September 26th, 2017

Conservatism and tyranny

I think this might be as good a time as any to spotlight this comment by commenter “Kyndyll G.” It was made in early July, and it’s a discussion of conservatism and its relation to tyranny:

I would not presume to speak for all of the people on this forum, much less millions of people who, for any of a number of reasons, tend to hold the same opinions I have on some subjects or vote for some of the same candidates I choose to vote for. But I will define my political model, which is shared to some extent by many people you would call conservatives.

Let’s start by saying that American conservatives are conservative because they want to preserve the foundational beliefs and ideals of the United States. What would those be? What makes the United States different from the country it broke away from, or the European countries from which a great majority of its early population immigrated? Our nation was founded by people who put their lives and assets on the line to separate us from the tyranny of a government without representation, and our founding documents literally outline an idealization of individual rights with specifically enumerated and limited rights of the central government. Ours was designed as a nation of individuals, for whom our government works. Understand that: the government was written to be subservient to the American people, not the other way around.

In “the old country,” with centuries – approaching millennia – of toiling under monarchs and assorted tyrants, the political axis is based on a starting assumption of government control that our founders would have considered unappetizing. The royalty may now be gone or remain just as dusty figureheads, but a cultural mindset accustomed to living under boots measures its world by the tread pattern on the bottom of a boot. It suits those who live under boots to sort statist tyranny by flavors: with the extremes of “right” being characterized by tyrannies of nationalism and religion, and extreme “left” being tyrannies of communism.

The American political spectrum is different. We lack a history or desire for tyranny. Our true political axis is government vs. governed, with the extremes defined as complete government control on one end and complete lack of government control on the other end. By definition, American conservatives place themselves somewhere on the half that includes less government control, since that was the founding principle of our nation that we are seeking to conserve.

One of the online debate trends I’ve noticed in recent years is a general creeping into political debate on US-based forums, between largely US-based commentators, of the UK/Euro flavor-of-tyranny political spectrum. I expect this is due to numerous factors, including the globalizing effect of the Internet and the Europhilism that has existed within a certain subset of the US population since before the US was a nation. Part of it, however, is being forced onto conversation by the “Progressive” left, since it suits their purposes to stain their political enemies by conflation of UK/Euro “right-wing” (evil nationalists, personified by Hitler) with US conservatives, aka the “right”, who also tend to be American nationalists. Thus, anyone who is not in favor of every single part of the increasingly wacked-out, big-government ideology of the “Progressive” left is by definition, on the side of Hitler.

Like so many “Progressive” left ideas, it’s idiotic and absurd, but because it’s part of an incessant drumbeat it’s a lie that becomes truth with pounding repetition; and because conservatives are bullied into complete silence by violent nutjobs that froth at the mouth with their desire to harm physically, financially and in every other way anyone who harbors an unacceptable thought, there’s not much to counter it. But here is what makes it patently stupid to conflate conservatives with Nazis: Nazi Germany represents a literal cliche of unbridled government control and no individual rights. It is the opposite of what American conservatives want or idealize.

We give exactly zero f%cks if Hitler was a nationalist tyrant, a communist tyrant, a religious tyrant, or a highly inbred, syphilitic tyrant king. The result was a situation featuring murderous and crushing government control over a terrified citizenry lacking rights to live or speak freely, and in some cases, the basic right to exist at all. Anyone who tries to pin that on people who believe in limited power of government and preservation of individual rights, for all citizens, is a drooling moron. We don’t give tyrants the respect of placing them on different points of a political spectrum shared by normal people. We put them all in a box labeled “Evil F’ing Tyrant A’holes” where they can all rot in hell together, and then we put that box on the far end of a political axis that only the “Progressive” left wants to drag our country closer to: powerful central government stifling the life out of its populace.

24 Responses to “Conservatism and tyranny”

  1. arfldgrs Says:

    How about taking the conceptout of the idea that to conserve means to hold the status quo and all that. which is what the left gets at and so, eventually, everyone else

    but we forget that these conservatives were NOT doing that at all

    they were Conserving the best of the past, open to the best new things in the future, and willing to change for improvement but not for change itself.

    this is very different

    the kind always described, even above, would want to keep the buggy companies so that they can keep the buggy whip companies.

    but the founders did no such thing

    They conserved the idea of a arepublic from ancient times

    They only conserved slavery indirectly while planting the seed of its end, which would not be to conserve such

    heck, Ben Franklyn invented a lot and changed a lot for a guy who was supposed to conserve things as in keep the past like a believer in kunk fu tse ideas

    These wrong ideas of conservatives makes them to be luddites not smart men who would adapt the better things (like medicine and sciences), while conserving the best of the past (family, traditions that were good, etc)..

    the real idea of conservative is conservative growth, reserved with understanding and real benefit.

    so they did not like FADS
    they wanted generalities (as Hamilton put forth)
    they loved the abstract
    they adopted what was new and good easily
    they preserved what was old and good well

    and yet, we let the opposition define the language and funny, we cant find the language to describe the obviolus any more.

