Amerika

Absolutely no one is satisfied with the conservatives and this is normal. The conservative is the rearguard, trying to delay the enemy long enough for the rest of the soldiers to escape; this is an ancestral role that takes into account that, by the point that things go very badly wrong, most should not escape because they are ruined already.

When we peer into the notion of conservative, it means someone who preserves the best of the past, sort of like remembering what plants you can eat and which ones kill you in a primitive society. However, the second part of that is to nurture the past so that it is relevant to the present and future, and conservatives forget that.

For this reason, many of us have left the conservative movement. We are culturally liberal, but realize that conservative methods are always right because they are based in nature, which is based in the mathematics of reality at its most basic level, more like information thermodynamics than materials sciences.

This places us at odds with the conservative movement. We do not want to move into the past, nor live in a static state, but we also do not want to pursue anything from the unvetted time after the past; we want to keep those principles alive as goals, but apply them in an ongoing sense, and not for the sake of them in themselves but for their utility.

Think of it this way: a conservative sees the 1950s and wants to replicate it. We see the 1950s as a step already down the path to decay, so we want to take all that is good from the dawn of time through the 1950s and make it into living principles instead of static methods and symbols.

The Left, on the other hand, are individualists: they want me first and nothing in the way like culture, hierarchy, wisdom, and nature. They do not mind forming a big group called a collective to enforce this idea, known as Crowdism, but they want nothing in the way of their individual desires.

Consequently they reject any wisdom of the past, or even of observation of reality, because it clashes with their need for me-first thinking. Consciousness is a zero-sum game, both as determined by time and intensity of concentration, so they need all of their thinking to be about themselves.

Ironically this makes them good little tools of an empire. They do not mind going to jobs, sitting in commuter traffic, fiddling with gadgets, or spending hours shopping and filling out taxes because all of these things advance the me-first agenda. They hate wisdom because it imposes restraints on them.

If we had to define their psychology, it would be individualism leading to contrarianism, which in turn leads to neophilia:

noun: The love of what’s new or novel.

Conservatives, on the other hand, because they are defending history against the present and therefore changes in the future, succumb to neophobia:

noun: The fear or dislike of the new.

This sets up the two as opposites so that they can battle it out without coming to any sort of change in direction. Society creeps ever Leftward because individualists will always support something egalitarian so that they have “muh freedom” to explore their autonomy through their thoughts about themselves.

Neophilia does not interrupt the individualist mental tape loop. The new consists only of image and symbol, and people project what they want to be true onto those, and since the new has not been tested, none of the constraints it will impose are visible, so the neophiliac feels no fear of it.

Because they are projecting, both the idea that they are the center of the world (individualism) and that these new ideas will be the missing piece that unlocks their dreams, neophiliacs fall into the talisman-scapegoat dichotomy where they must categorize all things as threats to their mental state or not.

Their mental state refers to the psychological state of being able to be individualist. Any assaults on its support structure — contrarianism, neophilia, egalitarianism, the group — are interpreted as insults to the individualist himself, who promptly sees himself as a victim and engages in retaliatory behavior.

Conservatives will not admit this problem; the Left will actively deny, deflect, distract, and distort if it comes up. Individualism eats societies because over time, societies lose sight of goals because these are not universally understood. They focus on methods instead and teach these to those who do not understand the original goals.

Over time, this creates a focus on minimums. Societies aim for an average, but this creates low performers, and the next generation, those low performers pull the average lower. Instead of goals, society settles for an ever-sinking lowest common denominator. Decay follows. This destroys all hopes and dreams, in time.

You might ask why conservatives do not mention this. It is because they, too, go through a process of losing goals and settling on the method of neophobia instead. This allows individualism to fester, and soon conservatism becomes an aegis under which selfish people build careers at the expense of their ostensible goal.

If you have made it so far (zzz) you can see how this works: when you make a bad decision, you turn around and walk back to the point before you screwed up, and then make a different decision and go down that path instead. That is neither conservative nor liberal, but has a conservative spirit: preserve principles.

We do that by re-orienting conservatism toward its goal. At that point, it becomes culturally liberal but hard conservative in spirit, farther Right than Hitler or Charlemagne. This is a difficult path and many will not want to walk it, but it is also the only actual solution.

It is called the Ultra-Right or UltRight.

Parts: I II III

Tags: conservatism, crowdism, furthest right, leftism, neophilia, neophiliac, neophobia, ultra-right, ultright