What Conservatism is, and Why Leftism is Evil

What Conservatives Value

I read one of the most asinine things I've ever read in my entire life in "Why I am a Liberal" so, I felt it necessary to respond to such asinine nonsense with facts and reality. Ultimately, the differences that distinguish leftism (including both liberalism and Marxism) and the right are ultimately the questions over human nature, inequality, the natural order and where morality comes from. I urge everyone to read the post I cited to get a better idea of what I am responding to. Trigger warning: I will NOT hold back my moral outrage and political opinions for you. If you want to listen to how lovely the world of purple unicorns and gumdrops is, be my guest. I am not here to entertain you. That said, this is my first My Take, so if it seems a little disorganized, then there's a good reason why. Now, let's begin.

Pragmatic vs. Utopian

The most obvious difference between Conservatism and Leftism is basically the view of pragmatism or utopianism. The left believes that the current form of society, and former forms of society were all evil patriarchical, imperialist, colonialist, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, and slave-holding hell holes which ultimately have to be destroyed or replaced by a leftist utopia, wherein all of these problems will have been eradicated. I'll quote from a couple different authors to drive this point home. First, Russell Kirk, the famous American Conservative.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted.... Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise... Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away....

The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress... at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old....[1]

In summary, Conservatism is not anti-gay, anti-woman or anything of the sort. Rather, Conservatives are pro-tradition. For the simple reason that tradition works, whereas, faced with a new reform or revolution, often times goes in the wrong direction and ends up causing more harm then good.

Compare, then, to the left's position and perspective of the world. Sylvia Pankhurst, was a labor and communist activist who worked to save poor people in Ethiopia. This is what she said.

Under Communism all shall satisfy their material needs without stint or measure from the common storehouse, according to their desires. Everyone will be able to have what he or she desires in food, in clothing, books, music, education and travel facilities. The abundant production now possible, and which invention will constantly facilitate, will remove any need for rationing or limiting of consumption.

Every individual, relying on the great common production, will be secure from material want and anxiety.

There will be no class distinctions, since these arise from differences in material possessions, education and social status — all such distinctions will be swept away.

There will be neither rich nor poor. Money will no longer exist, and none will desire to hoard commodities not in use, since a fresh supply may be obtained at will. There will be no selling, because there will be no buyers, since everyone will be able to obtain everything at will, without payment.

The possession of private property, beyond that which is in actual personal use, will disappear.

There will be neither masters nor servants, all being in a position of economic equality — no individual will be able to become the employer of another.

All children will be educated up to adult age, and all adults will be able to make free, unstinted use of all educational facilities in their abundant leisure.

Stealing, forgery, burglary, and all economic crimes will disappear, with all the objectionable apparatus for preventing, detecting and punishing them.

Prostitution will become extinct; it is a commercial transaction, dependent upon the economic need of the prostitute and the customer’s power to pay.

Sexual union will no longer be based upon material conditions, but will be freely contracted on the basis of affection and mutual attraction.

The birth of children will cease to be prevented by reason of poverty.

Material anxiety being removed, and the race for wealth eliminated, other objects and ambitions will take the place of the personal struggle for individual material existence; since all will benefit from the labour of all honour will be done, not to the wealthy, as at present, but to those who are skilful and zealous in the common service.

Emulation in work will take the place of emulation in wealth.

With the disappearance of the anxious struggle for existence, which saps the energy and cripples initiative, a new vigour, a new independence will develop. People will have more courage to desire freedom, greater determination to possess it. They will be more exacting in their demands upon life, more fastidious as to their choice of a vocation. They will wish to work at what they enjoy, to order their lives as they desire. Work will be generally enjoyed as never before in the history of mankind. [2]

Which summarized is to say, we want liberty, equality and fraternity as we define it. The problem with leftism is that there is no end to the amount of alleged liberties, rights, lack of equality and lack of democracy that one may or may not have. Whenever someone is aggrieved, then we need to say that they are not equal, or are not given equal rights as everyone else, and then we need to reorder society in order to give them those rights. And since, as Kirk mentioned, progress in one area is regression in another, then we have to take rights, liberties and opportunities from one group and then give it to the group which is feeling disenfranchised. That is immoral and evil. Especially if we're looking at the means by which leftists have attempted to do this throughout history. Hint: It involves the guillotine, firing squads, artificial famines, political assassinations, mass extermination, genocide, purges, and labor camps.

