past is always discomfiting, a point often overlooked by both Conservatives and ‘radical Liberals’. For many highbrow conservatives, past knowledge is all about beauty, wisdom, nobility, dignity, and etc. when, in fact, the great thinkers and works of the past are also thorny, difficult, offensive, subversive, dangerous, and disturbing. Conservative attitude toward the past too often Bowdlerizes everything and smooths out the edges to create the impression of great noble ideas/visions leading the way and holding the door for successive ones when, in fact, the history of art and culture has been as problematic, tumultuous, and embittered as the history of kings and princes in their perpetual rises and falls; smooth successions of power were exceptions than the rule.
Similarly, too many ‘radical Liberals’ tend to see all of Western heritage as nothing but a single thread of intellectual/political conspiracy of white male patriarchy with the same objective, which is ‘racism-sexism-imperialism-blah-blah-blah’. Such fools are often unaware of the fact that even their hostile and ‘radical’ attitudes are the products of Western developments.
The Conservative mind tends to be so respectful of Great Thinkers like Aristotle that it would rather just listen and agree with the master than further the conversation of ideas introduced by the master. (Conservatism would do better to develop a cult of ‘conversatism’. Instead, the Conservative mind prefers for one side to do all talking and the other side to do all the listening. Even among populist Conservatives, the Evangelical church and talk radio formats have one guy doing most of the talking while everyone else just listens or says ‘ditto’. In contrast, much of NPR is set up as a form of conversation and exchange of ideas, even though certain views and thoughts are taboo according to PC.) The assumption follows that since the master was so great, he must have been right about everything, and so, all that’s left for us to do is to admire with his wisdom and watch what we say lest it might challenge the master’s eternal wisdom.
But then, the Radical-Liberal mind is the sort that would have no use for Aristotle at all because he was a ‘racist-sexist-imperialist-blah-blah-blah’ white male. (To be sure, with all this homomania in recent years, one thing about Ancient Greece that is praiseworthy to modern Liberals is the ‘tolerance’ for homosexuality, even though it involved pederasty and even forced homosexual rites-of-passage in places like Sparta.) In a way, the Radical-Liberal attitude about the Western Past is also a form of comfort-seeking because one need not think much about Western Civilization once it’s been reduced to cartoonish bad guys of the ‘racism-sexism-homophobia-and-blah-blah-blah’ school.
But of course, such glib and smug attitudes exist all across the spectrum. So, many Conservatives dismiss all of Freud on the basis of his one anti-gentile remark. Though Susan Sontag wrote some remarkable essays about arts and culture in the 60s and 70s, many in the so-called ‘alternative rigiht’-sphere dismiss her as the woman who referred to the white race as the ‘cancer of history’. Same stupidity is to be found on the Left — and of course, Sontag’s imbecile statement about white people was of that ilk. Though there’s much power, beauty, and even truth in D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION, the entire work — and even the director himself — has been reduced to ‘racism’. Furthermore, it’s as if there’s something morally and mentally wrong with white folks being critical and fearful of blacks who are biologically stronger, more aggressive, and very destructive of civilizational modes of existence. It’s so comforting to dismiss everything about something or someone you don’t like.
 |
| Great Noble White Man Saves White Woman from a Ghastly Negro |
So, Jews endlessly try to debunk all of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy by constantly hammering home the point about Heidegger’s Nazi sympathies. And T.S. Eliot has also come under fire for as long as we can remember because he wrote some poetry where the Jew was the object of ridicule, mockery, and anxiety — indeed, as if Jewish writers, dramatists, film-makers, song-writers, and etc. have never written passages or verses that were critical, condemnatory, or damning of gentiles. (It’s natural and wonderful for Jews to critique, mock, demean, and defame others, but if gentiles do it to Jews, it’s a case of mental illness or some ‘irrational’ derangement. Countless examples of Jewish hostility toward gentiles are never associated with Jewish Bolshevik mass killing of Christian Slavs or with the Nakba — the massive ethnic expulsion and terrorization of the Palestinian population — , but even the slightest criticism of Jews by gentiles is associated with the Holocaust. Perhaps, Jews feel that their mockery of gentiles is more acceptable since Jews mock themselves as well as they mock others — as in Woody Allen movies and Philip Roth’s PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT — whereas gentiles, especially those of Northern European disposition, tended to sneer at Jews as if they themselves were superior in breeding and manners. In other words, Jews tore other down to bring them down to their level, whereas Northern European snobs stuck up their noses at Jews to remain high and mighty above the others. Marx Brothers, for example, tore at Anglo-American types, but they didn’t pretend to be nobler and more dignified than their rivals/enemies; if anything, they wallowed in their lowliness. Howard Stern pulls the same shtick. Thus, one could argue that Jewish hostility has been more egalitarian in nature for it dragged the high down to the low, whereas Anglo/American hostility was more elitist in seeking to maintain its prestige and superior status over others, including Jews. But then, Jews didn’t merely fight with vulgarity but with wit, and the power of wit made them immensely powerful and much more richer than the gentiles, Wasps included. So, Jewish vulgarity and pushiness, which had been once been justified as ‘egalitarian’ weapons of power against the privilege of Wasp elites, are now weapons of Jewish supremacism and elite privilege. Though Jews are now on top, they still act in the mode of Lower East Side Jews trying to tear the Wasps down. It’s like Jews are pummeling the hell out of Palestinians and killing so many women and children but still morally pontificating like they are trying to prevent another Holocaust of the Jews. Jews with modern tanks and big banks see themselves as famished Holocaust victims, and they see Palestinian children with slingshots as the New Nazis. Twisted.)
