The War Conservatives Never Knew They Lost

I’ve been trying to think of a different way to get my friend to understand at least some of the reasons that those he believes should be conservative allies in fact are not. Perhaps this one will do the trick.

Let’s assume–for the sake of argument–that Conservatives have been fighting a war for The Culture against Liberals. Let’s also recognize that it’s becoming more accepted as fact that Liberals won.

I think that’s wrong. From my perspective: It would be more true to say that those we call Liberals were fighting to occupy Conservatism, and that’s what they won. They didn’t take over the whole culture, but rather took over what is considered Conservative. This is discombobulating because Conservatives have been told that they are fighting for The Culture overall, and so there’s a lot of effort to win external victories; victories “out there”. Meanwhile; the base was sapped…infiltrated…hacked.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “The War Conservatives Never Knew They Lost

  1. Vox Day calls it ‘Entryism’ wherein liberals, socialists, and SJW’s join conservative organizations, political parties, and churches, and work from the inside to subvert their agendas.

  2. Liberals, socialists and SJWs are conservatives as relates to the prevalent culture that exists. They adhere to the core values of said culture and see themselves as defenders of the culture. This is why people who claim to be conservative always lose. They are not conservative at all, but instead are reactionary. Why would any disciple of Christ want to conserve the present culture, or even the culture of 30 years ago?

  3. I think that’s wrong. From my perspective: It would be more true to say that those we call Liberals were fighting to occupy Conservatism, and that’s what they won. They didn’t take over the whole culture, but rather took over what is considered Conservative.

    I don’t think it is a case of either/or, but both. Liberals took over conservatism and the culture. Liberals taking over conservatism explains why conservatives are liberal, but it doesn’t explain why liberals (for example feminists) are now conservative. The reason for the latter is that now that the liberals have reworked society, their focus very often is to conserve their gains from those who would reform the system.

    However, your larger point remains true either way. For an example of this, see the Senior Editor of National Review cheering on glorious feminist progress:

    There’s an added irony here. Around the time little Laura’s school was cracking down on Wonder Woman lunchboxes, two women, Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver, passed the Army Ranger training course for the first time. The news was hailed across the country as a huge step forward for women.

    Are these women role models or not? Are they heroes? Or should they be condemned for their willingness to use violence when necessary? Maybe Laura should get a Griest and Haver lunchbox and find out.

  4. Pingback: Glorious Feminist Progress! | Dalrock

  5. @Stryker

    Welcome.

    Vox Day calls it ‘Entryism’ wherein liberals, socialists, and SJW’s join conservative organizations, political parties, and churches, and work from the inside to subvert their agendas.

    Yes, VD is right about that. There’s also a kind of pageantry of monstrous outsider that distract us from the entryists, or–by comparison–make the infiltrators look acceptable.

  6. @Dalrock

    The reason for the latter is that now that the liberals have reworked society, their focus very often is to conserve their gains from those who would reform the system.

    Agreed.

    As I’m writing these, what I’m working towards is a new mental picture of the situation for my friends and allies who either do or did consider themselves conservative.

    The map is a circle; not a rectangle. They do not exist in a shrinking field on the right, but have been expelled from the center and now exist on the edges.

    Bad news: The castle and fortifications are in the center.

    Good news: We are out in the fields, and have them surrounded.

  7. Read the Neoreactionary Blogs, they deal precisely with this problem. The “entryist” terminology is in fact an Nrx concept. The left effectively co-opt movements and institutions through the use of moral Status signalling and the manipulation of language (black magic, white Magic). The world view is constantly shifting left, and only rarely, temporarily shifts right. The conservatives in a way, act as an outer opposition party, that consolidates former leftist revolutions, mistaking them for their own eternal traditions. This can easily be seen in the cladistics of christian thought for the last 100 years, real christianity is far far to the right of what most conservative people believe.

  8. @ avadoro: Cladistics. Never seen that word used that way. If you have a source I would love to read it. Thanks.

  9. @ Cane

    “those he believes should be conservative allies in fact are not.”

    I don’t understand. Do you mean that Empath thinks someone (who?) should be allied with conservatives? Or do you mean that conservatives should be allied with Empath (or someone else?)?

  10. @avadoro

    Welcome.

    I read some NRx posts, and sometimes I can find common cause with them. It may be that when more is said some will wish I had read less. However; they are certainly not my enemies and I try to keep my silence unless I can be encouraging.

    @Oscar

    I believe that Empath thinks that some people (particularly commenters in the Men’s Sphere; more particularly at Dalrock’s) take cheap shots at conservatives only for one of two reasons: that they are either opportunists or they are liberals. Of some of them that is true (Of some of them both are true!), but I also believe there exist legitimate reasons to be anti-conservative at this time.