What Conservatism is, and Why Leftism is Evil

What Conservatism is, and Why Leftism is Evil

Values and Merit Matter

Alright, let's talk about what makes Conservatism moral and leftism immoral here. As you read from Sylvia Pankhurst, to the leftist, there is no such thing as evil. At least, not when it relates to the disenfranchised. The disenfranchised are always good, no matter what actions or worldviews they hold that might be malicious, terroristic, vile, depraved, perverse or otherwise. It's only the oppressor who is evil. It's those white cis-gendered, probably Christian, males, conservatives and the rich people who are evil. It's not the people who are disenfranchised, they are not responsible for their actions because evil was done to them by the oppressor class, so they only behave as a reaction or as a result of oppression. That's what Islamic jihad, black crime apologists, "LGBT" advocates, feminists, SJWs, the poor, welfare recipients, communists etc. have in common. Nobody is to blame for evil within those communities but the outside oppressor force, any crimes committed within those groups or with relation to those groups is only and can only ever be the result of the oppressor class oppressing that group and as a result leading them to commit evil deeds.

However, the right sees evil as evil. When a jihadist rapes a girl, sells her into slavery and burns her alive when she is disobedient, that act is evil. It is not because of a super oppressor force oppressing jihadists that makes them evil, it is their actions. Their values and the actions which come from their values merits whether or not that person is respectable and good, or despicable and evil. The problem is that the left sees all values, cultures and people as equal. They cannot distinguish between their moral anger at the inequality in the world and the actual reality that the existence of inequality is a good thing, keeping evil down and allowing good to flourish, even if it isn't perfect as it exists today.

Leftists imply that merely by existing you are worthy of respectability, rights, equality, liberty etc. etc. Conservatives believe that what you do and what you believe merits whether I should give you rights or respect. Just because you are LGBT, Muslim, black, or communist doesn't entitle you to respect. If you believe in evil ideas or commit evil actions then you are not worthy of respect. In fact, even if you're a decent person you're still not worthy of respect. NOBODY is worthy of respect from ANYONE.

This is one of the reasons the right advocates religious values over secular values. The reality is, everyone left up to their own devices can come up with any number of different value systems which are at odds with other value systems. This is why we need a common cultural, religious etc. heritage so that we can all agree that something is evil. Take Islam, for example. In Islam, raping non-Muslim slaves is legitimate. Now, I know leftists love to attack the Old Testament, which is fine. However, no Christian or Jew is behaving in accordance with the Old Testament in the way Muslims behave in accordance with Islamic texts. There is nothing Muhammad did that ISIS does not do today.

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)

Furthermore, most people in the West find murder and killing absolutely deplorable. However, according to Islam, Muhammad laughed and giggled when he saw people die in front of him.

Aamir bin Sa'd radiyallahu anhu says, My father Sa'd said, "Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam laughed on the day of the Battle of Khandaq till his teeth showed." Aamir radiyallahu anhu says, "I asked why did he laugh?" he replied, "A Kaafir had a shield, and Sa'd was a great archer. The kaafir protected himself by swaying the shield from side to side covering his forehead. (Sayyidina Sa'd radiyallahu anhu was a famous marksman, but the kaafir did not let the arrows get him). Sa'd radiyallahu anhu took an arrow (and kept it ready in the bow). When the non believer removed the shield from his head, he quickly aimed at the kaafir and did not miss the target, i.e. the (enemy's) forehead. The enemy immediately fell down, his legs rising into the air. On that Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam laughed till his mabaraak teeth showed." I asked, "Why did Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam laugh?" He replied, "Because of what Sa'd had done to the man." [3]