To an extent, I do understand the nature of Jewish fears about talent and morality. There’s something about great talent and genius that blinds our moral sense. Indeed, consider the number of people who are willing to forgive or ignore what Roman Polanski did to the 12 yr old girl because he’s supposed to be a great artist. Chinese forgive Mao of his crimes, and Americans prefer to overlook the foulness of the true MLK. And consider all the bad behavior of Rock stars and rappers that have been overlooked because they’re supposed to be cool and masterful. And so many great athletes got away with bad behavior too. There’s something about human nature that is so awed by certain talents, abilities, and powers that we are likely to forgive the sins of god-men. This is, of course, even truer of God and gods themselves. Consider the Jewish concept of God. Since God is supposed to be so great, so powerful, and so awesome, all of His mistakes and ‘sins’ have been swept under the rug, and He’s been declared as ‘perfect’. It’s the paradox of the worship of power. When we look upon something or someone of great power, we are so much in awe that we are willing to forgive its/his flaws and mistakes — and even grave crimes — and hail it/him as absolutely super-duper. And yet, if we come to believe in something/someone as totally great, there arises the assumption that it/he must be perfect and that we have every right to expect it/he to be perfect. So, its great power made us blind to its imperfections, but in having created the illusion of its invincibility and awesomeness, we expect and even demand it to be perfect. And when our expectations fall short, we become frustrated. It’s one of the main themes of the Book of Job. In a way, God is the tyrant, but in another way, He is the victim of our expectations of Him to be perfect, something He cannot fulfill — except in the most convoluted meta-intellectual-spiritual way.
Anyway, given the way of human nature to overlook moral failings when confronted with greatness, Jews are especially troubled by gentiles of genius who didn’t like Jews. It’s one thing for no-talents and hacks to have been anti-Jewish. With them, Jews can easily associate ‘antisemitism’ with lack of talent, mental problems, inferiority, and stupidity. But what about cases where men of great talent and even genius were anti-Jewish? Their talents and genius may have been so great that their admirers might overlook the ‘antisemitism’. Worse, the admirers might apologize for the ‘antisemitism’ or even come to empathize and then sympathize with it. And so, Jews tirelessly attack men of genius who didn’t like Jews for such figures undermine the preferred Narrative that ‘antisemitism’ is the mind-set of only the stupid, the crazy, the demented, and the retarded.
Now, given the fact that plenty of admirers of Martin Heidegger learned from his philosophy without absorbing his Nazi sympathies would indicate that thoughtful people can be selective and discerning in their analyses, but Jews are relentless in their attack due to their paranoid nature and fearfulness that unless gentiles are constantly reminded of the ‘evils’ of ‘antisemitism’, they might slip back into ‘feverish’ anti-Jewish mode. But then, what Jews consider to be ‘antisemitic’ could be just about ANY critical or honest assessment of Jewish power, privilege, influence, history, and culture. Indeed, what Jews fear most isn’t so much ‘antisemitic’ lies — most people in the West are too educated to fall for something like THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION — but counter-Jewish truths as expressed by scholars such as Stephan Walt and John Mearsheimer. Jews know themselves to be immensely powerful and privileged — and to have done spectacularly corrupt things and abused power politically and financially — , and if Americans were ever to get into the habit of speaking truth to Jewish power — especially honestly and responsibly — it can be very damaging to Jewish power and influence. And so, Jews are adamant in their association of ANY criticism of Jewish power with the kind of crazy Jew-hatred that may have existed during the Middle Ages and in Nazi Germany.
Anyway, while the combination of conservatism and liberalism is preferable to mere conservatism— and truest liberals are indeed both conservative and liberal for they understand that new thoughts grow out of old ones — , it would nevertheless still be wrong to assume that conservatism alone doesn’t require thought and intellectual involvement. True conservatives, as opposed to mere conventionals, are like librarians who must remember, preserve, and organize the vast troves handed down from the past. Even if one were to produce nothing new or original, grappling with the vastness of cultural/intellectual inheritance requires a great deal of commitment in time and resources, which is why, in traditional societies, there were entire categories of people entirely devoted to reading, copying, and preserving the ideas, wisdom, and achievements of the past. Furthermore, conservatism isn’t about preserving everything but about preserving the most essential, meaningful, sensible, and useful as the core truths and values of the society. Thus, conservatism must decide which items go in the back shelves and basement archives and which items remain as part of the core collection. As this requires much ongoing debate about canonical matters, it can be intellectually very challenging. The Torah is the product of many debates and arguments about what should be included and what should be excluded from the Sacred text. Also, there is the understanding among conservatives that everything old is new again to the next generation. It doesn’t matter if something is 100 or 1000 yrs. Old books are met with fresh eyes.