    Among those reasons: As I’ve read others’ thoughts on these matters it has become clear to me the political jargon is hopelessly confused. Above, Avadoro said that “the left co-opts” in perpetuity. I know what he means and it’s a tempting thought (if for no other reason than to stop thinking about what is going on and get to the slitting throats bit)…but is that true? I don’t think it is; not the least of which because “left” and “right” now spin on the compass. (As ASDGamer alluded to the other day: “left” and “right” are nigh meaningless.)

    “Traditional” is not meaningless, but it doesn’t mean all the things that those who profess “Tradition” think, and it means a good deal more than they confess it does. “Conservative” isn’t meaningless either, but it suffers the same trouble as “Traditional” as well as being terribly polluted.

    NOTE: “Right” and “Conservative” and “Traditional” and “Reactionary” are not the same things! Many out there speak as if they are, but they are not. Some of what Avadoro called co-option is in fact the result of collapsing these terms out of mistake, attempts at solidarity, or just laziness.

  11. Apologies, I’m really tired atm, so bear with me.

    “The conservatives in a way, act as an outer opposition party”

    Sorry I should have been clearer. I don’t disagree with you cane, but I think the rot goes much deeper. It’s not that conservatives are in conspiracy with the left(the trad-con complaint of the manosphere), I use the term conservative here very loosely. It’s that much of what is consider conservatism is more or less an inherited “sentiment”, a Weltanschauung.

    “Meanwhile; the base was sapped…infiltrated…hacked.”

    Hacked is much closer to the truth. The left has hacked conservatism/ modern Christianity.
    Conservatives mistakenly use the their sense of propriety to defend the lefts chosen etiquette and blasphemies. What we know as political correctness, is really just progressive modern manners and etiquette. What we are looking at is more or less clever social control (memetics), than a philosophical stance.

    So we have these articles from establishment conservatives and church leaders, whose response/ argument to people such as dalrock and other manospherians( Yes, it has its own multifaceted positions) is; How Wude!

    That’s all it is when you distill down their arguments. racist , misogynist (magical words, Taboos) are just ways of saying your rude. The left/progressive have ?inverted? the use of the idea of the sacred and the profane as a weapon. Crime think is heresy.

  12. @ avadora: “That’s all it is when you distill down their arguments. racist , misogynist (magical words, Taboos) are just ways of saying your rude.”
    I think that the rot is far deeper and older. Women’s rights became major social movements in the 1800’s and were facilitated most effectively through Churches and Christian organizations. Since women secured the vote their value system has come to dominate the culture, “clever social control “, most particularly the Churches. Whatever conservative men are, they are powerless to change that. Women, as a collective, are never giving up their power and control. There is no way within the institutions and systems that currently exist that traditional biblical values can be observed. New institutions are the only way. Once most mainstream Churches start preforming same-sex marriages it should be obvious.

  13. @ Cane

    Got it.

    Empath has a point. What do we call ourselves? By “ourselves” I mean those of us trying to build oases of Christendom in an increasingly Godless land. Do we need to call ourselves anything other than Christians? Has the word “Christian” become as meaningless as “conservative”, or “traditional” or “reactionary”?

  14. @Oscar

    Let me start at the end.

    Has the word “Christian” become as meaningless as “conservative”, or “traditional” or “reactionary”?

    I said those words aren’t meaningless. Their meanings are diluted, lost, collapsed, etc. I’ve been wrong before, but in particular I think Christian can be conserved/reformed with relative ease. Christian is uncool enough that those who are full-throated in their love and conviction for Christ will draw attention and encourage many Christians who live down-low compartmentalized lives. Yet it’s not reviled enough to actually scare off people.

    Do we need to call ourselves anything other than Christians?

    No. I don’t mean that we need to “box out” a territory which only allows Christians who hold our political views, per se, but I do mean we need to be robust–vehement–in our representation and defense of the Gospel. That will mean defending the whole Bible; which testifies of and upholds Christ as the only Son of the timeless Creator.

    By “ourselves” I mean those of us trying to build oases of Christendom in an increasingly Godless land.

    Your phrasing here is telling. Are Christians supposed to build oases? I, too, am a family man and so it’s a tempting thought that we can build safe places. It’s that conservative mindset. It has its place, but in the larger scheme we are invaders in occupied territory. If we lose that high-level view as in-it-but-not-of-it and settle into oasis-building, then we’re moments from settling into relaxing behind enemy lines; which (you’d know better than me) is a bad idea.

    What do we call ourselves?

    Whatever is the truth.