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

In Islam, Muhammad is seen as the perfect man. In Christianity, Jesus is. Jesus never raped anyone, nor did he condone the killing of anyone or laugh about it. This is why ISIS does what it does. Leftists want to blame all of the oppression in the world on capitalists, white conservative cis-gendered men and the Western world rather than on the actual cause of oppression, which are a) what values you have and b) the result of the natural state of inequality in the world.

Hobbsian Realism vs. Leftist Internationalism

The difference between the left and the right with regard to international relations is basically that of Rousseau vs. Hobbes. Rousseau believed, in his famous adagé that, "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." In other words, people are completely fine on their own, it's just society and the evil oppressor class which makes people behave with malintent and it's the oppressor class which oppresses everything! The Hobbsian view, that Conservatives hold to, says that evil is in fact part of the natural order. Evil will always exist, and in fact to counter evil we need a strong force in society to do so. That's what the government is for, oppressing evil. Oppression is a good thing, it forces evil to turn tail and run. In fact, leftists know this all too well themselves. It was Mao Zedong who said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Leftists and right-wingers both understand that to make change in the world, to do politics requires force and violence. The only difference is that the left pretends it's on a noble crusade for equality, freedom and rights whilst doing so. And, that the left piles up more dead bodies when it does so compared to the right.

The left's view of international relations can be summarized in the following way, if we give everyone freedom, rights, equality etc. then they'll love us and each other and we'll make peace on Earth! The right's view is that international relations is a tough thing, however we MUST use force, whether we like it or not, to maintain civil society. If we didn't, every society would end up like Syria and Iraq are today.

Religious Values Are Superior to Non-Religious Values

The left, because it believes all values are equal, also believes that we can make up our own values and make society run perfectly smoothly. Of course, history tells a different tale. The most extremist, violent and terroristic regimes on the planet have been non-religious and anti-religious. There's a good reason for this, as a former atheist it has been my experience also, that if there are no religious values in society, then different values will take their place. Positivism, scientism, Marxism, nihilism, etc. will take the place of any religious values in society once you get rid of religious values. Always.

What Conservatism is, and Why Leftism is Evil

Yes, in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world. We are going to destroy all enslaving and degrading capitalist institutions and re-create them as free and humanizing institutions. The world is daily changing before our eyes. The sun of capitalism is setting; the sun of socialism is rising. It is our duty to build the new nation and the free republic. (Eugene V. Debs, Canton Speech)

The Ontological and Natural Reality of Inequality & Hierarchy

The left believes inequality is evil, and must be overcome by whatever means necessary. This is why the original liberals in the French Revolution cried loudly about liberty, equality and fraternity, while brandishing the guillotine against their enemies and butchered them brutally if they didn't give them their liberty. In other words, it's not 'give me liberty or give me death' which is the conservative axiom, but 'give me liberty, or die' as the leftist equivalent.

The right, on the other hand, understands that people are not equal, and do not have equal abilities, proclivities, determination, ambition etc. And so, equality is impossible. A sociologist Charles Murray estimated that 97% of all inventions between 500BC and the modern day have been created by white cis-gendered males. Black people commit more crime per capita than any other group. Asians make more money in any given society than other ethnic groups. Women make less than men because women choose different careers than men, the latter are more likely to be disagreeable, open-to-experience and take risks. That's why men go into engineering and women go into nursing. People with higher IQs correlate with higher paying jobs. Jews have a vast number more Nobel prizes than Muslims do. I don't even think a single Muslim has produced a Nobel prize. All of this is an attempt to illustrate that people are NOT equal. They never will be. That's not something we should whine and complain about, we just have to accept it and move on. The only thing you can change is YOURSELF, you cannot change society, the world, the universe, the whole population and subject them to your ideology.