To be sure, we wouldn’t want everyone to be a full-blown conservative buried in the scholarship of the past since most people have to actually do things in life. If everyone was a librarian or Talmudic scholar, who would farm the fields, drive the trucks, treat the patients, deliver the mail, and etc? So, the most that most people have time and energy for is to be conventionals with some degree of conservative respect for the past. So, we rely on the experts to maintain the libraries and archives; we rely on scholars, academics, and journalists to write the books and articles that, time and time again, remind us of where we came from.
Also, there’s a positive side to being a ‘conventional’ since conventionality, at its best, can be the living, practical, and most relevant part of conservatism(and liberalism). After all, for a doctor to be a doctor, he has to be knowledgeable of the latest techniques and expertise in medicine. He doesn’t have to know — and can’t possibly know — all of the history of medicine, especially concerning theories and treatments that have long been discredited. (Indeed, many overly conservative cultures fell behind and stagnated because the best-and-the-brightest spent an inordinate amount of time studying and mastering interesting but ultimately useless knowledge of the past. While there was certainly value to learning Greek and Latin in American universities in the 19th century, it also robbed students of time and energy to learn something more relevant and useful. And traditional Chinese education emphasized mastering old Confucian texts over all else. All such practices were not without merit, but they ‘wasted’ the talents of the smartest on knowledge that was no longer so relevant or useful for the progress of mankind. Besides, if the whole point of Classical Culture of the Greeks and Latins were to be bold and think new ideas, perhaps the truer way of honoring the great Greeks and Romans of the past was to look more to the future than to the past. Men like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were pondering ideas no one had thought before, not reverentially gazing at the past. If that was their secret, then it made more sense for modern students to focus more on new possibilities than old certainties. If you want to really work in the spirit of Hippocrates, study new medicine than study Ancient Greek medicine. Besides, you don’t have to read the ancient texts in Greek or Latin to get the gist of their ideas.) The modern doctor must be conventionally mindful of the current medical technology. And yet, because the current technology would not exist if not for the entire history of trial-and-error in medicine that goes back thousands of years, all of the past is embedded in the conventionality of the present. It’s like we in the here-and-now must deal with the problems and issues of here-and-now — instead of spending all our time thinking of our childhood, past memories, past achievements and mistakes, and etc. — , and yet, we in the here-and-now are the product of all that had happened to us in the past.
The conventional could also be the more practical side of liberalism. After all, there are new ideas and theories being cooked up all the time, yet we cannot apply every new idea to reality since there are too many of them and most will prove to be useless at any rate. And yet, some new ideas turn out to be useful enough and become part of conventionality. The good thing about conventional things is they’ve been tested in reality through experience; they are the product of theory having been tested, smoothed-around-the-edges, and/or improved through great deal of practice in the real world. In every enterprise and endeavor, some people come up with new ideas and proposals, many of which are tested, and the ones that work better are altered and improved by experience and trial-and-error, and the end result becomes part of the New Conventional.
Of course, conventionality has made negative side too. It could be the product of craven compromise, routine and lazy way of doing things, preference of mediocrity over excellence, the bureaucratic over the inspired, the collective over individualistic, the static over the dynamic, a matter of conformism than of conviction. Sometimes, the conventional becomes a mindless prejudice of either Conservative or Liberal disposition. Traditional Indian society became so accustomed to the caste system that no one dared to question its social usefulness or moral value before the arrival of universalist Muslims and British Imperialists — though, to be sure, Buddha, long before Jesus, did reject the caste system on moral and spiritual grounds even if his influence in India proved to be minimal as Hindu customs were far too deeply entrenched to be uprooted by a pacifist cult. Such were the dangers of conservative conventionality.
But then, the conventional can become molded into a Liberal prejudice that comes to be accepted without thought and comes to be shielded by an iron taboo that batters away at anyone and anything that contradicts the Conventional Liberal Wisdom. In some ways, Liberal prejudice can be even more dangerous precisely because it’s peddled as Anti-Prejudice, just like Liberal intolerance is sold as Tolerance. For example, the notion that ‘race is just a social construct’ was promoted and disseminated in the name of fighting ‘racial prejudice’, but it turned out to be just another form of prejudice as it has clamped down on anyone who dared to open up the subject to debate. To be prejudicial means to accept something on the basis of emotions of righteousness, correctness, and sacredness than on the basis of openness, free debate, new inquiry, and reasoned exchange of ideas. As an
article by Robert Weissberg well illustrates, ‘anti-racism’ has become a kind of ideological, intellectual, cultural, moral, and even ‘spiritual’ prejudice that cannot be questioned in respectable society. According to Liberal and even mainstream Conservative ideological/moral prejudice,
there can be no room for debate and discussion on racial matters except for the politically correct one permitted by the Liberal elites, many of whom are globalist Jews of course.
Prejudice has less to do with any particular ideology than with a state of mind that is so sure of its own rightness or correctness that it shuts its own ears and shuts the mouths of those who dare to speak their own truths that don’t conform to Conventional Wisdom. In our world, the PC police that pretends to uphold tolerance happens to be very intolerant.
Granted, there is some degree of validity to the intolerance of the intolerable, at least in specific areas of expertise. For example, while homos in colleges and the government — with the backing of Jews — have become the new bigots or buggots, it would be absurd for conservatives to defend the rights of someone at work to openly say that all homosexuals should be killed, flayed, fried, and fed to wild dogs. While we need more discussion about Jewish power, we can understand why a school would not want to hire a history teacher who wants to teach kids to sing "Horst Wessel" and crack jokes about how fun it was to kill countless Jews during World War II. While we should defend the freedom of speech for every person, every institution and organization have their own rules of conduct.
