Don’t Tread on Me - The Failure of Conservatism

By WILLIAM MAYER

April 11, 2017 - San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews - In our just published monograph, Islamic Jihad Cultural Marxism and the Transformation of the West , we presented something of a unified theory based upon a cross-disciplinary study explaining how Western Civilization has been intentionally destabilized through a process of cultural subversion. So pervasive and effective has this attack been that it’s led to absurdities such as the proposition promulgated by President Obama’s Department of Justice, that it’s entirely natural to encourage certain biological males to shower in the girls’ locker room.

Across the Atlantic in Europe - America’s cradle - we see this same effect [turbocharged] where countries historically devoted to the idea of “free thinking,” are now prosecuting those who speak out against an unprecedented invasion of mostly military aged male Muslim immigrants [jihad by hijra] who bring with them a rapacious culture of criminality and grotesque sexual assault - Allah’s dirty laundry.

Already, due to this influence, almost overnight we have seen Sweden morph from a buttoned-down society distinctive for its absence of violent crime into the rape capital of the civilized world.

We ascribed this state of affairs to a 150 year plus process of methodical politically calculated agitation promulgated by cultural Marxists [lately strengthened by allies of convenience in this project, the Muslim Brotherhood/Salafist/Wahhabist/Twelver/revolutionary disciples of Islam] who have worked their way into the institutions [the media, entertainment industry, judiciary, the edutocracy, etc.] which by their very nature largely determine the ethos of the society within which we live. Of course it’s far more complicated than that, which is why you really should buy the book [less than $15 on Amazon] but that notwithstanding, in anticipation of the next volume in this series, we did raise one of the central aspects of this process which we will presently deal with, the utter failure of conservatism [and conservatives] to prevent the Orwellian surveillance and regulatory state that is now America, to wit:

“Looked upon from a distance so as to gain as much perspective as possible, when viewing the great expanse of the history of the West post the introduction of Marxism-Leninism, we see a culture that would be in many regards almost impossible for a citizen from roughly the first half of the twentieth century to recognize as being American.

Things have changed so substantially that if someone from let’s say 1930 was given a glimpse of the future - our current reality - they would of course be amazed and most likely dazzled by the new technologies but if allowed to look a little deeper it is this writer’s guess that this “time traveler” would be in equal parts dumbstruck and sickened by the mores [such as they are] which now govern the West.

Now for the conundrum; using the Burkean ideological model [even as updated by the new conservatives such as Buckley, Kirk, Podhoretz, Irving Kristol and others] the prescriptive strategy would be to halt the process whereby novelty and utopian thinking is being used to supplant traditionalism…2016 frozen in time.

Looked at one way, this of course makes total sense; once the captain of the ship notices it’s off course the first step it to halt its bad heading.

But then what?

Say we could simply turn back the clock or use a “restore point” to roll history backwards to the days preceding World War I.

Since the restoration would be global in context, all of the accoutrements which currently make contemporary life so much richer, diverse, more beautiful, easier and less painful would vanish in a flash.

Yes gone would be Black Lives Matter, the 60s revolution, frightening restrictions on the 2nd and 10th Amendments, Johnson’s disastrous war as well as his Great Society, but in just a single example, many of the personal freedoms which the majority now take as a birthright would be gone.

Jim Crow would still be in force, there would be no social safety net to help protect the truly needy and most of us would still be toiling long dangerous hours in the agricultural society - or a heavy industry where the personal safety of workers was of little concern - where an early death was almost a given by modern standards, given that in 1930 life expectancy was less than 60 years of age.

Women leaders in the workplace or politics, social “deviants” - anyone who broke the rigid moral code [gays/lesbians/sexual libertines, recreational drug users, hipsters, non-Christians, “edgy” artists/musicians/non-conformists in general…the list goes on nearly forever] would be anathematized and would pay a steep social price.

The truth is that significant numbers of Americans want their online porn, to have the freedom to smoke cannabis, dye their hair purple, make fun of religion and religious people as well as “heathens” and “pagans,” amass great quantities of firearms, play “Death Metal” or “Devil music,” or to generalize it more broadly, to be as Freud wrote about in his 1929 book, Civilization and its Discontents, rebels and deviants.

Though there are obvious problems associated with such aberrant behavior, properly managed it’s difficult to imagine how a classically liberal but modern society, [one in which liberty and freedom are maximized and continuously refreshed] can flourish, absent their existence.

In modeling a contemporary model of the West one must allow its citizens the liberty to live outside the cultural norm as long as the basic moral code upon which the West is founded - your freedom to swing your fist stops at the point of my nose, at its most basic.

Thus if liberty is to remain a living thing, a multiplicity of lifestyles have to be accommodated, but only upon the key proviso [which applies to all under the Western theory of the social contract] that the individual must embrace acculturation, neither become a burden to society nor expect the majority to underwrite perverse, iconoclastic, self-destructive/odd manners of living or force others to live according to the social misfit’s [no pejorative intended] “guiding light.”

The irony of permitting a great deal of controlled deviance, is that the product thereof often contributes to a richer, more beautiful world, a perfect example of which would be the dissidence which often drives the arts.

Lest one draw the wrong conclusion, this is by no means “multiculturalism;” it’s merely allowing for a certain amount of controlled deviation within a long established and thus proven, societal norm and not the acceptance of a society comprised of an amalgam of unrelated [often hostile] entities forever at war with each other.

But traditional conservatism tends towards strongly suppressing aberrant innovation and the fact remains that even if it were possible to reset the culture pre a certain troublesome period, the negative aspects of that particular time in history would inevitably follow.

