-31
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
-31 points (15.6% liked)
Conservative
385 readers
56 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You mean so the democrats could own their slaves. Funny how things have not changed
Lincoln was a conservative himself. He described himself as a conservative and historians Label him as one. In the speech you cited, he was speaking as a conservative to other conservatives.
Democrats owned slaves. Democrats still want to own slaves.
Ending slavery is not a conservative position by definition. Conservatism means continuing the system that is currently in place and accepted.
@Zeppo @wintermute_oregon
Not correct. Conservatism aims for the eternal. Our system is feudalism, which chattel slavery replaced.
Ending slavery is a conservative value. Since we believe all men are equal, slavery by default insults that position.
Are you sure you're a conservative? Most conservative views are insulting. But back in real life, it was a deeply ingrained institution at the time.
I am very conservative. The Republican party was started to end slavery. Lincoln was a conservative. Before joining the Republican Party he was conservative Whig. Republicans have always stood up for freedom and individual rights. In the 80’s we picked up the religious right which skewed some stances but I’m not part of the religious right.
I don't think there's much use in explaining this, but you don't seem to have a very good grasp of history. Party names are not the key to ideology, and it's baffling that people think they can compare politics from 180 and 120 years ago using current concepts. If you think modern Republicans are the party of Lincoln, let's see... who would we see flying Confederate flags currently?
When has the Republican Party ever flown a confederate flag ?
Kind of a weird dodge... I'll just answer the rhetorical question for you. So, people who currently fly confederate flags are uniformly Republican and identify as conservative.
Good.point.
This is the same reason I don't trust any Italians from Rome. Those Romans are always going around waging wars of conquest, demanding tributes, look what they did to Carthage! I still hold them dang Romans responsible for all those crucifixions. Horrible!
And don't even get me started on those Hittites! Constantly conquering people, they had slaves too! Just as bad as the democrats if not worse. Whenever I meet an Assyrian I like to personally thank them for taking care of those Hittite bastards.
Weird, I never knew Rome was a political party. I always thought it was a city.
@wintermute_oregon @Zeppo
We do not believe anything of that nature.
@LookBehindYouNowAndThen @wintermute_oregon
By definition, the Radical Republicans were progressives.
Back then it had a lot more to do with industry than Communism.
Your profile says you're a conservative and a fascist? @neuromancer said before they're incompatible, and he's a conservative.
He also says Lincoln was a conservative.
Why do you both say the opposite? Is conservatism so meaningless that such fundamental differences are just ignored?
Why do you think conservatives deny that fascists are part of their movement when they clearly are?
@Zombiepirate
Fascists are hybrids. Fascism is corporatism, i.e. state control through corporations.
What does my profile say?
"Furthest Right: raging realism plus transcendental reverence. I write at https://www.amerika.org/ and https://www.deathmetal.org/ about topics such as nihilism, ecofascism, paganism, eugenics, capitalism, perennialism, conservatism, natural selection, and of course death metal."
Ecofascism is a separate movement. You read your Linkola and Kaczynski?
Full readout here:
https://annihilation.social/notice/AgRr091ay4W0HCTtcu
Lincoln was a radical. He, too, was a hybrid, in that he came from the Anglo tradition but was outside of it as a "radical."
He was a progressive of his age. He was closer to Marx than Washington.
So you're saying that fascists and conservatives work to similar ends?
@Zombiepirate
The most conservative society:
* Absolute monarchy
* Ethno-nationalist
* Free market based
* Caste system
* Culture/religion united
Like anything else, there are degrees of conservatism.
Some conservatives, like GWB, are barely conservative.
You're wanting the US to be an ethnostate again then?
@Zombiepirate
Diversity is suicide.
So is socialism.
@Zombiepirate
Absolutely, and every other nation as well, since it is the best way and I wish them well.
@Zombiepirate
Fascists still believe in the State; conservatives are free market devotees but ambivalent if not hostile to the State.
Not all conservatives are free market devotees; that's a modern twist that is not universal.
But you agree that they work to the same ends?
@Zombiepirate
I disagree. Conservatives naturally favor organic methods like common law, free markets, culture, and hierarchy.
As far as work to the same ends, I think you have it backwards. Fascism is a hybrid. It borrows some goals and methods from both Left and Right.
Conservatism also borrows from the leftist rhetoric and action though, so that's not a solid distinction.
They're both counterrevolutionary in nature; I don't see the distinction that you do. It appears that they are possibly different in degree instead of kind. This is the "ends" that I refer to: opposition to the liberal revolutions since the 18th century.
@Zombiepirate
Also, wanting something other than the revolutionary order is not opposition.
It's a choice for an alternative.
Ordinary people recognize that, but ideologues do not.
@Zombiepirate
Conservatism existed before Leftism. Any borrowing is the other way.
Leftism is inherently revolutionary. You recall the origins of the term?
Conservatism was a reaction to revolutionary politics, it did not proceed it. Even the name makes it clear that it is a response to action.
Leftism is inherently revolutionary, and conservatism was a response to that.
But back to my original question: why do you think @neuromancer denies that fascists and conservatives make natural allies?
@Zombiepirate
On the contrary, conservatives were always here. We just had to take a name after Leftism so people did not think we supported the "new way."
I don't think conservatives and fascists make natural allies. Conservatives and conservatives make natural allies. You cannot trust the radical big state people.
But conservatives want a big state too, they just claim otherwise. Look how they push rhetoric like "back the blue," are for abortion restrictions, and want to fund the military above and beyond what it even asks for. Their policies push a soft ethno-state, as far as they think they can get away with.
Again, it's a meaningless distinction.
@Zombiepirate
Also, remove civil rights law and an ethnostate will form naturally.
We are trying to limit any extremes that might occur in order to save lives.
@Zombiepirate
Saying "conservatives" is often difficult because conservatism is a big tent of realists to varying degrees.
Evangelical Christians certainly care about abortion a lot. The Social Darwinists want it cheap, legal, and easily accessed however.
Well @neuromancer clearly doesn't take issue with your ethnostate garbage, so he obviously thinks you're allies.
That's the "big tent" you're taking about, yes?
@Zombiepirate
Lots of people realize that a mono-ethnic society is a necessary but not sufficient condition for survival, even some Leftists.
I cannot speak for the opinions of others.
@Zombiepirate
As to what conservatism is, I write about that a lot:
https://www.amerika.org/
It is a focus on order beyond the individual and the social group; we call it realism, and it tends to favor historically-proven results and a case-by-case basis instead of ideological categorical containers.
About ten thousand people in North America can successfully parse that sentence.
I get you don’t read well but see how Lincoln uses the word we. It’s including himself. Lincoln was a conservative. He was a Republican.
Lincoln was not a progressive.
@LookBehindYouNowAndThen @wintermute_oregon
Lincoln was a radical closer to Marx than the founders.
I am not wrong. Only you read it incorrectly.
Lincoln was a conservative Republican. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party. It replaced the whigs. Lincoln was a conservative Whig before joining the Republican Party.
Here is a whole breakdown on the topic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_conservatism_in_the_United_States
@LookBehindYouNowAndThen @wintermute_oregon
Slavers were just there to make money, and most of them were Arabic, Chinese, or Jewish.
R1
@wintermute_oregon @LookBehindYouNowAndThen
Democrats were conservative back then.
I guess if you knew basically nothing about US history that would be a convincing statement.
@wintermute_oregon @LookBehindYouNowAndThen
Slavery sucked because it was diversity.
It was also cruel and pointless, since it was low quality labor.
The solution is ending diversity.