Also, there are indeed certain truths that have been established as so true that it makes no sense for an institution to admit moronic individuals who want to start up the debate all over again. For example, while there was a lively and interesting debate between evolutionists and Creationists in the 19th century, scientific truth has come down totally on the side of evolutionists, and it would be just a waste of time for the scientific community to debate as to whether Earth is 4.5 billion yrs old or 6,000 yrs old, as to whether life-forms can evolve or are immutable once God created and designed them. While everyone should have the right to believe in Creationism and argue in its favor in his or her personal life or at church, it’s understandable why a biology department will not want to hire someone who favors Creationism over evolution-ism because such willful ignorance goes against the very meaning and purpose of science.
But there are still issues where the debate and discussion are far from over, and it’s downright arrogant and indeed prejudicial on the part of the Liberal community to say the debate is over about, for example, ‘global warming’. If it is truly over, why was the terminology changed to ‘climate change’? I’m totally willing to believe that man-made carbon emissions may be altering the global climate in some ways that may even be dire, but climate science is, as yet, far from well-understood, and it’s the bogus for one side to say the debate is all over and everyone must toe its party line or else. Indeed, weren’t we told that temperature would keep climbing up and up about 20 yrs ago? And yet, there have been long stretches when global temperature held steady or even dipped in many parts of the world. So, what is going on? At this point, we don’t know all the answers, but one thing is for sure: the debate is NOT over.
Even more bogus is the notion that the debate about ‘gay marriage’ is all over, and that the homo side has won. For one thing, there was no real debate and discussion since the Jew-run media, academia, and government have been suppressing, purging, destroying, and blacklisting anyone who reject the homo agenda. Indeed, such people are not hired or refused promotion. And they’ve been silenced with threats of dismissal. Also, Jews bought off the opposition by promising goodies to Republican politicians and Conservative big shots — like Rush Limbaugh — if they went easy on the homo issue. Either they accept the prizes or they get punished economically with reduced donations or advertising fees. If the piggish likes of Limbaugh had to choose between millions in profits and genuine conservative values, what do you think they will choose? They are craven pigs despite all the bluster and big talk. Also, if the homo agenda really wanted an honest debate, why did they use so much of political pressure — as well as political correctness — to silence the opposition? Why did it employ the power of media to defame the defenders of true marriage by associating them with Westboro church(which the Jew-run media promoted as the face of opposition to the homo agenda)? Why did it employ the power o mindless propaganda that conflated homosexuality with ‘rainbow’ colors and clean-cut ‘new normal’ model homo characters in movies and TV? Indeed, if the homo agenda really wanted to educate us and have a honest discussion about homosexuality in an open way, shouldn’t it have focused on the biological nature of homosexuality that involves fecal penetration among men? Shouldn’t we have discussed the feasibility of the notion that parents are just a social construct and that ‘gay parents’,
despite the fact that homosexuality cannot produce a single life, are just as valid as parental figures as real parents? Doesn’t such an outlook reduce humans to animals in a zoo or to dogs/cats? We routinely take the offsprings of animals and raise them ourselves as pets or zoo specimen, but we have been loathe to treat humans the same way. And yet, with all this homomania, we are moving in such a direction. If we believe that ‘gay parents’ are just as valid as real parents despite the fact that ‘gay parents’ cannot produce any life through ‘gay sex’, then
we are effectively saying that ‘gay parents’ should be able to adopt or buy children in the way that humans buy puppies or kittens or in the way that zoo-personnel take the offsprings from their natural mothers and raise them under human care. If we’ve become so enamored of homos as a special people — along with Jews — whose approval we must strive to win in order for us to be ‘good people’, then we will have to reduce the morality of parenthood into a libertarian ‘philosophy’ where everything and even every person is a commodity and up for sale to the highest bidder. And yet, we are told that the debate about ‘gay marriage’ is over, and there is nothing more to be discussed. It is the height of Liberal arrogance and prejudice that they now think this way. The really sick thing is that so many people are so blind to their own prejudice because of the conceit of ‘progress’. Though the idea of ‘gay marriage’ should be obvious as a form of deception and decadence to any sane person, so many Americans see it as a path to becoming ‘more evolved’, even to the point of justifying a new ‘cold war’ with Russia, a nation that refuses to allow homos to have a ‘gay pride’ parade, which, of course, is really just a Jewish-globalist victory parade since the homo agenda is a Jewish-funded proxy to undermine the values and identities of gentile nations so as to butter them up for Jewish alien-minority takeover. (Some homos defend ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay adoption’ on the basis that children raised by ‘gay parents’ seem to be doing better than kids raised by straight parents. But such studies are bogus because rules of adoption requires adopters to be reasonably affluent, well-educated, and emotionally stable whereas just about any piece of turd can have a child the straight way. A trashy and nasty homo will not be allowed to adopt a child, whereas a trashy and nasty straight person can have a child through the natural way. Only well-educated and affluent homos will be allowed to adopt children, and therefore, even though the arrangement is morally sick, the homo ‘parents’ will still be able to provide the kids with plenty of food, books, culture, and education. In contrast, even some trashy black bitchass ho can have children out of wedlock with some punkass jigger-jiver fool. Now, if we were to compare children adopted by affluent homos and those by affluent straight couples, we are likely to get a clearer and more meaningful picture. So, the recent study doesn’t prove at all that ‘homo parenting’ is better but only proves that well-educated and affluent guardians or ‘parents’ can provide a more socially and economically stable environment for the children than could the dumb trashy people who have children just by jumping into bed. It’s a class issue than an ass issue.)
