Conservatism is both a wonderful word (due to its variety) and a dirty word. Conservatism as a political force has demonstrated itself ineffective, or in those odd moments when it has been met with success, unable to sustain that success in the long-term since the Enlightenment, which seems to be a recurring theme in the history of the decline of the West. Reflections blog brands itself with the "revolutionary conservative" label, a movement begun by German intellectuals of the Weimar Republic, embodied in the works of the likes of Spengler, Schmitt, and Jünger—a movement fundamentally at odds with both liberalism and communism, the defining forces of its age. The age we live in is not unlike the Weimar Republic in terms of its moral decadence, and the liberal wing politics forcing concessions out of the right-wing in order to appease the perceived strength of the radical left—though of course, this Republic seems to have taken over the entire Western world. The result is the utter consumption of conservatism by liberalism, leaving the revolutionary conservative label, amongst others, one of the few political terms which remains completely free from the ideological stain of liberalism. Yet, the reasons behind the failure of the former "consumed conservatism", which we shall now call "mainstream conservatism" demand further exploration.
The problem with conservatism lies in two places: 1.) its intellectual attitude, which is perhaps the root of its doom, and 2.) it's obsession with "pragmatism" which, pragmatically and ironically, equates to concession and obfuscation. Modern conservatism has, throughout its circa 300-year history, failed to realise that it does not know what precisely it is. Edmund Burke, the so-called "father of conservatism" began life as a political liberal and death-do-part child of the Enlightenment. Burke bought wholeheartedly into the concept of political liberty in the civil and extra-authoritative vein of the likes of Kant and even Rousseau. Whilst the French Revolution proved to Burke that the Enlightenment in reality pushed the civil society he loved beyond the limits of goodwill and respect for the Divine, his reaction against the values he previously sympathised with were still marred by the legacy of Enlightenment. His defence of tradition, particularly of religious values and the nation as family, is still rooted in Enlightenment concepts such as the "social contract"—an idea completely non-existent within the traditional Christian conception of government by Divine Rights. For Burke, the ideas and institutions which Enlightenment liberalism attacked embodied a kind of perennial wisdom which would otherwise be lost. He was right, but he declined to elaborate further upon that wisdom, and few conservatives have built upon his work meaningfully, leading ultimately the shunning and ridiculing of conservatism as a school of thought in the academies of Europe.
There were of course exceptions to the prevailing liberal trend after the Enlightenment. Maistre and fellow writers of the so-called "Counter-Enlightenment" got closer to the truth by completely rejecting the Enlightenment's conception of reason, and developing new methods for themselves based on the classical schools of education (such as the trivium and quadrivium). Hegel's dialectic was groundbreaking in the study of non-linear history, and the predominant school of early 19th century thought on the continent was a highly reactionary form of conservatism. However, even the most reactionary of reactionaries such as Klemens von Metternich professed belief in gradual reform, and eventually the Conservative Order he helped to establish was unable to prevent the wave of liberal revolutions of the 1840s. With the rise of aggressive liberalism, the idea that Christianity was necessary for the existence of Western civilisation diminished. Traditional conservative thinkers continue to challenge this to this day, but their work (like their predecessors) is mainly ignored, or if not ignored then unfairly ridiculed and attacked, pariahs of the political right as they are (the likes of Enoch Powell, Roger Scruton, and Paul Gottfried spring to mind).
The problem with conservatism lies in two places: 1.) its intellectual attitude, which is perhaps the root of its doom, and 2.) it's obsession with "pragmatism" which, pragmatically and ironically, equates to concession and obfuscation. Modern conservatism has, throughout its circa 300-year history, failed to realise that it does not know what precisely it is. Edmund Burke, the so-called "father of conservatism" began life as a political liberal and death-do-part child of the Enlightenment. Burke bought wholeheartedly into the concept of political liberty in the civil and extra-authoritative vein of the likes of Kant and even Rousseau. Whilst the French Revolution proved to Burke that the Enlightenment in reality pushed the civil society he loved beyond the limits of goodwill and respect for the Divine, his reaction against the values he previously sympathised with were still marred by the legacy of Enlightenment. His defence of tradition, particularly of religious values and the nation as family, is still rooted in Enlightenment concepts such as the "social contract"—an idea completely non-existent within the traditional Christian conception of government by Divine Rights. For Burke, the ideas and institutions which Enlightenment liberalism attacked embodied a kind of perennial wisdom which would otherwise be lost. He was right, but he declined to elaborate further upon that wisdom, and few conservatives have built upon his work meaningfully, leading ultimately the shunning and ridiculing of conservatism as a school of thought in the academies of Europe.