What Conservatism is, and Why Leftism is Evil

Family is the most obvious element of the ontological reality of inequality. The male parent and female parents operate different roles in the family, while the children obey, and have no choice to. Children are entirely dependent on the parent, and therefore are entirely unequal with their caregiver.

Alright, that's why conservatism is right. Leftism attempts to make reality into something that it isn't, and in doing so destroys the fabric of society and makes more problems down the road than it purports to solve. A few quick confessions, I was an atheist and I was a Marxist Trotskyite and as much as I used to deny these criticisms of my ideology as "not true communism" etc. the truth is that leftism ALWAYS leads to these types of outcomes. The conservatives are RIGHT about human nature, and their critique of the left I learned that, which is why I left the Socialist Party in the United States. As I said before, this is my first My Take and I also want to mention that I planned to type MUCH MORE than this, but I couldn't because of the 20,000 character limit.

What Conservatism is, and Why Leftism is Evil
What Conservatism is, and Why Leftism is Evil
Add Opinion

Have An Opinion?

Most Helpful Girl

  • vanessacardui

    Thank you for your honest opinion. My biggest problem with this view is the idea that conservatives are not racist, sexist, etc. but are instead just pro-tradition. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the writing, but when part of tradition involves encouraging women to stay home, be reliant on men, and out of the work place or allowing people to discriminate against others for the color of their skin, I have a problem with said tradition. It may be traditional to pay men more, or pay people of certain ethnicities more, but that makes said tradition inappropriate in today's world.
    Also, just so you're aware, your bit about women making less than men for going into nursing whereas men are more likely to go into engineering is not what the current wage gap issue is about. It's not women whining because they make less waiting tables than a male doctor does - it's the unsettling, proven statistics that women with the same amount of education and experience in the same profession generally make less than men (e. g. a female doctor generally is paid less than a male doctor even with the same qualifications). Hopefully this informs you a little bit about the wage gap issue.

    Is this still revelant?
    • Here comes the feminist nonsense. Nobody encouraged women to do any of that, they did it themselves because that's how it worked for hundreds of thousands of year uninterrupted. I don't believe in allowing people to discriminate based on skin color. "It may be traditional to pay men more, or pay people of certain ethnicities more, but that makes said tradition inappropriate in today's world." If they're equal in merit and efficiency, that's true. But women and certain ethnicities are less efficient than white men, some are more efficient, like Indians, Asians and Syro-Palestinians, if you're taking our money to make up for your inefficiencies, that's evil. The statistics from any economist will tell you the wage gap is a myth, women make the same as men for the same work, women just DON'T DO the same work, they always do less.

    • Rissyanne

      I stayed at home and raised my kids. No one made me. I didn't want a day care raising them. And I don't regret it for a second

    • Uh, what? Everyone encouraged women to do that for hundreds of years in Western society. There are multiple other cultures in the world where women did not stay at home. Some have women as equals, others have women as the primary leaders. I'm not trying to belittle women who do stay at home or want to do that. I'm pointing out that many women want to be in the work force and many women do not want children.
      When you say "nobody encouraged women to do any of that" I am truly baffled. In Western cultures women were not allowed to vote, own property, inherit anything of value, take on positions of power, etc. They were legally kept from doing anything but taking care of children and being reliant on their husbands for rights.
      I'm not sure what women are "less efficient than white men" at. Perhaps areas of physical strength, but otherwise I do not believe there is a genetic disparity in intelligence.
      Please provide me with the statistics you are referring to for the wage gap.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Guy

  • drkcmana

    Socialism, which is often a liberal belief, is wrong because it is theft. However its good being liberal on social issues. I believe in a small government, low taxes and more freedom. The government shouldn't interfere with private individuals and private businesses freedom. And this is something that disgusts me about many conservatives, they want to use executive power when something goes against their agendas such as marriage or H1B visas. You can't have it both ways, either you believe in a small government or you dont. Hence the most rational belief, is being a socially liberal capitalist.