Instead of seeing the world in terms of conservatism vs liberalism, we need to think in terms of ‘conserveralism’. After all, even the most ardent conservative should be conscious of the fact that the past isn’t just a single narrative but a story of change and growth. Suppose a conservative is an heir to a tradition that spans 1000 yrs. He needs to ask why and how the change and development of ideas occurred over that long period. He needs to ask why some periods were more stable and static. He must also ask the more important question: why were some periods more dynamic and innovative? It was because people at certain times were open to new ideas and the possibility of progress and change. And that was why his civilization grew and developed over 1000 yrs.
But suppose 500 yrs ago, arch-conservatives decided there was nothing more to be learned as everything that could/should be known has come to be known and it’s the End of History.
Under such conditions, the great changes and progress of the latter half of the millennium would have been negated under the iron-heel of arch-conservatives. So, liberalism is of great value.
And yet, truer liberals have a great appreciation of the past since one cannot move forward without looking backward. As stated earlier, even the present and up-to-date conventions are the products of past development, i.e. the medical and communication technology that we use today are the end-products of a long developments in those fields. So, even if today’s doctors and smart phone makers don’t know most details about past technology, the current technology wouldn’t exist if not for the fact of developments of past technology.
Also, conservatives mustn’t act as if they own the Past because they really own and insist on only a selective remembrance of the past, which is inevitably filled with myths, legends, and distortions. After all, even the most knowledgeable conservative cannot know everything about the past, and he has his own personal prejudices and biases. Furthermore, he knows full well that the morale, confidence, and conviction of his people will rely on how the past is shaped to make his people feel more positive than negative about themselves. After all, why would any society or culture bother to fight for its survival, power, and rights if most people were made to feel shame and horror about their own history and heritage? So, he will selectively remember certain parts of the past while de-emphasizing others to form a Narrative that is most useful to his people.
So, Southern Anglo-American historians of the Old South tended to focus on the white gentry class’s ‘gentle paternalism’ over the blacks — as slaves or as free men denied equality under the law — while ignoring or suppressing the darker side of white rule over blacks. Similarly, Zionist patriots in Israel over the decades suppressed and/or ignored the fact of Nakba, the ethnic expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians from their homeland in the name of Manischewitz Destiny. And the Chinese Communist Party has its own ‘conservative’ view of history where the positive achievements of Mao and the Party rule are glorified while the horrible things are swept under the rug. And consider the arch-conservative orangutan leader in THE PLANET OF THE APES who tries to bury certain facts about the past to support the official narrative that denies that humans ever ruled the planet before apes took over. Such conservatism is understandable and, to a degree, necessary because a culture/civilization doesn’t survive on truth or morality alone but on a collective sense of destiny and righteousness.
Still, if truer conservatism is about an appreciation of the truths about the past, many conservatives are hardly conservative in that sense because they’d rather stick to narratives that offer cultural and emotional comfort than cold splashes of inconvenient truths. They aren’t so much interested in the actual past — with its endless facets and infinite details — than in a story of the past that best supports their right to power and glory. In this, all people are ‘conservative’ in a limited and self-serving way. Jews wanna remember only those parts of the past that make them out to be a wise and wonderful people misunderstood and mistreated by mentally deranged ‘antisemitic’ goyim; and blacks only focus on white oppression of blacks while conveniently ignoring the fact that black Africans have been treating each other worse than chimpanzees and baboons treat one another. More often than, conservatism is about preserving a certain narrative about the past than having a real interest in the genuine past. And of course, to some degree, conservatism has no choice but to work in the way it does since the past is so vast, deep, and expansive — as well as so completely gone and irretrievable — that it’s impossible for anyone, even the most intelligent and studious person, to know everything about it. Cinema is only a little over than a hundred years old, but it’s impossible for anyone to know about all the films ever made. Consider how much more difficult it would be to be an expert on literary history, especially as so much of world literature still remain untranslated, and besides, translation fails the convey so much of the essence of the original culture. So, we rely on simplified narratives, some degree of myth-making, and an uncertain canon of what has been judged by the ‘best and the brightest’ as the most important, significant, and indispensable figures, ideas, and events in human history. Of course, any such canon is at the mercy of the biases of the present. By any sensible and objective standards, D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION should be recognized as one of the absolutely great woks in cinema — along with BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, which is shown such recognition — , but it just so happens that the film community, media, and academia are okay with radical Marxism — despite its body count of tens of millions in the 20th century — but very allergic to anything that has to do with ‘racism’, especially ‘anti-black racism’, and so, in the Sight and Sound Poll, a worthless piece of trash like JEANNE DIELMAN is ranked at #35 but THE BIRTH OF A NATION is virtually nowhere to be found. Such churlish cravenness is very much a part of film culture.
