/lit/ - Literature

>Internally identified? Skip that, and focus instead on Polumbo’s implict acceptance that older people can be “transgender”, or even can be “gay”, as if these were different kinds of creatures. People are similar to normal human beings, but have a different essence or nature, that difference in being “transgender” or “gay” is just like difference between male and female.

>Polumbo—and Benson too—thus has lost the argument. He is a progressive. He does not disagree with any progressive idea, he only quibbles about timing, about when a person’s madness becomes real.

>That thing that unites Benson and Polumbo, and conservatives in general, is that they have bought the progressive idea that truth can only be known by appealing to the masses.
American “conservative” movement is just liberals who bow before Israel and like Ayn Rand while making hollow overtures to Evangelical petit-bourgeoisie creatures.

>Conservatives have also thoroughly accepted revolutionary ideas such as economic liberalism. Capitalism demands mediocrity so it can exploit everybody the same: A King, or a Lord, has power independently of money. Thus, international Capital has to abolish nobility, which it did, and abolish kingship (at least in the way that he has direct power). Another solution is to make the king part of the Capitalist elite, that's what happened with the English royal family. These people are only king and queen in name. In reality, they are Capitalists – puppets for a usurious elite.
>Capitalism has already chosen: its favorite political State is the republic. I mean, isn't it obvious? Practically all countries in the world have adopted the republican system.
>Again, it's easy why Capitalism has chosen the republic: the republic is perfect for Capitalists to buy laws. A few million dollars in members of parliament pockets, and here you go. You have your law. A Führer, an autocrat, a King, cannot be bought that easily; and that's why Capitalism tends to overthrow those, and replace them by a republic.

>Other concepts that were introduced into the conservative weltanschauung include: freedom of expression, press and religion, and democracy. With this, there was a sense of lost with community and *Oikos* [home]. Conservatism’s last blow was urbanization. People no longer live on farms in such great numbers. It was destined to fail due to industrialization, urbanization, and city planning that could sustain millions of people.

>This crisis, like most of all crises, is spiritual. Conservatives don’t see that. Reactionaries and neo-reactionaries do: that human nature is fixed and not fluid, that human nature cannot be legislated away.
>Conservatives don't really like the consequences of such ideas; nonetheless they are bound to accept modernity at a slower pace than others.

This is why conservativism fails, and will continue to fail. It accepts the same basic premises as progressivism.