    The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. AH

    by the way, if you use the modern idiot alternative, you may find that stalin and lenin and all those were the MOST conservative, the most unwilling to change, and he most wanting stagnation as they loved confucian ideas (lots of chinese influence, or didnt you know budda was a butterfly while kafka became a roach is tellling)

    the left wants to preserve animals and the planet which is impossible and wasteful over the long haul

    the left likes leaders who dont change, how long castro? how many have to die in office?

    how many want the marxism not to evolve or change so that it doesnt become something else?

    who conserves the hate patterns of the past they created and even go so far as to ignore the changes talking as if there arent a plethora of mixed marraiges, kids, etc…

    the conservatives are really not, they are the sorters of the best for the best, not new for new, or old for old

    the progressives are the ones promoting regressive policies to move forward to the past of king like rule… and permanent positions of leadership and permanent under caste

    up is down
    down is up
    missiles and handguns are peacekeepers
    war is peace
    etc…

  2. Dave Says:

    I think the left’s argument on this is “whites will kill all blacks if the government doesn’t step in to stop whites from killing all blacks that is why they hate big government”

  3. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    No one described the actuality of the Left’s ‘utopia’ better than Orwell:

    “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

  4. Bilwick Says:

    Geoffrey Britain writes:

    “No one described the actuality of the Left’s ‘utopia’ better than Orwell:

    “’If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.’ – George Orwell”

    The Left: “Well, as long as its OUR boot–what’s the problem?”

    Leave a Reply

  5. David Aitken Says:

    Why is the US successful? Property rights, rule of law, free markets. We hire people based on meritocracy, not hereditary or tribal affiliations. And we have a success model that allows anyone to succeed provided they do 4 things: 1) finish school; 2) get a job; 3) get married; and 4) have kids, in that order. Some conservatives and libertarians understand this, but not all.

  6. Tatterdemalian Says:

    The US is successful because it doesn’t make laws that directly contradict objective reality. This is not by accident, the Bill of Rights, and in fact every amendment save the 18th (the only one to be repealed) has been worded to prevent the government from trying to outlaw objective reality, because doing this is actually quite easy for any mass movement, has happened many times throughout history, and the end result is always the legal system, and consequently the government, being destroyed by reality, instead of reality being destroyed by the legal system.

  7. jvermeer Says:

    Kyndy wrote that the US was established to “separate us from the tyranny of a government without representation”.
    Over the last couple of years, I’ve concluded that statements such as Kyndy’s, while not wrong, miss an essential point of the founding. The Declar. of Indepen. begins by asserting the endowment of all people with certain rights. It goes on to declare that governments are created to secure these rights and that legitimate governments derive their just power from the governed. However, government by consent of the governed is necessary, but not sufficient according to the founding. Legitimacy is gained only when governments secure the individual’s unalienable rights. Democracy does not insure legitimacy; democracies can be as tyrannical as those of other forms.

  8. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    jvermeer,

    I contend that securing “unalienable rights” is not possible without declaring that our “unalienable” rights have been granted to humanity by a creator that transcends mankind’s limited understanding.

    What one consensus of men can declare to be unalienable, a later consensus of men can declare to be invalid and rescind.

    It is logically untenable to assert there to be unalienable rights, while also declaring there to be no creator.

  9. parker Says:

    According to recent polls barely a quarter of our fellow citizens can name the 3 branches of the federal government. I am sure awareness of the Constitution also polls similarly. Heck, given an unlabeled world map most could not identify Russia or perhaps even Canada. We live in stupid times.

  10. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Hear, hear, Kyndyll G.

  11. steve walsh Says:

    Per the Left: if we are to achieve utopia it will be by fiat of the elite, never by freedom and spontaneous order.

  12. Ymar Sakar Says:

    It is logically untenable to assert there to be unalienable rights, while also declaring there to be no creator.

    The problem isn’t the atheists, it is that much of the Leftist alliance is a religion/cult worse than the Vatican ever was.

    And their god is Lucifer. So their problem isn’t a lack of a creator, but merely a disagreement about who created things and who is owed loyalty and obedience.

    1 God presides in the great assembly;
    he renders judgment among the “gods”:
    2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
    and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
    3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
    4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
    5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
    They walk about in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
    6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
    you are all sons of the Most High.’
    7 But you will die like mere mortals;
    you will fall like every other ruler.”
    8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
    for all the nations are your inheritance.
    -Psalms 82

    This is the Divine Counsel worldview, before monotheism or polytheism, in the second temple period, before Titus blew up the second Jewish temple in 70 AD. Before the Vatican. Before the Greek Orthodox orgs. Before the corruption of parts of the scriptures by the Masoretes.

    It is also from Deuteronomy 32, where the people under Nimrod and Tower of Babel, was divided up into nations, which still exist today. Nations which were divorced and punished by the Most High, to live under the authority and rule of the Princes and Thrones. Which are not human.

    That is why many people, the Alt Right included, believe human history has been controlled by minority ideologies, secret cabals, and momentous events. They see part of the handiwork but do not know the origin source.

    The Leftist alliance has not mobilized 50% of their reserve strength, yet the humanity of America is already desperate for victory and flailing around in a panic.