Anyway, if conservatives should work harder to develop a deeper appreciation of the TRUTHS of the past, they should consider Charles Darwin as one of the great heroes for few individuals arrived at a better understanding of human past than he did. To deny’s Darwin’s true or truer telling of the past in favor of a comforting narrative of the past is childish than adult, and indeed, the religious right’s insistence on Creationism has been one of the most pathetic socio-political spectacles for as long as we can remember. To favor what has been proven false over what has been proven true about the human past is a conservation of a lie, and no true conservative should want his ideology to be associated with such brazen lies or disregard for the truth.
If the concept of God is still important to mankind even after the Bible has been disproved scientifically and historically, then the meaning has to be found in other ways, because, after all, something doesn’t have to be literally true to be emotionally, spiritually, and morally true. If something has to be literally true to have meaning, all the works of art, imagination, and creativity would have no value for us. Also, mankind can still hold onto the God as a metaphor for the great mystery that shall always remain beyond our grasp, religions of the world will continue to have meaning.
Also, even if the Bible has been proven to be historically and scientifically untrue and/or inaccurate, the fact that it’s filled with moral and spiritual questions that inspired mankind through the ages should be enough for it to be meaningful, important, and relevant to us.
The past is so vast that no conservative should feel that he owns it. He or she should consider as well as conserve the past, and in this, there needs to be an element of liberalism in his or her outlook. To an extent, everyone is a conservative since everyone has a narrative about the past that he tries to keep alive. Blacks and Liberals remember MLK in an overly ‘conservative’ way. They have an official and fixed narrative about him, and it’s to be accepted without question. They are so committed to conserving the haloed image of MLK that they’ve pressured US government into delaying the release of FBI files that will shed light on the real MLK who was an ape-like lout. Similarly, there are lots of things about Mao Zedong and the Mao era that the Chinese government keeps buried in the archives because it’s filled with a lot of bad shit.
And Pat Buchanan and some American conservatives still hold onto a positive view of Richard Nixon, and many Conservatives today prefer the simple narrative about Ronald Reagan as the hero with broad shoulders and sunny smile who almost single-handedly defeated the Evil Empire and created 20 million jobs. All such selective memories require a good deal of selective amnesia as well because, in order to believe in one kind of ‘myth’, the ‘counter-myths’ have to be rejected or repressed. Given the us-vs-them psychology of human nature, we still like to believe in good guys vs bad guys, and many people have a hard time seeing the world in terms of grey guys vs grey guys. Also, individuals don’ t like to stand alone on their own feet but take sides as there’s comfort in being part of the crowd. In ‘conservatives’ like to stick with old assumptions, ‘liberals’ like to conform to new trends, almost all of which were created by a handful of elites who decide what is and isn’t ‘progressive’. Did ‘gay marriage’ spontaneously become the hottest thing among American ‘liberals’? Or was it turned into the hottest trend by the Liberal powers-that-be that control the academia and media?
Also, the us-vs-them psychology makes people support certain issues out of negative than positive emotions. So, even Liberals who may not have been all that crazy about ‘gay marriage’ became vociferously for it upon realizing that it upset a whole bunch of Conservatives. Similarly, there are lots of Conservatives who will support something they are not really passionate about simply because it appears to piss off a lot of Liberals. So, even though most American Conservatives don’t care about the Ukraine crisis per se, they like to get all hissy about it because accusing Obama of ‘not doing enough’ seems to anger Liberals. It’s all so childish.
Anyway, however history is written, every people need to remember, reclaim, and repress the past in their own way. While all peoples would do well to read about their own histories as written by other peoples, they need to develop and guard their own historical sense from those of competing tribes and powers. Without such, a people will be at the mercy of another people. (Imagine if an American Indian tribe allowed a hostile tribe to take control of its cultural/historical Narrative and make everyone in the tribe feel shitty about their ancestors and their culture. Body is energized by the heart and mind, and so, if the heart and mind of a tribe are subverted by demoralization and debasement of the Narrative, the body will lose the will to fight. White Americans handed over the keys of the White Narrative to hostile Jews, and Jews have been stabbing away at the white heart and mind with hideous glee. White body with destroyed heart and mind has no will to fight back. It’s like what Morgana did to Arthur in EXCALIBUR. White race has forgotten that the heart/mind and body are one, just like Arthur forgot that he and the land are one.) Today, even much of white history and the history of American Conservatism are written by Jews, especially Liberal Jews. Now, Jewish historians have uncovered new truths, found new records, offered interesting insights, and so on, — and on that level, they shouldn’t be ignored — , but white folks also need to write their own histories and to write the histories of their enemies as seen from the white perspective. Sadly today, even white histories written by white conservatives seek the approval of Jews, not least because Jews control so much of the media, academia, and publishing. For a white conservative historian to get published and have his books reviewed by ‘mainstream’ journals, he or she has to very mindful of Jewish biases and prejudices. They must write under the inarguable assumption that Jews are totally wonderful, the best friends of whites, the best doctors of the flawed white soul, an absolutely faultless tribe, and a people to whom white folks owe the greatest gratitude and the most heartfelt apology forever and ever. If indeed Jews really are wonderful and love white folks, white slavishness toward Jews wouldn’t be much of a problem. If indeed Jews used their immense powers to push policies that were beneficial to white power and survival, the white race would not be facing an ‘existential threat’. But the fact is Jewish power in the US, EU, and the Middle East is supremacist and out to destroy the white race. For whites, even conservatives, to be so slavish to a people who mean to do them harm is crazy. So many Jewish historians write hostile historical revisions and reassessments of white history, but white historians cravenly seek the approval of Jews and praise everything about Jewish history. Jewish historians study the history of American Conservatism and find nothing but ‘paranoia’, ‘bigotry’, ‘hate’, ‘odiousness’, ‘noxiousness’, and etc, and yet, white American Conservatives study Jewish culture/history and find everything to be wondrous, noble, super-duper, glorious, and oh-so-pitifully-tragic, largely because of antisemitic White Evil. How can any race survive when it acts like this toward a people who mean it the most harm? Jews write their own histories, and they also write extensively about the histories of others from a critical vantage point. Jews expect non-Jews to learn about Jewish history by reading works of Jews. Furthermore, Jews now expect gentiles to find out about their own histories by reading their histories as written by Jews. So, white Americans are to read Jewish accounts of white American history, Russians are to read Jewish accounts of Russian history, Muslim-Americans are to read Jewish accounts of Muslim history, Chinese-Americans are to read Jewish accounts of Chinese history, and etc.