    Is this still revelant?
    • Yeah, and that's the type of conservatism (liberal conservatism, Constitutional Conservatism) that I am not. I hold to traditionalist Conservatism. I believe in the need for a strong State in terms of society and economy. My economic views admittedly, might be a carryover from when I was a Marxist, but I still believe that economics need a good level of intervention from the State and that the State should control some industries wholly. So, I guess I believe in a mixed economy. But, I am firmly in the social conservative camp. In this sense, I don't care if you want to have sex with a man, and you being a man. But, keep it to yourself and don't push it on others. I also support abortion in the case of the mother's life being threatened, or rape depending on circumstances. But otherwise, I am pro-life. Anyway, you're free to disagree with me. I don't believe business should dictate how society and culture are, and I don't believe social liberalism is a net positive for society either.

    • I was a Constitutional Conservative type in my youth (like five years ago) when I first got into politics. Then I turned to progressivism, anarchism and Marxism until a few months ago.

    • drkcmana

      Its in everybody's best interest that goverment is kept small and prevented from interfering. That way everyone can have their freedome to operate as they please. You and your inner circle can hold onto your traditional values and those who dont want to can simply reject them and mind their own business. Everybody gets their freedom and choice. Government needs to keep its nose away from private individual and businesses.
      Its a very toxic mindset when someone has a certain belief and is upset that other dont share his same beliefs and therefor tries to use executive power to forward his agenda. Freedom and small government serves well for everyone.

    • Show All

What Girls & Guys Said

  • ThisDudeHere

    "For the simple reason that tradition works"
    -If it were to work, no one would be making an issue over it.

    And it's also pretty convenient of you to take moderate conservatism and compare it to extremes or failures of leftism such as the French revolutionary ideas or communism.

  • MlleCake
  • MiaBella123

    Okay, this is satire right? Hence the pictures at the bottom so that you can pat yourself on the back the same way that the conservatives accuse the "entitled" liberals of doing? Right? If so, I really enjoyed this satirical take of yours!

    • It's not satire. It's what I believe. I was a Marxist for most of my life, and I became a conservative.

    • That's unfortunate that you choose to be a conservative, but I suppose it's your American right to be so. But pro tip, if you're going to write a mytake or whatever, I would advise against saying "this is my first one so it may seem disorganized" especially at the beginning because that will make think people believe that you are incompetent and will therefore be turned off to read it.

    • I won't say that again, because then it wouldn't be my first.

    • Show All
  • kilowatt04

    You mention Muslims a lot as if they were a leftist, Liberal thing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Muslims and Christians are both Conservatives. Their religions are almost identical in beliefs and values as a whole. They are simply rivals, like the Cowboys and the Broncos, or something, otherwise identical. In Muslim run countries, they kill Liberals. Muslims and Christians both hate exactly the same things and the same people. The extreme forms of Islam that the American Conservatives have come to hate and fear (rightly, if you are careful to keep it specific and not to all Muslims) just choose to go by the more violent parts of their book, and kill their otherwise identical rivals. Most American Christians have chosen to ignore the similarly violent parts of their book, fortunately. It has not always been so for all Christians in the past, and is not so around the world. So please stop bringing Muslims into conversations about Liberals. They are totally different things and do not support each other. You will find a lot of Liberals mentioning that they support freedom of religion. That's something explicitly granted in the Constitution, so, if you don't want Muslims to have a right to practice here, you don't believe in the Constitution. Modern Conservative Americans tend to believe in the freedom of only one religion - Christianity.

