Why conservatism always loses

Conservatism never conserves anything because it is an incoherent position. If you accept insane dogmas as freedom, equality, democracy and the ideology of the Founding Fathers, you cannot argue against the last innovation of the Left, because these innovations are the logical consequence of these insane dogmas.

Cthulthu swims left because the Left finds an unprincipled exception to these foundational dogmas (let’s say «gays cannot get married»). (See about unprincipled exceptions here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html)

Then the Left justifies the abolishment of this exception in a logical way starting from these foundational dogmas. «Why can’t gays get married? Isn’t this against freedom? Isn’t this against equality?».

The logical answer of the Right should be: «Yes, it is against freedom and equality, because freedom and equality are completely imaginary and perverse fantasies.»

The answer of the conservatism is «No, the fact that gays cannot be married is not against freedom and equality because <insert convoluted explanation that uses some hidden fallacies and that 80% of people cannot even understand>». The reply of the Left is «of course, it is against freedom and equality». And the Left is right and everybody can see it.

So you have lost the debate before even engaging in it, because you have accepted the leftist dogmas so you cannot stop accepting the conclusions that derive from leftist dogmas.

Conservatives are only leftists with problems of anxiety. They want the revolution not to be that fast. They want to keep the revolution just at the point the revolution was when they were young.

About the «voice of reason» type of guy. Cuckservatives.

Come on! Spare us the BS, please!. I know your type. Yesterday I was talking with my family about people like you.

Every time we have tried to speak truth and awaken our acquaintances about the left-wing totalitarianism to come, we have found people like you.

You have stayed silent while we tried to speak the truth in the middle of a hostile environment. You were worse than useless because, with your silence, you were agreeing with the majority view, which called us Nazis, radicals, paranoiac or whatever.

When you have spoken, you have rushed to say that you weren’t like us. You were reasonable and moderate. A reasonable conservative. You have found reasons to agree with our enemies, only to show how reasonable you are. You have stabbed us in the back every time you have wanted to score a cheap point.

You have stayed silent or played «the reasonable guy» because your appearance of being reasonable and neutral was worth more than the truth. You wanted to be well-considered. You were not like those pesky right-wing radicals and tried to distinguish from them. You were «the voice of reason» while everybody pointed a finger to us.

Now that the demons are coming at you, following the Niemoller poem (https://infogalactic.com/info/First_they_came_…), now you are lecturing about the dangers of being neutral. As if we didn’t know… We told you guys about this one thousand times, but you didn’t want to listen. You were «the voice of reason».

Now enjoy the world your cowardice, your pride and your love of being well considered has produced. But spare us the BS, please. We are fed up with people like you.

Su nombre era el de todas las mujeres

El imbécil

Era una criatura detestable
en el plano moral, un ser abyecto,
una abominación lovecraftiana.
No era tampoco guapa, ni atractiva,
ni graciosa, ni joven, ni simpática.
Era un montón perverso de basura.
Pues fuiste tan imbécil que por ella
dejaste a la que amabas y vendiste
tu alma en los bazares de la noche.

Tiempos difíciles

Era todo tan triste y tan absurdo.
No vivías apenas. Te colgabas
de la pared de la melancolía
y veías pasar las lentas horas
que hacia nada conducen y hacia nunca.
Las mujeres te habían retirado
su protección, los dioses su asistencia
y la literatura su cobijo.
Fueron tiempos difíciles aquellos.

El olvido

La olvidé. Por completo. Para siempre
(o eso creía entonces). Me cruzaba
con ella por la calle y no era ella
quien se paraba ante un escaparate
de ropa deportiva, no era ella
quien compraba el periódico en un quiosco
y se perdía entre la muchedumbre.
Como si hubiera muerto. No era ella.
Su nombre era el de todas las mujeres.

Luis Alberto de Cuenca

Falsa compasión

Cómo el islamismo penetró en el tejido europeo casi sin oposición
Theodore Dalrymple

29 de octubre de 2020

[Tomado de aquí ]

 

La noche anterior al último atentado islamista en Francia, en el que un terrorista mató a tres personas en la Basílica de Notre-Dame de Nice, estaba leyendo un  breve libro  sobre el terrorismo islamista en Europa, preparándome para escribir un artículo sobre la decapitación por parte de un refugiado checheno de Samuel Paty, el maestro que, hace dos semanas,  había usado las caricaturas de Mahoma con el fin de explicar la libertad de expresión en su clase de educación cívica.

El libro era de Hamid Zanaz. El autor, de origen argelino, es un filósofo que no solo ha abandonado la religión de sus antepasados, sino que ahora se opone a ella en todas sus formas. Su libro relata una historia que explica cómo el islamismo ha podido penetrar, casi sin oposición, en el tejido de Europa. La historia es relativa a  Noruega, pero se podría contar algo similar de muchos, si no todos, los países de Europa Occidental. Citaré extensamente :

Karsten Nordal Hauken, un político violado por un somalí [refugiado en Noruega], se opuso a la deportación de su agresor: “Perdí años por la depresión y el cannabis. . . . He aprendido que la cultura de origen del violador es completamente diferente a la nuestra. En su cultura, el abuso sexual es sobre todo una cuestión de toma de poder y no el resultado del deseo sexual: no se considera un acto homosexual. Para comprender cómo pudo ocurrir, hay que superar los prejuicios. . . . «

El político continua:

“No siento ninguna ira hacia mi agresor, porque lo veo sobre todo como producto de un mundo injusto. Como producto de una educación marcada por la guerra y las privaciones. . . . Quiero que sigamos ayudando a los refugiados a pesar de todo ello. . . . Antes que todo, soy un ser humano y no un noruego. No, soy parte del mundo y, lamentablemente, el mundo es injusto «.

