What are you trying to conserve?

As I get older, I've noticed a great joy in seeing young people growing up and graduating, and so on. This cycle of life, repeating itself, replicating itself with the same genes, but shuffling them around, I find very comforting. I would like to give those young people the security of knowing that whatever happens, we as a people, our country, we will take care of them, because we are them, and they are us. I understand this more clearly now, that robbing young people of their heritage is a great crime.
 

questor70

Ostrich
The cycle of generations is a curse in the sense that you are born innocent and yet ignorant, totally devoid of wisdom.

Young adults who have the most energy, the ones who are the most passionate about what they care about and are willing take risks, the ones liable to start revolutions and change the fate of societies, tend to be completely lacking in historical perspective. They lead with blind idealism which can be very very dangerous.

This is why youth is, as they say, wasted on the young, and those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

On the flipside, older generations tend to be unable to acknowledge the ways in which the world has changed, changes that mean we must adapt accordingly. Upthread the comment about the environment is apt. We have simply learned too much about ecology to cling to the idea that we can just keep living a 1950s lifestyle at our current and projected future population numbers. I know such an opinion is going to be a small minority here, but I have to say it like I see it. There are socio/cultural trends over the last few years that turn my stomach but on the environmental front I think the right is decidedly on the wrong side of history.
 
There are socio/cultural trends over the last few years that turn my stomach but on the environmental front I think the right is decidedly on the wrong side of history.

A few years ago I lived in a place where I had to drive my own garbage to the dump. Seeing the mountains of trash was disgusting. It made me a lot more careful about making trash or buying junk that'll end up in the garbage.

On the flip side, the greenies often seem anti-human, and have a tendency to propose unworkable solutions.
 

Pavel

Newbie
Looking at Britain, what is really left to conserve? We have a Conservative Party massively in favour of multiculturalism, open borders, and homosexuality led by some city boy bohemian like Borris Johnson. I have a family and not sure what we can conserve for them apart from going back to traditionalism. Maybe 18th and 19th century were a better time.
 

Mithras

Newbie
Conservativism is very vaguely understood today and for most people, it simply means conservation of "traditional values".
The problem here is that values cannot be conserved, they can only be lived. Once their life stopped (modern revolutions are proofs of that), they can be only described - conserved - in their conceptual sterile reflections. You can conserve high cultural works, but not high culture. You can conserve classical philosophical and theological theories, but not lived philosophy and religion. You can conserve the institution of traditional marriage, but not the idea of traditional marriage...

In fact, conservativism as a political theory has its origin in the 16th century, but really influenced started to be only after the 1789 revolution. The main feature of conservativism that reflects the modern mind is its evolutionism. Liberal Left and Conservative Right agree on the principal point of progress - that society is gradually developed by means of science, economy, and rationalism. They disagree only on the intensity of progress. It is a common phenomena to see an opposition between a radical and moderate version of the same ideological origin. The result in the long term is always victory of the radical wing over the moderate one. Conservative politics has lost practically every battle with its liberal opponent. That makes sense because it can be said that liberalism is a "more true" expression of progressivism while conservativism is "less true". The position of conservativism is permanent retreat and adaptation. There is also correct saying that "conservatives of the future are liberals of today".

On the contrary, traditional stance based on religion and spirituality must be always principally against the idea of progress. On the beginning is God's creation in its purest expression and only after fall and abandonment of man's previous divine center, progress can take place, which is nothing other than moving away from higher (God) to lower (material paradise).

Do I say that there is nothing worth defending and we simply shouldn't care anymore? No. Defending our societies is our duty, no matter how hopeless in the long term it is.
Conservativism is a dead end, its destiny is to lose everything. Only legitimate position is a radical, uncompromising rejection of liberalism in all its forms, including conservativism. Not passive conservation, but active living of higher, spiritual life.
 
If you're a conservative, you're basically agreeing to be the antithesis in a Hegelian system that always collapses to the left. Or as Vox Day puts it, being the Washington Generals to the Left's Harlem Globetrotters. I say reject the dialectic and live according to God's Word.
 