There were of course exceptions to the prevailing liberal trend after the Enlightenment. Maistre and fellow writers of the so-called "Counter-Enlightenment" got closer to the truth by completely rejecting the Enlightenment's conception of reason, and developing new methods for themselves based on the classical schools of education (such as the trivium and quadrivium). Hegel's dialectic was groundbreaking in the study of non-linear history, and the predominant school of early 19th century thought on the continent was a highly reactionary form of conservatism. However, even the most reactionary of reactionaries such as Klemens von Metternich professed belief in gradual reform, and eventually the Conservative Order he helped to establish was unable to prevent the wave of liberal revolutions of the 1840s. With the rise of aggressive liberalism, the idea that Christianity was necessary for the existence of Western civilisation diminished. Traditional conservative thinkers continue to challenge this to this day, but their work (like their predecessors) is mainly ignored, or if not ignored then unfairly ridiculed and attacked, pariahs of the political right as they are (the likes of Enoch Powell, Roger Scruton, and Paul Gottfried spring to mind).
Meanwhile the ideological expressions of the conservative mindset sold themselves down the river of liberalism still further. Many modern conservatives in America follow an ideology which more resembles classical liberalism than it does conservatism, and the reasons behind this are partly due to the Burkean attitude of "stop and beyond this point, no further" attitude of traditionalists, which naturally leads to concession due to its lack of movement, and partly due to the partisan nature of political conservatism. This is seen most starkly in Britain, where the self-designated Conservative Party has made its obviously liberal predilections subservient to the false mantle of "conservative" politics. The only vaguely conservative principle that British "Tories" can offer is a neoliberal opposition to socialism, a platform which is demonstrably no longer effective, as indicated by the increasing resonance of the left's anti-capitalist positions with the commonfolk of that country. Read up on modern conservatism, one will find the likes of Henry Sidgwick and John Stuart Mill cited, despite both being lifelong utilitarians and supporters of the Liberal Party, the latter also being known for embracing socialism in later life, and making the infamous comment: "stupid people are generally Conservative."
Those few outwardly quirky conservatives, who dare to deviate somewhat from liberal orthodoxy, remain only LARPers in conservative clothing. There has been a lot of interest recently in Jacob Rees-Mogg in Britain, for example, a plummy accented, Latin quoting Roman Catholic who has become the darling of the traditionalist right, despite being known for wholeheartedly lending his support to incumbent liberal Prime Ministers, and oddly declaring that whilst he considers abortion to be a sin in all circumstances, he would not "enforce" his opinion on anyone else. Here manifest is an example of the concessions that modern conservatism, even of the supposedly traditional kind, habitually makes. It may be counter-cultural to say Vox Populi, Vox Dei in front of the cameras, but teaching Latin in schools and chanting traditional mantras means nothing without the context in which these old disciplines were once used. Modern trad cons are merely libertarians in an authoritarian cloak—at heart, seemingly without knowing it, they have become thoroughly cucked.
So what evidence do we have for the liberalisation of conservatism practically speaking—this new ideology which many on the New Right/Identitarian movements have taken to calling "cuckservatism"? Well, Americans need look no further than this drivel. Mr Knowles' very statement that the Alt Right is more akin to the left demonstrates a moronic level of misunderstanding and misinformation. causam requiescit. In the UK, the Conservative Party has become a full participatory element of the progressive dialectic. It was the "Conservative" Prime Minister, David Cameron, who introduced same-sex "marriage" in 2013, and the present UK Conservative Government is marked by its full support of political correctness, pandering to minorities, and unfulfilled promises to reduce immigration and introduce traditions banned by the liberals who care more for foxes than they do their own people. If the Conservative Party was truly conservative, it would care about conserving the people and nation of Great Britain. But it is not concerned by any of these things, instead having bought fully into the doctrines of multiculturalism and cultural Marxism. Their present role is beyond liberalism, it is merely offering a pseudo-conservative, more cautious Marxist alternative to the more outwardly unashamed progressivism of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn. Thoroughly cucked.
