The failures of conservatism

[infowarrior1]

Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Off grid electricity. Being self sufficient. In short, it is the lifestyle that Russian Old Believers have had for generations.

Relying on technocratic or societal solutions to the environmental problem is pure madness, especially since these are the same people who have caused the problem in the first place, who are they that they allegedly can fix the problem?


The reason is twofold.

First, it was the deindustrialization of the Russian Empire, destroying Russia as a civilization, destroying their religious, cultural, as well as scientific/technological heritage. The Soviets and Kerensky were a liberal western occupation force. Just as India was destroyed by the British Empire. Destruction of everything that makes a country really independent, and turning it into a colony.

Second, the deeper reason, was to prevent Russia from dominating the world in a good way. If trends would have continued, the Russian Empire would have become the dominant civilization in the world, providing the world with free energy technologies. The handlers of the Soviet pawns wanted to bring about a Liberal World Order, and they had to get rid of Russia and it's technologies. This enabled the establishment of the hydrocarbons industry. To get rid of an alternative possible path of development for humanity, to steer humanity into a timeline where you eat the bugz!

All that is true. Except. Blaming Capitalists for everything.

 

[infowarrior1]

The liberal/progressive approach to the so-called "environmental crisis" is anti-human.

It is right and correct to oppose the solution to their made-up dilemma.

False solutions to real problems. The horrors of industrialization back in the day was also taken advantage of by Karl Marx.

 

[get2choppaaa]

Call it a hunch, but I don't think his posts are going to make sense if he's the Russophile cloth on bicycle handle enthusiast that I think he is.

I too suspect this assertion.

Back at it again methinks.

 

[murphykj930]

Be careful what you wish for. Optically, I appreciate your position that it would be better if the conservatives got ahead of this issue and owed it. But owned in what manner? Because the left may optically "own" the environment, but, it's full of extremists that block ambulances and pour soup on priceless artwork or recommend killing off most of the human population. I think there's growing resentment against these people and their movement.

The best way to own it is to make it clear that certain things we depend on are probably terrible for the environment, but also fighting against things that are clearly retarded. Like killing off a bunch of cows because of their gas,

I am dealing with the "environmental crisis" by moving to an off-grid rural property, where we grow our own vegetables and raise/slaughter our own meat, effectively reducing our so-called carbon footprint to a mere fraction of the most soy-immersed bugman.

Of course, I could have taken the well-worn leftist path of dealing with the crisis through hectoring people to buy a tesla, turn homosexual and subsist on bugs, but my way is objectively much better. The difference being I actually have to do something with no fanfare, as opposed to making a lot of noise for no actual benefit.

If everyone were self-sufficient, or striving to be, the world would be much better off.

 

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

What is conservatism? The ''conservative'' Jewish movement in the US? What are the conservatives trying to conserve? Ancient Christianity? The liberal ''freedoms'' of the West? The term conservative is thrown around a lot, typically in regard to either 1. blue pilled haphazard traditionalists who want a bit of the traditional days but also a bit of modernity, or 2. those who want to conserve the liberal ''freedoms'' against for example the Muslim influences in the West. The only true conservatism I see is the conservatism that delegitimizes modernity in its entirety. No -ism. No ''freedom''. Nothing about equality. Godly structure, order, hierarchy and stability which was around in the wake of the time of Christ. Everything else that has been tainted with any form or inkling of modernity isn't true conservatism - it's merely conserving modernity, to bigger or smaller extent.

Purely talking about the environment, I think that any true conservative will take God's creation as seen in nature to be a magnificent and valuable feat, created by God for a certain purpose, and therefore to be respected and conserved. The ''conservatives'' on the right which may purport destroying nature now are just capitalists - which is a modernist invention, as counterpart of communism, another modernist invention. Both are completely Satanic at their core, if reigning unchecked. Any truly traditional society would've had some capitalist and communist features, but brought to a royal, stable middle path and not to the extremes as we've seen in modernity. Moreover, religion and family structures were intact to ensure these two sides of the same medal wouldn't be taken to the extremes: any society would've had some kind of trading though, and some kind of social structure where people would take care of each other, through family and religious institutions.

 

[Towgunner]

I get a little tiffed when we rip on conservatism and all its "failures". I don't think we're being honest with the actual situation and, by doing so, do ourselves an even bigger disservice because we fail to understand what we're dealing with. And if we don't understand what we're dealing with then we'll never see change.

It's more like conservatives never really understood what was happening to them. If you were to go up to an average conservative in 2010 and told them "its the culture stupid" they would have scoffed. Conservatives got misled to think it's all about getting more seats in congress or winning the presidency or exposing yet another hypocritical aspect of the left. They weren't wrong but they were in the sense that conservatives play by the rules. Indeed, it is about congressional seats and the presidency, but, far more important is controlling the culture and up until very recently conservatives had no idea about this or how to deal with it.

Andrew Breitbart did a great job evangelizing this with his famous quote "politics is downstream from culture". It took decades for the left to dominate the culture and to leverage it to get their ideas pushed. This all happened behind the scenes and a lot of the groundwork was laid in the 1990s.

In the 1990s we saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and, thus, radical leftism, or so we thought. Subsequently, the economy did very well and people rejoiced and focused on entertainment and sportsball. Trying to explain to an average fella in 1998 that the first homosexual encounter on primetime mattered greatly to them and their future kids would have been met with, perhaps, a feining affirmation but followed instantly by watching March Madness - utter indifference.

We didn't know who or what we were fighting or that there was a war on. That's all changed and today contemporary conservatism is solidly red pilled. A proxy bellwether, American Thinker blog, was a solid George W Bush/country club republican blog full of Americana. Not a peep about culture or someone like herbert marcuse. Today, it's ripe with references to globalism, new world order, Frankfurt school, Alex Jones etc etc etc.

The past is the past. You can cry and say we lost then, but if we did its because we never knew we were playing. Now we're aware and in the arena. The deck is stacked against us because of our previous complacency, but, things are changing.