    There is a lot more to cover than religion, just wanted to make this very clear as you seem to be making a pretty big thing of it. Otherwise, yeah, Conservatives have their values and Liberals have their values. That should be fine, as long as they don't start trying to use State authority to drive those values into everyone. That's the part that always ends up badly. That's Authoritarianism versus Libertarianism. I don't really care whether you believe a traditional family is better than a leftist family, but what do you intend to do about it? When the answer is "outlaw kinds of families I don't agree with" then we have a problem. When the answer is "use State authority and national media to define people who I dislike as lesser than others" then we also have a problem. The reason that both Fascist (which are highly Right-leaning authoritarians, who would agree with you on most of the matters of this Take), and Communist (which are obviously highly Left-leaning) states are a disaster is because they try to push their view on everyone by force.

    • I wasn't claiming that Islam was leftist at all. Islam is a conservative religion, no doubt. That doesn't mean Islam is okay, which is what the left tends to believe and tends to support Islamism whenever they get a change.

  • juliaanita

    I just love these satirical pieces! You really have a gift for writing satire. I love it!

    • How could this be a satire? Honest question.

    • juliaanita

      If you did not write this as satire, then I think that you and I live in different realities. Don't take that as an offense, just an observation.
      Are you Russian?
      If you would like to converse more, we could, but probably privately as topics like this tend to draw out the worst in people.

    • No, but I am Russian Orthodox.

    • Show All
  • This was a hilarious read and I questioned poe's law multiple times. You have a good life with that third grade education and don't forget to clutch your bible a little tighter.

    • Okay, do you have anything substantive to say?

    • Yeah, anybody who says a political party is evil and tries to back it up with bible passages doesn't know anything about scientific bias.

  • RhythmBlack

    Tradition is meant to be challenged because traditions from 100 years ago don't fit well with today's society, as with the tradition from today's society won't fit the future's society 100 years from now.

    • Evidence? They worked for hundreds of thousands of years, where do you get off telling people to do differently?

    • She's a liberal, arguing with her will get you nowhere.

    • @CorruptedDocument You might get farther by having a discussion.

      @BeingandTime hundreds of thousands of years ago there was no writing, and there were still Neanderthals. Tradition changes all the time, and usually for the better.

    • Show All
  • "Conservatives are pro-tradition"
    And traditionally, society has been "anti-gay, anti-woman", not to mention racist and bigoted, so Conservatism is all those things, by your definition. Tradition works for the people at the top of the heap, not so much for the persecuted, including former property like women and slaves.

    "we have to take rights, liberties and opportunities from one group and then give it to the group which is feeling disenfranchised. That is immoral and evil."

    You may not have noticed, but mostly, it has been giving rights, liberties and opportunities to the disenfranchised, and that hasn't taken them away from anyone (unless you count the right to own someone).

    "Leftists imply that merely by existing you are worthy of respect[], rights, equality, liberty etc."
    Um, yes. That's pretty much what rights are. Respect and liberty are the only ones that can be lost because of a person's actions. Equality means equality under the law, not equality of outcomes.

    "The most extremist, violent and terroristic regimes on the planet have been non-religious and anti-religious"

    So, ISIS aren't one of "the most extremist, violent and terroristic regimes on the planet"?

    Clearly, you have no teenage children, if you think "children obey, and have no choice to."

  • Blue_Anon

    Here's the too long did not read version.

    absent is advocacy classic conservative principles of freedom, democracy, and smaller government. Rather strap yourself in for a paragraph breakdown of the new school conservative ideology based on authoritarianism, religious insanity, and hate and fear of a fictional version of liberalism rooted in obsolete 19th century thinking.

    Fail number 1: takes an extreme minority view very few (if anyone) believes in and extrapolates it across ALL liberals.

    posts a tedious, rambling quote too poorly written to make any sense of.

    conservatives are "pro tradition" aka afraid of change. He says new reforms often go wrong. You know how abolishing slavery, ending segregation, giving women the right to vote, abolishing child labor, breaking up monopolies, etc all went so wrong and fucked up society.