To be sure, this isn’t just a problem of Jewish pushiness and arrogance but a problem of gentile lethargy, apathy, forgetfulness, and disinterest. Indeed, there are many nations all around the world where most people show almost zero intellectual or cultural interest in anything, not even in their own histories. Even most of the Indonesian intelligentsia are a bunch of dodos. In many nations, you’re likely to find better histories and studies of their cultures written by foreigners than by natives. It’s often been said that Spain — hardly the leading light of Europe — produces more books in any given year than all of the Muslim world.
And who can deny that it was the ‘foreign’ West that did a great deal to reclaim and restore so much of the lost historical treasures of Asia, Middle East, and Africa? It was Western scholars who did the most astounding works in Egyptology, and today’s Egyptian experts in the field owe so much to Western methods and sources. So, there’s no reason to disregard the histories of your people simply because they were written by foreigners with a critical eye; besides, the eye was often appreciative. Even so, the ideal of any people should be to develop its own intellectual culture that is energetic and committed enough to research, study, reconsider, appreciate, and defend their own cultures and histories. While Jews are welcome to write about any other people and culture, why should non-Jews look to Jews for approval as to what is or isn’t good about their own histories or cultures? Do Jews seek that kind of approval from gentiles? This doesn’t mean that gentiles should be knee-jerkedly positive all the time about their own histories and cultures. After all, all the histories of all peoples are filled with grim, brutal, and horrific stuff. But to the extent that every culture and people need to survive and defend their blood and soil, it is downright suicidal for a people to leave the business of their history and heritage to another people, especially one as nasty and hostile as the Jews who seethe and hiss with the venom of vipers. Just look at them.
 |
| Rick Perlstein, the Nasty Rat-like Jew |
The Neocon magazine American Spectator says Rick Perlstein, a Liberal Jew, is the best historian of American Conservatism. Perhaps he is, but then, where is the American gentile Conservative who is lauded as the best historian of American Jewish Liberalism? How is it that even when it comes to the history of the American Right, the Narrative is dominated by the Left, especially the Jewish Left? Is it because the American Right is really that lacking in curiosity and talent even to produce worthy books on its own history? Or, is the talent out there but the voices have been suppressed by a media complex that simply favors Jewish and/or Liberal authors?
We also need to ask how many of today’s Liberals and Progressives might have been conservative/Conservative IF they’d come under difference influences?
After all, while children of Liberal parents generally don’t become Conservative, many children of Conservative parents do become Liberal. How and why do this happen all the time, indeed to the point where Ivy League universities today are almost entirely Liberal? Granted, given the collapse of Marxism and the triumph of free market global capitalism all over the world — and the full embrace of super-rich capitalism of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and other Big Business by the Democratic Party — , one could argue that today’s ‘leftists’ aren’t really leftists but neo-Thatcherite globalist decadents who just use the rhetoric of ‘equality’ and ‘progress’ to mask and justify their own unequal power, privilege, and wealth. In some ways, the traditional Left is more dead than the traditional Right, because if we define Western Capitalism as one of the hallmarks of the Right, it is more alive and more powerful than ever, even if dominated by the forces of the ‘cultural left’, which really represents the supremacist power & privilege of Jews and homos.
It may be that one of the reasons why the super-rich came to form a paradoxical alliance with the ‘left’ was because it had to be bought and won over. Why should the super-rich try to win over the ‘right’ when the ‘right’ offers its allegiance for free? Why pay for something you can have for free? The GOP has been so slavish to the ‘rich and successful’ for so long that the super-rich class can take the support of American Conservatives for granted, just like the Democratic Party takes the support of blacks for granted. In contrast, the super-rich saw the Liberal/Leftist elite in the media and academia as a threat since the latter had the brains and means to spread hatred against the super-rich. So, why not win them over to your side by adopting ‘progressive’ causes? Indeed, notice how the Liberal elites have gone so easy on Bill Gates ever since he’s been playing Mr. Progressive. Also, there’s the promise of riches all around as long as everyone’s willing to play the game. Silicon Valley Jews will fund many ‘progressive’ organizations as long as such organizations attack ‘evil racist white males’ in the Deep South while heaping praise on the Jews, homos, yellows, and Liberal whites who get ever richer in the rich ‘blue’ cities like New York and San Francisco.