Taking into full account what we now know [and are about to discover in the following chapters] about the obvious downward spiral which seemingly entraps us - and upon the realization that there is really no going back - a strictly enforced conservatism which would freeze us in place at any point in history would be extraordinarily harmful.

Even allowing for the type of slow natural evolution which Burkean conservatism permits such a move would be as disastrous as is pursuing the present trend. To forcibly halt “progress” in shark filled waters while inexorably drifting towards oblivion [because of the inertia which societal drivers already in place, empower] - a “frozen” culture - therefore can never be the answer, once the damage has already been done.

Because of this we are forced to realize that there is really no point in the past in which it would be wise, even if possible, to park America.

Actually it would be immoral.

Though difficult, perhaps impossible to accept - upon first reading by some, if not many - we assert that conservatism is theoretically/inherently/technically incapable of defeating progressivism because its basic nature is accommodative and it’s morally and ethically indefensible to bargain with evil.

If we persist in asserting this proven failure of a doctrine the effect will only be to worsen our current predicament. We will be figuratively be sending our soldiers out, against superior forces, across a mine filled “no-man’s-land” into the maw of machine gun emplacements, totally unarmed.

So with our once mighty hammer thus gelded what do we do?

As previously alluded to, remedial measures will be dealt with in future writings.

Nonetheless we feel that it would be remiss not to raise the issue in the light of the insistence by the old guard to cling to what is an obviously defective conservative banner as it desperately sought to derail the Trump candidacy.

Fact: conservatism was never meant to serve as a salvific force under all conditions.”

So with the disease affecting the Free World having been proven immune to what had previously been considered the equivalent of societal penicillin - Burkean conservatism - where do we go, what can we do to stop what is most certainly the worst threat to the West in modern history?

First, perhaps we should ask ourselves a more elemental question; where to de we want to go as a society, as a culture?

This question isn’t open ended, we aren’t trying to identify and then create a utopian or designer culture because such efforts, even if “successful” always end up producing misery, totalitarianism and inevitably violence and death. Whatever comes of this process it must be organic, substantial, sustainable and consistent with our Constitution and the general body of traditional jurisprudence known as the Common Law, the origin of which can be traced back to the historic 13th century agreement between the English king and his rebellious princes, Magna Carta.

So the last 800 years has really been a journey by Western man as he works his way through intellect and force of will towards extending the limits of freedom and liberty, not to groups representing this or that interest or class but to individuals upon whom sovereignty is an acknowledged birthright. This of course has not been a constant, upwardly ascending arc, but that has been the trend, albeit ones with horrendous periods of backtracking towards the old ways - seemingly a default position which seems to be a consequence of human nature - of top-down command structures where the powerful have an inordinate influence over nearly everything.

It is in one of those ebb-tide troughs which we find ourselves today, with the power of a massively expanded centralized and bureaucratic government in clear evidence sucking ever greater portions of the nation’s economic output.

So why, working ourselves back to this chapter’s thesis, has traditionalism/conservatism proven such a failure at checking the reach of imperial government?

Part of the answer of course is that conservatism’s handmaidens have been co-opted by the process itself, with timid and often thoroughly corrupt representatives making the calculated decision to throw in with the central authority, reasoning that having access to some of the minor trappings of power was preferable to the risky proposition of opposing Leviathan government and losing.

Though that really should be a non-issue, a matter of personnel really, and therefore remediable via the ballot, the problems looms large because even those with the best intentions run into the stone wall of DC’s inertia and resistance to change immediately upon deplaning at one of the three airports that serve the area.

No, the real difficulty is one of theory, as conservatism is structurally defensive in nature and as any NFL fan knows, the prevent defense is really a misnomer; rather than preserving a slim victory it almost always guarantees a loss though failure to take bold action, to place the enemy on defense.

Whereas the socialist/Marxist/Fascist/transformative mentality is forever on the attack, the conservative is busily engaged in the noble but ultimately ineffectual process of attempting to preserve the best of what remains even as the field of battle constantly expands.

Unfortunately the universe is totally unforgiving of intent, meaning that in time even the largest of mountains can be ground down into gravel and eventually sand or even completely erased through tectonic geological processes.

So though conservatism has its place in a well ordered society, it must be recognized as an integrative force most efficacious in a society of gentlemen but of little value when the instrument called for is a battle axe.

This is by no means a novel theory or explanation for it was exactly what America’s Founding Father’s pondered as they inexorably were driven towards revolution as successive and reasonable entreaties of compromise were rejected by a distant and arrogant king.

One must remember that it was only with a great deal of provocation and a deep sense of foreboding that the Founders chose to go to war to preserve their liberty. They were proud English subjects and wished to remain so. Their argument initially was not radical, one of overturning the historic order, they merely wanted - in perfect fealty to theoretical conservatism - some greater say in how they were represented and governed. So in that sense and in a very real way they were forced into rebellion, there apparently being no middle ground, something Edmund Burke sadly realized as he observed the proceedings from the English Parliament.

We are facing the same set of circumstances today, defenders of liberty do not wish to engage in the modern equivalent of a revolution, but the left through its constant aggression is in essence forcing our hand.

Coda: Requiem In Arma Dei

Then came the eighth and last of days, no more the flinging of stars into the sky, galactic tendrils spiraling like the blades on a child’s pinwheel.

Nothing but the steady expansion of a world already winding down…running cold, like a Broadway play boasting two performances, first and last…alpha and omega, linked by a derivative causality.

There, but not there, the artist painting himself out of a canvas still wet with tears…the nexus where vast and void collide, the creative edge where the unimaginable becomes the inevitable.

©2017 PipeLineNews.org LLC, William Mayer. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quota