    Portrays modern liberal views with a quote from an extremist, communist Ethiopian who lived between 1882-1960 baring no resemblance to anything anyone believes today.

    mis-characterizes advocacy for freedom with anarchy. "The problem with leftism is that there is no end to the amount of alleged liberties, rights, lack of equality and lack of democracy that one may or may not have" Cuz freedom such a horrible thing right?

    "progress in one area is regression in another, then we have to take rights, liberties and opportunities from one group and then give it to the group which is feeling disenfranchised" Like how slave owners lost free labor when we abolished slavery. how white people had to compete for jobs when we ended segregation. how men were emasculated when women were allowed to vote. how corporations lost cheap labor when we abolished child labor.

    blames every genocide and famine on liberals ignoring that nearly all were committed dictators and mad men and motivated by politics, fear and evil not liberal ideals.

    caricatures liberals again with an extremist, minority view that societal problems are caused by those power oppressing other groups. explains that conservatives understand when a jihadist rapes a girl this is an act of evil committed by the jihadist and has nothing to do with oppression from outside forces. yeah no shit. EVERYONE but a fringe extremist knows that. Not just conservatives.

    explains you're not worth of respect and rights by existing. (sorry slavery and forced prostitution opponents) "just because you are... black... doesn't entitle you to respect." sorry black people.

    • Blue_Anon

      advocates for morality based on the biggest bullshit ever created - religion. claims we need a common value system to agree something like murder and rape are evil cuz of all those liberals advocating for the right to rape and murder. lol.

      Presents another extremist 19th century view no one believes today. "Leftists want to blame all of the oppression in the world on capitalists" lol. uh no.

      Misrepresents modern liberal views referencing Rousseau, a 16th century Swiss philosopher.

      presents a paranoid view that evil is lurking behind every corner and, contrary to classic conservatism advocating freedom and smaller government, advocates for an authoritarian, oppressive government to combat it. "Oppression is a good thing" wtf? "we must use force... to maintain civil society." uh ever heard of these things called laws?

      proves himself the religious nut job brand of conservative when he says "Religious Values Are Superior to Non-Religious Values"

    • Blue_Anon

      at this point this nonsense became too fucking long and ridiculous to read.

      Welcome to the new school of conservatism - hate, fear, religious quackery and authoritarianism.

  • G-Daz

    Exactly, this was very well written. This is why I oppose leftism, it'self is quite an evil ideology. Hitler was a leftist and leftism has almost always provided us divisions

    • I'm still waiting for someone making that claim to provide *any* text written by someone who was actually an adult during WWII that says the Nazis were left wing. It's complete rubbish.

    • @goaded Have you not read through their policies?

    • @CorruptedDocument So, you've got nothing, then.

      With regards to their policies:
      "When Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky, and tariffs on imports." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

      Totally left wing.

      "On the one hand, [Hitler] proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system", but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.""

      "Hundreds of thousands of people in occupied territories were used as slave labour by leading German corporations including Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Demag, Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Philips, Siemens, and Volkswagen" (not for the state, you'll notice, for corporations).

    • Show All
  • RationalMale

    Conservatism is a nice thought. But it's fucking useless in reality. They're noble losers, believing in civic nationalism.

    Hell, conservatives couldn't conserve the woman's bathroom, and National Review itself ran articles on transgender rights. Conservatism is dead. Today, we are all Alt-Right.

  • Viperkiss

    As if either ideology could be defined in such narrow peramiters.
    This is just simply your theory on the political divide, backed up by cherry picked information, intentenally ignorant and dismissive of which you oppose.

    Your take simply boils down to this: liberals bad immoral vengeful jerks - conservatives good moral people who should get what they deserve.
    You really believe the tripe people who have more power and money feed you so they can exploit you more. That's kinda sad.

    As someone who does not affiliate myself with any political idealism, I gotta say both sides have devolved into 2 retarded chimps throwing poo at each other insisting that their poo smells better.