Many on the right have turned away from the conservative movement as a result of all of this. Indeed, it is difficult to offer a real response to the failures of conservatism without proper tools. Criticism of modernity is much-needed, but few self-described "conservative" voices are really offering such a critique. As mentioned above, conservatism is the philosophy of the status quo, but it is doomed to fail because of that. Politics must always be moving: either forward, or backwards, or perhaps a bit of both—but it cannot remain static as conservatives wish it to. If they do try (sometimes valiantly) to maintain the few traditions they have left, it always seems to end in tears: in concession, or defeat. The alternatives to conservatism at present are little-known and unpopular, but this is no reason to doubt their truth. Reflections presents the solution of Christian theonomy and reactionary traditionalism. These principles will be developed in due course. For now, however, it is meet and right to shun the cuckservative. His ideology has failed him long ago, and there is no hope for him. Conservatism will not provide the salvation which the disillusioned seek.
There is but one salvation to be had. Religious traditionalists know what that is: for it lies ultimately with the societies we once had many hundreds of years ago. We have shunned natural law, natural truth, and our natural selves as a result. Unfortunately, a path towards a reactionary future seems hard—but it is the only way. There are only two options: succeed, or valiantly say at the end "no one can say we did not try." To those who read this who seek something more—have faith, for God, He who is just, will ultimately provide the righteous with their reward if this Earthly world fails us.
So what evidence do we have for the liberalisation of conservatism practically speaking—this new ideology which many on the New Right/Identitarian movements have taken to calling "cuckservatism"? Well, Americans need look no further than this drivel. Mr Knowles' very statement that the Alt Right is more akin to the left demonstrates a moronic level of misunderstanding and misinformation. causam requiescit. In the UK, the Conservative Party has become a full participatory element of the progressive dialectic. It was the "Conservative" Prime Minister, David Cameron, who introduced same-sex "marriage" in 2013, and the present UK Conservative Government is marked by its full support of political correctness, pandering to minorities, and unfulfilled promises to reduce immigration and introduce traditions banned by the liberals who care more for foxes than they do their own people. If the Conservative Party was truly conservative, it would care about conserving the people and nation of Great Britain. But it is not concerned by any of these things, instead having bought fully into the doctrines of multiculturalism and cultural Marxism. Their present role is beyond liberalism, it is merely offering a pseudo-conservative, more cautious Marxist alternative to the more outwardly unashamed progressivism of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn. Thoroughly cucked.
Many on the right have turned away from the conservative movement as a result of all of this. Indeed, it is difficult to offer a real response to the failures of conservatism without proper tools. Criticism of modernity is much-needed, but few self-described "conservative" voices are really offering such a critique. As mentioned above, conservatism is the philosophy of the status quo, but it is doomed to fail because of that. Politics must always be moving: either forward, or backwards, or perhaps a bit of both—but it cannot remain static as conservatives wish it to. If they do try (sometimes valiantly) to maintain the few traditions they have left, it always seems to end in tears: in concession, or defeat. The alternatives to conservatism at present are little-known and unpopular, but this is no reason to doubt their truth. Reflections presents the solution of Christian theonomy and reactionary traditionalism. These principles will be developed in due course. For now, however, it is meet and right to shun the cuckservative. His ideology has failed him long ago, and there is no hope for him. Conservatism will not provide the salvation which the disillusioned seek.
There is but one salvation to be had. Religious traditionalists know what that is: for it lies ultimately with the societies we once had many hundreds of years ago. We have shunned natural law, natural truth, and our natural selves as a result. Unfortunately, a path towards a reactionary future seems hard—but it is the only way. There are only two options: succeed, or valiantly say at the end "no one can say we did not try." To those who read this who seek something more—have faith, for God, He who is just, will ultimately provide the righteous with their reward if this Earthly world fails us.