But American Conservative dummies think that the super-rich will come around to their side once again because they never stop singing hosannas to the super-rich. But as long as the super-rich have nothing to fear from the American Conservative elites and masses who are so eager to suck up to them, why should they pay for something they can get for free? Indeed, Jews feel the same way about American Conservatives. With American Conservatives falling all over themselves for the privilege of sucking Jewish dick and licking Jewish anus, why should Jews make a special effort to pander to the American Right? Where’s the fear factor when American Conservatives will grovel before Jews no matter what Jews do to them? American Conservatives hand over all their gold to Jews in exchange for ‘golden showers’.
But, there’s another reason as to why the current political situation is so twisted and perverted. It has something to do with Boomer Liberal narcissism. The Liberal Boomer generation has been both the most rebellious and the most repressive generation in American history — relative to the values of the times. Against their elders, they showed no respect and mocked just about everything and acted as if the world would be a better place if all the rules were broken, all the laws violated, all the values sneered at, all the traditions pissed on. And they just couldn’t stop promoting themselves as the forever young generation, the generation of Woodstock that found true freedom, the generation of EASY RIDER that searched for the truth, the generation of the Beatles and Dylan who found beauty and meaning, and etc. They were free, they were into drugs, they were into sex, and etc. As long as they were making faces at their parents, teacher, and politicians, they were the greatest people since Peter, Paul, and Mary(not the band).
But once they became figures of authority, they quickly got irritated with younger ones who didn’t give them the respect, honor, and dignity that they felt they deserved. Also, they began to find the attributes of their own generation troublesome and unruly when practiced by younger generations. It was fun for them to give lip to figures of authority in their time, but how dare younger ones give them lip! Now, the sensible thing for Liberal Boomers would have been to admit that they’d been too brash, impatient, self-righteous, infantile, and excitable in their own youth. But as they’d deified their own greatness into the sacred myth of having defied and slain the great evil dragons of Nixon, ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and whatever-ism, they were too full of themselves to see their past objectively and critically. They saw themselves as the indispensable generation, without which US would still be mired in ‘Jim Crow’ and treating women as ‘property’.
Also, all the drugs they’d used in their youth to loud Rock music made their youthful days seem downright mythic and epic. They didn’t just have a good time like Rock n Rollers did in the 1950s but underwent a great journey of enlightenment and illumination. Indeed, take away the delusion of drugs, and Woodstock would have been seen for what it was: a shit-pile fest(though it had some great music). So, even as the Liberal Boomer generation suppressed the freedoms of successive generations via Political Correctness, countless new rules and regulations(that would have made Cool Hand Luke’s head explode), speech codes, endless lawsuits, blacklisting-shunning-shaming of heretics, and etc., they promoted themselves as the pioneers of freedom and justice, without whose vision, courage, and sacrifices, we’d all be living in the Dark Ages.
One of the Boomers who’s been somewhat more honest and reflective than his peers is Steven Pinker who, at the very least, admits that many of the libertine-anarchic-rebellious antics and fashions of the late 60s and 70s were irresponsible, infantile, destructive, and reckless. Though we need not agree with Pinker’s support of the kind of Politically Correct social engineering favored by Cass the Ass Sunstein, he at least knows and admits that his generation didn’t have all the answers and had much to learn as they grew older and wiser — and even should give credit to the generations that preceded them in having built and developed civilization to the best of their knowledge. But Pinker is an exception than the rule, and your average Boomer is more like Hillary Clinton and Jerry Brown the Clown. Though they abandoned much of the craziness of their generation, they are so full of themselves as mythic boomers that they cannot admit they’d been as wrong about lots of things as they’d been right about some things. And they will not admit that, in their own ways, they’d become even more control-freakish and repressive than their own parents and grandparents ever dreamed of being. So, in their youth, they gave the middle finger to authority and ate their fill of total freedom, but in their later years, they took away lots of freedoms via Political Correctness in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, but they act as if their youthful cult of freedom and their mature cult of control are part of the same continuous and contiguous narrative.
To be sure, there’s something to admire in this magic trick, made all the neater by the help of the media. So, the likes of Bill Clinton in the late 60s and early 70s were saying "let the Negroes run wild and free" but in the 90s, they were saying "lock up the Negroes and throw away the key" — as New Democrats — , but they acted as if they were the same bunch of folks with the same views and values. Indeed, it’s incredible how NY Liberals can support policies of the rich-getting-richer and Stop-and-Frisk-the-Negro, and yet, still pretend that they are the same old ‘progressives’ with the same commitments. But then, Conservatives aren’t much better, indeed, they’re sometimes worse. It’s funniest when Republicans love to point out how all those Segregationist in the Deep South were Democrats while totally ignoring the fact that all such people moved to the GOP side. Discontinuity is sold, via sleight-of-hand trick, as continuity.
.JPG)