    • I think that's a strawman of what I did here. All I did was type what conservatism was, and then why I believe leftism will fail each time it's practiced and what the results would be. I am not intentionally dismissive of that which I oppose, because I didn't oppose it a short time ago. I was entirely on the left, and I was willing to commit violence and terrorism for my leftist principles just as the Soviets were. I only changed because I changed my opinion about this toxic ideology of leftism. Liberals are not immoral, but their ideology leads to more immorality than morality, though they are well-intentioned. Not every conservative is a moral person, many don't even know what conservatism is, they're just conservative because they grew up conservative. People have more power and money because people are not equal and because many of those people, though not all, worked for what they've obtained. Conservatism is political pragmatism, not idealism. It accepts reality as it is.

    • Viperkiss

      "Conservatism moral and leftism immoral".
      Your own words buddy.
      "but their ideology [liberals] leads to more immorality than morality"
      Yet you have nothing more then a few fragments of 'evidence' for such ridiculous claims.
      "willing to commit violence and terrorism for my leftist principles"... well now we know your screwed up.
      "I believe leftism will fail each time it's practiced and [I know] what the results would be. I am not intentionally dismissive of that which I oppose". Really? You just suggested that your so smart you know leftism will always fail and (incredibly) what the results would be. Amazing. That's very dismissive. You must be really smart. Smarter then everyone else. Yet none of your writing supports that. None of it. In fact by your writing, we can see you are desperately trying to intellectualize your opinion into something credible but fail badly.

    • Viperkiss

      Oh and "why leftism is evil".
      Ya that's not dismissively ignorant at all.

    • Show All
  • RolandCuthbert

    That was a little bit. . .

    well. . .


  • I-am-a-nobody

    Very good.
    Long, but worth it.

    Leftism has a belief that people are all good and will act in the best interests of society, which is naive at best.

  • NotJustHereForLulz

    Nice piece. It's actually full of well thought out points and reasonable presentation. It's certainly superior to that mess of a post that you responded to.

  • SuccessfulHornDog

    Well written. I love the transparent attempt by the leftists to denigrate this by calling it satire.

  • 0112358


    Most leftists will be confused because they can't and won't distinguish between conservatives, right-authoritarians and neo-liberals with a libertarian bent. So they'll read into what you said things you didn't say.

    What's interesting of course in a U. S. perspective is that Bannon's faction is not remotely conservative. More generally -fascists- are not conservatives -at all-. They appeal to some values shared with conservatives, but fascists - like communists - are utopian revolutionaries.

    The success or failure of authoritarian movements of the right hinges on whether they win the support of conservatives, or are resisted by conservatives. When conservatives rally to them under some claim they are defending conservative values, they are dangerous. When conservatives see authoritarians as reckless and overly idealistic, they will be blocked.

    • Whereas you're doing something totally different by referring to everyone else as "leftists".

    • 0112358

      @goaded Yes. Because i'm well aware that different left-oriented groups hold different and conflicting positions ;)

      For the record, I'm not a conservative.

  • jacquesvol

    Good satire of conservative views.

    • It's not a satire.

    • I want to sort of, for the record, ask why and how it's a satire when you're quoting from conservative political theorists and posting videos of leading conservative figures. If that's a satire, then I don't know what I can do otherwise to argue this topic.

    • jacquesvol

      If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck can it be a giraffe?

    • Show All
  • Browneye57

    TLDR - but yeah, progressivism and socialism are a disease on western culture.

  • 100lbguy

    Scientism at least uses logic unlike the outdated abrahamic religion

  • Sloane

    Great take. I'm an Atheist Conservative.

  • Rissyanne

    You hit it dude... great take

  • Dred1614returns

    Let the triggered liberal bashing begin...

  • It's extremely long winded.

  • lucius46ad

    Pontificate much?

  • Toreno

    Nice take.

  • Iraqveteran666