    Before the 1860 run up to Civil War 1, the US had already been in a war between Lucifer’s Own (the pro slave lords, politicians, economic owners, and priests) and abolitionists (free will and human rights under Divine law Not Human laws).

    Buchanan, Missouri, Kansas were all involved. Missouri ordered the extermination of a certain group of anti slavery Americans. We know them now as the Mormons or Latter Day Saints. Kansas was involved in a war between abolitionist free soil settlers and pro slave raiders. Utah was later a territory that Buchanan decided to send 2500 soldiers to, in order to suppress a “rebellion” or in other words, start up a war, and the leader of these forces were mostly pro slave “Union officers” who later fought for the Confederacy just 2-3 years later.

    Is it any wonder Divine Punishment came down like the Hammer of a God, in 1860? The US had already failed to live up the Declaration of INdependence, the Free Mason ideals, Deism, and freedom in the US Constitution.

    Now, in the time leading up to Civil War 2, whether hot or cold, similar events escalate up to the point of no return. We’ve already passed the point of no return ,in fact.

  13. T Says:

    This is the first I have seen Kyndyll G’s comment.

    Succinct, erudite and quite perceptive.

    Well done!

  14. Ymar Sakar Says:

    The entire reason for Harper’s Ferry is that John Brown came from the Kansas war, and believed that something needed to be done to free the slaves, by arming them, or else there will be a far larger war with much greater bloodshed.

    As it happens, Brown became one of the trigger points for Civil War 2, which I believe was the divine punishment that had already been decided by the Divine Counsel.

    And Brown wasn’t the actual reason for the war, just the excuse. The amount of fear slave lords had for armed slave rebellions was quite extreme.

    Some land of the free, home of the brave there.

  15. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Succinct, erudite and quite perceptive.

    How is something longer than what I write, succinct?

    Is this perhaps a confusion between conciseness and clearness.

    On the latter aspect, people’s subjective criteria will inform their judgment. In the case between equally long essays, the one people like more will be perceived as clearer and more important, thus shorter, while the longer one will appear on the categorical order of tl;dr.

  16. Richard Aubrey Says:

    One takeaway is never, ever to believe what the left says they want.
    Those who scoff at the idea of a slippery slope are usually trying to edge around behind you.

  17. Frog Says:

    Never before saw Kyndle’s post, am glad I see it now.
    jvermeer and GB are on the same page.

    As to Ymar, he is succinct and clear only in his own mind. Sometimes oblique and sometimes tangential. There seems to be a loose screw rattling around in there. I wish that were not so.

  18. n.n Says:

    A conservation of principles. Religious/moral, including individual dignity and intrinsic value. Natural (i.e. fitness function) and personal imperatives. Go forth and reconcile.

    That said, BLM = Baby Lives Matter… throughout our evolution from conception.

  19. n.n Says:

    The problem with atheism, agnosticism, and many forms of theism is that they are based or prone to conflation of logical domains, and absence or corruption of religious/moral principles. In fact, the separation and appreciation of logical domains, advised by God in Genesis, no less, is in part the cause for Western (e.g. Judaic, Christian) civilization’s meteoric rise to enjoy a first-world stature.

    Liberalism is divergent (e.g. generational), which creates an illusion of tolerance.

    Progressivism is monotonic, unqualified change, forward and backward.

    Conservatism, American conservatism, is a conservation of principles.

    PP = principles matter. PP = Planned Parenthood, is its antithesis.

    Reconciliation. Rehabilitation. Revitalization.

  20. n.n Says:

    Let’s see… PM = principles matter.

  21. n.n Says:

    There is value in liberal, progressive, and conservative philosophies and schools of thought. There are overlapping and converging paths leading to the same destination. Some more distant than others. Some with known and predicted risks. Thus the need and opportunity for reconciliation.

  22. n.n Says:

    Reconciliation and synthesis of a fitness function to order our evolution.

  23. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Ymar Sakar,

    I wasn’t suggesting that atheists are the root of the problem. Merely pointing out the contradiction, which I have yet to see an atheist acknowledge. Undoubtedly because it is for them an inconvenient truth best ignored.

    Though as of late I am more and more convinced that the cultural struggle in America is at base a spiritual one.

    And though many on the Left will deny it, especially liberals willfully blind to the repercussions of what they support, as in order to support the Left’s philosophical premises, it is necessary to reject key aspects of reality and, in that rejection of the principles of his creation… they implicitely reject God.

    Here I believe is the key realization that extends from that perception: having rejected God, they seek to reshape mankind in their image… which BTW is exactly what Lucifer is about.

    Finally, a word of constructive advice, worry not how clear another may or may not be, worry only at how you have yet to attain even greater clarity.

    I do, yet the clearer I get, the farther I realize I have yet to travel. Humility is the doorway to wisdom. It is only as I approach old age that I see that the wise man is the most humble of men for he sees most clearly, how far up the mountain lies the summit. Namaste.

  24. Conservatism and tyranny | Politics You All Says:

    […] Continue reading at this SOURCE […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge