That's why conservativism is insufficient

It presumes that maintaining the status quo is always good

I think we assumed conservative would always refer to a certain old school right wing style of governence

We've past that point now

There's no right wing left to preserve. A right wing must be created from scratch

This right wing will not have any support from traditional institutions

It will be rebellious

Yes, @Bogatyr Bogumir gets it

I mean a thought leader doesn't think in terms of maintaining gains

He's always pushing forward

Like the Left

Logically they've been winning so many big issues for so long that they should be satisfied to just maintain their gains but they will never be satisfied

That's why they win: they think like winners

I am confident that any future right wing victories will need to be independent of conservativism and rather be constantly pushing to radically change society

The biggest hurdle will be to escape the assumption that the right wing is conservative and has support from the establishment. This way of thinking is wrong and dangerous

@campodin how did the Left pull it off?

They didn't show up in Protestant, old school US as open Marxists

They used optics, yes, they piggy backed off of feminism and civil rights disguising themselves as freedom fighters and pastors

@campodin well the right wing is historically about inequality or hierarchy

That some men are exceptional

Some men have the right to rule

I wasn't here for the beginning of that conversation @ham addition

Idk I don't use the term populist usually

It's kind of an empty word

Ukip are kind of capitalists and civic nationalists I guess

@Bogatyr Bogumir well I think there's a way to make hierarchy very "sexy" and romanticized if you use the idea of noblesse oblige

Like call for a great man or a great elite to rise to power and then use this power to help the people at the bottom

A benevolent aristocrat

This is different from an attempt to abandon the aristocracy and hierarchy which is the left wing goal. Rather it is affirming that elites are good when they do their job right

Perhaps idk you don't have to do any of this. It's all about strategy

Also you need clear goals, these goals will justify setting up this elite in a position of power to use the power in pursuit of the noble goal

It's the whole thrust of the movement

These goals will naturally follow from the "first principles" of this new right wing movement

@campodin @Bogatyr Bogumir thoughts?

The deeper question here is who should have rights, what rights should various people have, and why

The notion that everyone should have equal rights is new and even in this liberal order there are contradictions like stripping a fetus of rights or even kids having less rights than adults. Now these distinctions may have practical uses but they defy liberal dogma

Furthermore WHY should everyone have the same rights and why should these rights be as we've outlined? What's the basis of these ideas, the justification for them? Is there one?

@Deleted User @campodin @Bogatyr Bogumir @JogaFlame @Summī Imperator, 呪い殿

How did all of you ignore my point about fetus rights haha

I was saying liberals see no problem with denying a fetus it's so called sacred human rights

Which calls the whole idea of human rights into question

If we can ignore them sometimes when we feel like it then they don't seem all that important

Well they make exceptions

Fetuses are an exception to the rule. Why? Who knows.

So much for ALL humans

If rights are fluid then they can be fluid in other ways

For example perhaps society may decide to revoke the citizenship of new immigrants who gained it over the last 10 years because these administrations were deemed ilegitimate

But that's a violation of their rights...but rights are a dubious fluid conceot

Always eh

I love how (the last 50 years) is now equal to all of human history

Like people can't even imagine that it may be different one day

Hot take: rights are a social construct, nothing more.

They may be useful for social cohesion within a group of people

Or not

If a right serves a purpose we want then it is a useful tool. If it does not then it's a hindrance. That's what everyone thinks deep down

And yes they can be changed obviously they're changing all the time

Sure

Well if we're accepting refugees from around the world it will be hard to exile any

They'll just come back as refugees

They'll go to the next white country

An exile from the US will go to Canada and an exile from Canada will go to Europe

All I'm saying is first we have to change the way we operate as a society and our obsession with letting everyone in/tolerance

We should end both

You and I differ

Why should we be interested in any foreigners at all?

Or your population starts being replaced by foerigners...oh wait

Well, even if we replace the dying native population with a new one the dying population still dies

So the dying population isn't improved any

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 this is why I predict Canada will be radically transformed in the next 100 years by non white Immigrantion

Exactly. I know. That's why Canada is screwed, because the native population WANTS to be replaced

They have lost the will to live as a civilization

They view replacement by non whites and their impending minority status as a moral crusade

This is their ultimate calling in life they think they're being heroes

We're jumping between a lot of topics

First of all people give voting too much credit. Don't be fooled, voting means far less than you think

It's mostly a token gesture given by the elites to the masses to pacify them

If push comes to shove and the elites reject the masses desires the elites will make sure it never comes to it's fruition

There are all kinds of tricks and behind the scenes ways of manipulating "democracy"

Even if every official position is filled by someone who wants X agenda, there are unofficial positions too and those are firmly in the hands of elites

The $ for example, campaigns are financed by donors

If the elites are desperate they can put their vast wealth to use and withdraw all funds from the candidate/official or initiate a scandal and have the official removed

The illusion that democracy is what it appears to be is ridiculous. It's just a cute fiction

Look, every system has "undemocratic" authority behind it somewhere

It's an omnipresent reality of power

Somebody will be in charge either openly or behind the scenes and if people get in the way of the Elite's agenda then the elite will deal with them or be replaced by a new elite

@campodin it would be more honest

Well we have one but it's secret

And their agenda blows

I mean there's no PROBLEM with voting I suppose, like if you like a candidate vote for them

But just keep it real

@campodin and I think the Distributist was very naive to think that regular people can scare politicians with letters and phone calls

Like to actually cause them to change their agenda

At best they'll hesitate a bit and reevaluate when the time to act is

The agenda is decided by people above their paygrade who gave them the job

The politicians don't decide their own platform

Sure

I will admit that there's probably a genuine split between the Democratic and Republican elites and their agendas, I mean both are similar but they have distinct plans

So there is real tension there

That's what I meant

I still think there's variation