Why Conservatism is Failing

[timsbucktwo]

Conservatism is the political ideology that claims we need to preserve ("conserve") traditional values within culture and society at large. For many people, especially among the elderly, it has become popular to "resist" the problems with modern society, by calling themselves conservatives. The ideology can therefore in many ways be seen as a reaction against modern liberalism: it's not against modernity itself, but critical of modern values and modern ways of seeing things.

Many people buy into conservatism because it seems like a "safe" way to both defend the traditional, while at the same time working for a modern development in society. Herein lies the problem: it lacks a fundamental political platform outside of "resisting" anything new. It's a reactionary confrontation with modern society, which criticizes but has nothing to neither uphold nor fight for. Its value system is derived from a system of opposites to what is being perceived as "modern."

The elderly are usually supporting conservative points of views, because they see the amazing amount of problems we've generated just over these 100 years, but since most of them aren't aware of the actual symptoms and even fewer are able to think independently of what they've been told to think, they end up becoming conservative; they "resist" the modern while at the same time trying to adjust their lives to a modern framework of living.

Conservatism fails to reach the root to the problems of our modern society, since it only confronts the effects of the problems. We hear conservatives and "neo-conservatives" debate about abortion, immigration and Christian identity, yet these are only symbolic ways of tackling the modern issues. Conservatives never question the fundamental ideas behind democracy, multiculturalism or consumerism, because they are not interested in actually reforming and changing our society. They're just here to complain when a modern idea screws up; when people like Theodore Kaczynski speak out about the dangers of over-industrialism, they are immediately branded "extremists" by liberals and conservatives alike.

For people who have seen through the modern society and understand conservatism as a dead end, the solution lies in tackling the modern problems at their root instead of spending time in debates about the effects. If we truly care about traditional values and our culture, we recognize that our current society has failed to preserve our traditions and instead replaced them with supermarkets and show business. If we truly wish to conserve the things our ancestors once fought to create, we reject both the modern liberal cult around the ego, and the modern conservative smokescreen. We become traditionalists.

http://www.corrupt.org

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
They're just here to complain when a modern idea screws up; when people like Theodore Kaczynski speak out about the dangers of over-industrialism,

[/ QUOTE ]

It lets pick on specific parts of your post day.

Read Ted Kaczynski's stuff and try to apply it to the world. To live under resource use he wants we would have to kill (or let starve) without replacement half of the world's population... at least. Much as I dislike left and right wingers and their fear of the unknown, the unabomber as a nutjob who advocated mass murder to alleviate societies ills (as he saw them).

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Herein lies the problem: it lacks a fundamental political platform outside of "resisting" anything new. It's a reactionary confrontation with modern society, which criticizes but has nothing to neither uphold nor fight for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern culture is an open sewer. Modern GenX sense of duty and morality is a waste land. Modern (blank), save technology and a few other fronts, is fatally flawed.

This is not conservatism, it's reading history.

[timsbucktwo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They're just here to complain when a modern idea screws up; when people like Theodore Kaczynski speak out about the dangers of over-industrialism,

[/ QUOTE ]

It lets pick on specific parts of your post day.

Read Ted Kaczynski's stuff and try to apply it to the world. To live under resource use he wants we would have to kill (or let starve) without replacement half of the world's population... at least. Much as I dislike left and right wingers and their fear of the unknown, the unabomber as a nutjob who advocated mass murder to alleviate societies ills (as he saw them).

[/ QUOTE ]

The population of the world needs to drop down to at least half, but this doesn't need to be done by directly killing or starving people.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


The population of the world needs to drop down to at least half

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, because you say so?

[ QUOTE ]
but this doesn't need to be done by directly killing or starving people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right, forced sterilization or brainwashing could also work, but it would be a lot more expensive.

[timsbucktwo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The population of the world needs to drop down to at least half

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, because you say so?

[ QUOTE ]
but this doesn't need to be done by directly killing or starving people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right, forced sterilization or brainwashing could also work, but it would be a lot more expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

To allow the 7 billion + in the world to live a comfortable western lifestyle we will have to pave and farm over the entire world and burn more carbon fuel and make more nuclear waste and kill more species and live in a worse climate etc etc.

Dropping the population can be achieved by cutting off all aid to the third world and developing nations. Their birth rates are increasing whilst ours are levelling out and dropping. People may die, but more people will die if they keep breeding. GOSH, YOU CAN'T HURT SOMEONES FEELINGS!!!!1

edit: You also need to ask yourself: why do we actually need so many humans? Would we rather not have less humans, but of a better quality?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

edit: You also need to ask yourself: why do we actually need so many humans?

[/ QUOTE ]


Do I need more humans? No, probably not. Do those humans need themselves? Well I am going to go with yes, the probably do.

[ QUOTE ]
Would we rather not have less humans, but of a better quality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would who? Are you indicative of the quality we are changing to? If so, is there a door B?

[ QUOTE ]

Dropping the population can be achieved by cutting off all aid to the third world and developing nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to burst your bubble, but cutting off that aid (which I support) would make populations increase, not decrease.

[ QUOTE ]

To allow the 7 billion + in the world to live a comfortable western lifestyle we will have to pave and farm over the entire world and burn more carbon fuel and make more nuclear waste and kill more species and live in a worse climate etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ohh, well if you say it, it must be true. I mean we already produce far more food in the world than the 7 billion people in it actually need, and people seem to be really good at finding new places to live by building up, turning un inhabitable habitable and stuff.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
You also need to ask yourself: why do we actually need so many humans? Would we rather not have less humans, but of a better quality?


[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you assume that more people leads to less quality of life?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people buy into conservatism because it seems like a "safe" way to both defend the traditional, while at the same time working for a modern development in society. Herein lies the problem: it lacks a fundamental political platform outside of "resisting" anything new. It's a reactionary confrontation with modern society, which criticizes but has nothing to neither uphold nor fight for. Its value system is derived from a system of opposites to what is being perceived as "modern."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely false and entirely ridiculous. Conservatism would be much better defined as an attentiveness to the positives of the status quo and an aversion to radical change.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They're just here to complain when a modern idea screws up; when people like Theodore Kaczynski speak out about the dangers of over-industrialism,

[/ QUOTE ]

It lets pick on specific parts of your post day.

Read Ted Kaczynski's stuff and try to apply it to the world. To live under resource use he wants we would have to kill (or let starve) without replacement half of the world's population... at least. Much as I dislike left and right wingers and their fear of the unknown, the unabomber as a nutjob who advocated mass murder to alleviate societies ills (as he saw them).

[/ QUOTE ]

The population of the world needs to drop down to at least half

[/ QUOTE ]


I assume you're putting yourself forward as first to go seeing as you believe that this is so necessary.