    Some time ago (after I had started this blog) I realized that–while I have a conservative frame of mind–I’m not conservative. Nor was I a libertarian; a phase I had went through until I realized that everything good they had to say was just a cover for their desire to be left alone. (I helped them accomplish that goal immediately; at least as regards me.)

    The closest “ist” to me is fundamentalist; which is now an epithet. It wasn’t always that way, but the Moral Majority crowd sold fundamentalists out as boogeymen to make themselves look politically reasonable. That was a strategic error. They mistook their enemy’s desire to call someone–anyone!–retrograde dinosaurs instead of as the effective weapon that it was. Having retired “fundies” from the field, progressives just started calling any religious Republican a backwards buffoon.

    As a fundamentalist, I take a very dim view of the lack of fundamentals among Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, traditionalists, reactionaries, etc.

    Is there such a thing as an essentialist, I wonder, and what is he?

  15. Luke 10:27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
    The fundamental and essential for a Christian. Sometimes difficult to do as an individual but overall doable. More difficult for the nuclear family to do, and even more so for the extended family. How difficult then for a congregation, and impossible for a political party.
    How a Christian community lives these fundamentals has been a continual endeavour of Christians since the beginning.Acts 2:44

  16. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/09/06) | The Reactivity Place

  17. For the entryist comments above I agree.

    But this is also not new. Civilizations rise and fall on this sort of thing. The Normans weren’t Italians of any sort but they sure tried to be and that lasted all the way up until a radical leftist (Garibaldi) kicked them out by occupying the occupiers. Occupations start by shifting the culture which makes the host weak enough to dominate.

    As our superpower status slips away from us due to our own ennui I think we will become more aware of this. Our culture was always very fractured and therefore easy to occupy.

  18. @MtC

    A “Mere Christian”, perhaps?

    Are you answering my question on an “essentialist”, or are you forwarding an opinion about me? Not that I would be offended; just curious.

    @GKC

    Our culture was always very fractured and therefore easy to occupy.

    Is that true? You may be right, but I’d like to hear your reasoning.

    Off-topic: I am sorry that we do not live closer to one another.

  19. @ Cane Caldo says:
    September 8, 2015 at 2:05 am

    “Their meanings are diluted, lost, collapsed, etc.”

    That’s why I asked. The meaning of the word “Christian” is so diluted that most people who call themselves “Christians” seem to think it means being nice and never offending anyone (except for those knuckle dragging, judgmental rednecks, of course).

    “I think Christian can be conserved/reformed with relative ease.”

    I hope you’re right. At the very least it would make things a lot simpler.

    “I do mean we need to be robust–vehement–in our representation and defense of the Gospel. That will mean defending the whole Bible; which testifies of and upholds Christ as the only Son of the timeless Creator.”

    Amen. And as we know, that offends a lot of people, including most of those who call themselves Christians.

    “…in the larger scheme we are invaders in occupied territory. If we lose that high-level view as in-it-but-not-of-it and settle into oasis-building, then we’re moments from settling into relaxing behind enemy lines; which (you’d know better than me) is a bad idea.”

    Alright. Not oases, then, but Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) and Combat Outposts (COPs).

    “[me] What do we call ourselves?

    [Cane] Whatever is the truth.”

    “Christian” is the truth, but as we’ve observed, that word needs to be redeemed.

    “The closest “ist” to me is fundamentalist; which is now an epithet.”

    Yes, and the reasons people apply the term “fundamentalist” have nothing to do with the fundamentals. All Christians are fundamentalists, because we all adhere to the foundational doctrines of our faith – that there is only one God revealed in three persons, that God is absolutely holy, that we possess a depraved, sinful nature and therefore must rely on faith in God and His grace alone for salvation, etc. It’s in the non-essentials where we differ.

    Instead, people who use the word “fundamentalist” as an epithet label some Christians “fundamentalists” because they have big families and their women wear long skirts. Those are important, of course, but they’re not foundational doctrines of the Christian faith.

    All this dilution of the meanings of words certainly makes communication a lot more difficult than it needs to be. That’s probably a feature, not a bug.

  20. Cane, you made me think of this:

    “Like a circle, every society must have a center. That center is defined by the central principle of worship. The center must actually be a center, and a society cannot have two centers, any more than a circle can have two. If you have two centers, that means you have two societies, and one of them must prevail. So one circle can displace another one, and one center can replace the previous center. That can happen, but when a circle tolerates a new center it is in the process of ceasing to be a circle. Just so you know.

    So Christian societies have a center, just like Muslim societies do, or Hindu societies do, or secular societies do. A society must have a center. The thing that distinguishes Christian societies is not the fact that they have a center. Christ is the arche, the principle of all integration, the center of all things. How could He not be? He rose from the dead, and He is Lord.”

    http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/totalitolerance.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s