En otras palabras, fue realmente  su  culpa, como habitante de un país injustamente privilegiado, por lo que el somalí lo violó. Tuvo lo que se merecía: al igual que la mujer de la Basílica de Notre-Dame de Niza merecía su decapitación, según la misma lógica.

Versiones de este extraña mentalidad están muy extendidas en Europa (y probablemente también en América), especialmente entre la intelectualidad. Huelga decir que no es una mentalidad propicia para contrarrestar una ideología cruel y peligrosa. Para entenderla, me vienen a la mente dos textos: uno de GK Chesterton y otro de Max Frisch.

En  Ortodoxia , Chesterton escribió que el mundo moderno «está lleno de virtudes salvajes y desperdiciadas». Continuó:

Cuando un esquema religioso se hace añicos… no sólo son los vicios los que se desatan. Los vicios, ciertamente, se desatan y vagabundean y hacen daño. Pero las virtudes se desatan también: y las virtudes vagabundean de forma aún más salvaje y las virtudes hacen un daño más terrible…a algunos humanitarios sólo les importa la compasión; y su compasión (lamento decirlo) es, a menudo, falsa.

¿Qué forma más concisa de caracterizar la mentalidad egoísta de Hauken que la de «falsa compasión»? Y qué daño terrible ha hecho su falsa compasión (o algo parecido).

El segundo texto, el de la gran obra de Max Frisch  The Fire Raisers,  captura la pura cobardía de la mentalidad de Nordal Hauken y la de muchos como él. En la obra, un hombre de negocios llamado Biedermann admite a un pirómano ambulante pobre en su casa, en parte por caridad y en parte por una incapacidad pusilánime para decir que no (es difícil desenredar las dos causas).

El pirómano da indicaciones cada vez más claras de que tiene la intención de incendiar la casa, pero Biedermann (nuevamente en parte por ceguera y vergüenza social, pero principalmente por cobardía), se niega a reconocerlo y a expulsar al pirómano. Este último incendia la casa, matando a Biedermann y su esposa, quienes luego se van al infierno.

La obra de Frisch, publicada en 1953, es una alegoría de la toma de poder de las sociedades por parte del totalitarismo nazi y comunista, pero tiene una aplicación mucho más amplia a la de cualquier sociedad u organización que enfrente la destrucción por parte de quienes se insinúan en ella con la intención o el deseo. para destruirlo.

Por supuesto, ninguno de los textos ofrece una orientación precisa sobre qué medidas prácticas deberían tomar Francia y otros países en una situación similar.

Untruthful pity

How Islamism burrowed almost unopposed into Europe’s fabric.

Theodore Dalrymple

October 29, 2020

[Taken from here]

The night before the latest Islamist outrage in France, in which a terrorist killed three people in the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Nice, I was reading a short book about Islamist terrorism in Europe, preparatory to writing an article about the beheading by a Chechen refugee of Samuel Paty, the teacher who had used the cartoons of Muhammad in his civics class to teach about freedom of expression, two weeks ago.

The book was by Hamid Zanaz. The author is of Algerian origin, a philosopher who has not only abandoned his ancestral religion but is now opposed to it in all its guises. His book relates a story which goes far to explain how Islamism has been able to burrow, almost unopposed, into the fabric of Europe. The story relates to Norway, but something similar could be told of many, if not all, Western European countries. I will quote in extenso:

Karsten Nordal Hauken, a politician raped by a Somalian [refugee in Norway], opposed the deportation of his aggressor: “I lost years due to depression and cannabis. . . . I have learned that the rapist’s culture of origin is completely different from ours. In his culture, sexual abuse is above all a matter of taking power and not the result of sexual desire: it is not considered a homosexual act. To understand how it could occur, one has to overcome one’s prejudices. . . .”

He continued:

“I don’t feel any anger towards my aggressor, because I seem him more as the product of an unjust world. The product of an upbringing marked by war and privations. . . . I want us to continue to help the refugees despite such a context. . . . I am first a human being and not a Norwegian. No, I am part of the world, and unfortunately the world is unjust.”

In other words, it was really his fault, as an inhabitant of an unjustly privileged country, that the Somalian raped him. He got what he deserved: just as, by the same logic, the woman in the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Nice deserved her decapitation.

Some version of this peculiar state of mind is widespread in Europe (and probably in America, too), especially among the intelligentsia. Needless to say, it is hardly a state of mind propitious to countering a vicious and dangerous ideology. To understand the mentality, two texts spring to mind: one by G.K. Chesterton and one by Max Frisch.

In Orthodoxy, Chesterton wrote that the modern world “is full of wild and wasted virtues.” He continued:

When a religious scheme is shattered . . . it is not merely the vices that are less loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. . . . some humanitarians care only for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.

What pithier way to characterize Hauken’s egotistical state of mind than untruthful pity? And what terrible damage his untruthful pity, or something like it, has done.

The second text, that of Max Frisch’s great play The Fire Raisers, captures the sheer cowardice of Nordal Hauken’s state of mind, and that of the many like him. In the play, a businessman called Biedermann admits a poor itinerant arsonist into his house, partly from charity and partly from a pusillanimous inability to say no (it is difficult to disentangle the two). The arsonist gives ever-clearer indications that he intends to burn the house down, but Biedermann, again partly from blindness and social embarrassment but mostly from cowardice, refuses to recognize it and expel the arsonist. The latter burns the house down, killing Biedermann and his wife, who then go to hell.

Frisch’s play, published in 1953, is an allegory of the takeover of societies by Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, but it is of much wider application to that of any society or organization that faces destruction by those who insinuate themselves into it with the intention or desire to destroy it.

Of course, neither text gives precise guidance as to what practical steps France and other countries in a similar situation should take.