SpyofMoses

Pigeon
You guys really think there's nothing worth conserving? There's no books you'd hate to see every copy of burned? No laws you think are a good idea? No churches you'd hate to see torn down to make room for another walmart? There's absolutely nothing in the world that you see as worthy of keeping?

I would hate to see every copy of the Bible burned, along with other books that are less important. The 1st and 2nd amendments of the US constitution are my favorite things about the nation. Marriage as it used to be is certainly worth keeping. "Common sense"- as in a common sense of how to use power tools and fix things, is also something worth keeping. But the modern world has a collection of forces that make these breakdowns hard to resist at best.

How do you even know what you want to pass down to your progeny? My parents are from 2 different countries, and their early divorce led to me being brought up(mostly) in only one of those cultures. The impact of the other culture is still there in my perspective, though; so I don't see eye to eye with my fellow Americans, but I don't look like or speak the same language as the other culture I've descended from.

In being "conservative," I mostly pine for the social stability of the past while clinging to Christianity for my identity because it's one of the only fundamental things my parents have in common.
 

hkhathaj

Pigeon
As I get older, I've noticed a great joy in seeing young people growing up and graduating, and so on. This cycle of life, repeating itself, replicating itself with the same genes, but shuffling them around, I find very comforting. I would like to give those young people the security of knowing that whatever happens, we as a people, our country, we will take care of them, because we are them, and they are us. I understand this more clearly now, that robbing young people of their heritage is a great crime.
I wanted to write something similar.

For me it is not the things surrounding us or the institutions or whatever but our blood is what I want to conserve. I want that in the future there will be people who are my descendants, who resemble me and who live with people who somewhat resemble them. If the people are not preserved then all other has no use. If people are reserved they can rebuild almost anything from scratch even if that was destroyed.
 

JiggyLordJr

Kingfisher
Suppose I’m trying to conserve my freedom, which would be passed down to my children by default. Not looking to raise my kids in 1984, seems like a commie world devoid of hope for a better future. Burning the ladder is the worst thing that they could do.
 

questor70

Ostrich
On the flip side, the greenies often seem anti-human, and have a tendency to propose unworkable solutions.

The only workable solution is having fewer kids. That's not in human nature to accept.

I think even those who subscribe to Alex Jones "they're making the frogs gay" conspiracy theories acknowledge that population is an issue but their way of dealing with it is focusing on fearing dystopian solutions while ignoring the fact the masses won't have fewer kids. I mean, maybe there'd be no motivation to resort to Soylent Green or other nightmarish solutions if the masses actually thought beyond their own selfish wants, but no. Tragedy of the Commons.

So we've met the enemy and it's us, but how this will go down is in a blaze of finger-pointing.
 

bubs

Sparrow
I never really understood the right wing association with the term conservative. I grew up in they 80’s and all you heard was how Reagan was so conservative yet he ran the deficit up so high spending on Cold War defense. That’s not conserving and never understood the correlation. Also most conservatives are big consumers (80s Yuppies) as well on a personally level where super lefties were hippies and spent nothing to get by on the most basics. Never made sense at all.
 

bubs

Sparrow
What am I trying to conserve? My property and house. What is my greatest fear? Having my property taken from me after all the effort I put into making it a wonderful place to exist.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Perhaps I did a poor job of explaining it, but this is was part of my point in the OP. Conservativism as in voting to slow down the path to progressivist dystopia, is missing something, to say the least.

But, given the term, you'd expect it to be about conserving things. And that doesn't mean necessarily making everything exactly the way it used to be, but keeping what is good from the past. And I imagine most of us on the forum have something we'd like to preserve, whether it's the Latin Mass, the scientific method, marriage (the way the term used to be used), or any number of other useful or beautiful things from the past.

I should've just kept the word conservative out of the discussion and asked "what is everyone trying to pass on?" as the term conservative seems to open up a massive can of worms that distracts people from the fact that there are many good things worth conserving.

I gave this some thought and I realized that the cost of conserving a lot of things I would like to conserve, say music or art from the past, is very high, because it depends on maintaining civilization, of which we're dying of, as Emerson would say. To conserve all those good fruits of civilization, you have to conserve the bad ones, even if the good ones are from long ago, and the bad ones brand new, it doesn't matter: the system cannot go if we are to conserve those things. So I must conclude those things are not, ultimately, worth conserving, because the cost of maintaining them is our souls.

The only two things I think we should conserve, and that do not depend on the system (in fact, they would be better without it), and are also not the product of our hands, are Apostolic tradition and wild nature, where they still exist.
 

Grey

Sparrow
I intend to create. Everything worth conseving was created by people of virtue.

The act of creation itself preserves and prepetuates the great things virtuous ancestors have done.

If a man wishes to conserve his life to honour his ancestors he will still eventually die.

Only if a man begets children does he prepetuate what he values.

Conservativism never understood that, and thats why it dies.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
The only two things I think we should conserve (...) are Apostolic tradition and wild nature, where they still exist

Regarding the latter, only a minority of sufficiently rich and powerful people can effectively achieve something. The rest can only pray and hope to never be in the way of the industrialist Godzilla.

Near where I live, a farmer had part of his property illegally expropriated to make room for a giant sports stadium. It was the usual story of the local politicians being bought by powerful monied interests. All he can hope for is "reasonable" compensation if his lawsuit succeeds.

And obviously, I heard of him only because he has enough connections to make himself heard in the media. The suicide rate is high among farmers in France.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I gave this some thought and I realized that the cost of conserving a lot of things I would like to conserve, say music or art from the past, is very high, because it depends on maintaining civilization, of which we're dying of, as Emerson would say. To conserve all those good fruits of civilization, you have to conserve the bad ones, even if the good ones are from long ago, and the bad ones brand new, it doesn't matter: the system cannot go if we are to conserve those things. So I must conclude those things are not, ultimately, worth conserving, because the cost of maintaining them is our souls.

The only two things I think we should conserve, and that do not depend on the system (in fact, they would be better without it), and are also not the product of our hands, are Apostolic tradition and wild nature, where they still exist.
So do you think that things like religious Medieval art, and classical music, necessarily have to be destroyed if we are to revert to pre-Industrial ways of life?
 

Dr. Howard

Peacock
Gold Member
I intend to create. Everything worth conseving was created by people of virtue.

The act of creation itself preserves and prepetuates the great things virtuous ancestors have done.

If a man wishes to conserve his life to honour his ancestors he will still eventually die.

Only if a man begets children does he prepetuate what he values.

Conservativism never understood that, and thats why it dies.


A good point, when I worked as a forester it was really interesting to have conversations with environmentalists that wanted to take humans out of nature.

Conservation has been confused with the word preservation in too many instances.

For instance, in farming you practice "soil conservation" that is to use farming methods that ensures the soil will still support future rotations of crops. In forestry you practice "forest conservation" which is methods to harvest wood, fish, game etc. from a forest so that is will grow another future crop. Another synonym for conservation is stewardship, aka managing something that is not yours or for another generation. If you know your bible we are called to be stewards of many things.

Preservation, especially of nature, is futile. People that seek to "preserve old growth forests" succeed in excluding mankind from it, and they try to fend of fires from burning it down etc...but eventually those trees grow old, and die from disease etc...the conditions that they die in, because of human efforts to preserve them also prevent them from regenerating.

Conservation or being conservative then, in my mind, is using things or living your life in such a way that you honor where it came from (God, your parents etc.) and use it in such a way that another generation can enjoy it as well.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
So do you think that things like religious Medieval art, and classical music, necessarily have to be destroyed if we are to revert to pre-Industrial ways of life?

It's not that they have to be destroyed, nor that they will be all lost. But they won't be available, in the way that we understand it now. And this was the case also in pre-industrial civilization. All the culture we now have collected wasn't part of a collection before. It had real ties to real life in real places for real people. It wasn't an inventory, with a search bar, for buffet like consumption. What the monks preserved during the Middle Ages from earlier eras wasn't available in this way. Even contemporary works of classical music or painting were not understood or consumed the way we do now. One of the good things of reverting to a pre-industrial mode of life is that culture becomes local, and that includes music, art and everything else. But this also entails the trade off of not having access to ancient works the way we do now. There will be no museums to gaze upon a dead culture. There will only be a living culture, of which people are a part of, not mere consumers of it like we are now. And in the end, that's a good thing.
 
Top