Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Conservatism Is Winning: Real Solutions
by Frank Azzurro
Someone commented on Alex's recent post re: conservatism and poses the question: how do you support modern day Conservatism with lower-case-"c" conservatism - meaning, how does Corrupt support some elements of free market ideology while simultaneously advocating that people contribute to and help revive organic culture in their own towns? The two seemingly are at odds, but we like to look at history, learn from it, and propose solutions that would work for people who care about a sustainable future.
Since we have history to fall back on, we realize that, for example, in the European model, talented young folks would leave small towns and make their way into cities so they could indulge in culture, arts, science, etc. In the US, though we started out with cities (colonies) and spread into farmland instead of the other way around, our talented folks have the same tendencies - to migrate to cities where they have more resources with which to realize their full potential. So the commenter is asking, what's the solution to this - we need to keep a mobile labor force as America has to support some of the free market ideology, while simultaenously encouraging most people to stay in the towns in which they grew up - or at least find a place where their values are shared with most other members of the community. For example, if you love sodomy, maybe you can enjoy a community of people who are open about their love for sodomy, and so forth. For those who love math and science, there would be communities undoubtedly built with many labs and universities.
I think Michael Arth may have found a good start to a compromise between the two seemingly conflicting ideas. In his model, you're certainly not forced to stay in one place, but if more of our towns and cities looked like his pedestrian villages and you add the element of people living with others who share their values, people wouldn't need to always be on the go because everything they need would mostly be within walking distance. I understand this would require huge amounts of rebuilding within our existing infrastructure, but it's crumbling anyway, so why not rebuild it properly? A movement toward a better, more sustainable culture will be gradual, and what we propose in part are the first steps toward combining the best elements of our existing society and balancing them out with necessary, functional elements like the free market.
Regarding 'pedestrian villiages'
For example, if you love sodomy, maybe you can enjoy a community of people who are open about their love for sodomy, and so forth. For those who love math and science, there would be communities undoubtedly built with many labs and universities.
That's a neat-o idea, but is certain to fail.
First, sodomites (either gay or straight) are not necessarily a distinct group from scientists and/or mathematicians. The same point will apply to any specially-constructed community of like-minded individuals.
Second, people are hesitant to leave friends and family to join such a community.
Third, there's an implicit assumption that the people willing to live in such villages are already of the mindset that these villages are the answer to some problem.
Last, I feel like the only type of 'village' this would work for is likely to be a cult.
Thanks!
I'm going to be busy this weekend (visiting some old friends) but tomorrow and upon returning next week, I am most definitely going to start researching Michael Arth and seeing what he's about. Thanks for the response!
New pedestrianism, cars and current reality as a bad dream
I like the idea of becoming a less car-centric society, though I sometimes feel some of the "manufactured community" type ideas don't feel right to me (though I see how they can work for some.) Although this is going to come across as hypocritical to my first statement, I tend to really like nice tree-lined roads with architecturally pleasing living structures. I guess what I take issue with is what we use on those roads. Also, I realize there are other options as well in regards to planning and design.
One thing about the automobile, at least how I see it here in America, is that it has become a symbol of identity. The rich use their vehicles to show off how rich they are. The tough-nuts use there vehicles to project their toughness (along with their a**-stupid armband tattoos; okay, not all of them have these.) I'm not saying this is the case for all drivers where their car is their identity, but pay attention to people and how they hold themselves and the vehicles they drive. Look at their clothes. Watch for "narcissist's eyewear".
We have become a society of purchased identity. We have defined ourselves by our possessions. Sadly, marketing knows this and has brainwashed people that they need this or that to be this or that. I blame people just as much as the marketers though. It is as if people don't even try. We don't communicate about things that actually matter. If you watch people you see what a hugely significant portion of the populace is just playing along their chosen role in this bad dream. I came up with a quote some time ago that sums this up: "The obvious are oblivious." I hope that is self-explanatory enough.
Eric
Frank, you're uninformed, naive & often embarrassing to read...
===========================================================
FRANK: "Since we have history to fall back on, we realize that, for example, in the European model, talented young folks would leave small towns and make their way into cities so they could indulge in culture, arts, science, etc".
===========================================================
Don't be naive, Frank.
People moved to cities and towns from villages for reasons tied to your article on pesticides & agriculture on Amerika.org: a family of farmers required 2 to 3 TIMES as much land for sustenance as today & thus had to have 3 - 6 children to do the insane amount of work and they would've needed at least 3 sons, meaning that if a farmer had 5 daughters already, he'd have to keep going until he produced 3 sons.
Populations grew until arable land was occupied by a century prior to the Industrial Revolution peasants sent their sons to learn trades in the city, eventually there were too many tradesmen and not enough work. This helped along the Industrial Revolution, as these jobless tradesmen became the new proletariat, in Britain but by the 1800s landless peasants swelled their ranks and their conditions, including their origin as explained above, are described in the works of Marx and Engels.
I know this because I have a Degree specializing in medieval history, not to mention grandparents who lived WITHOUT electricity, radio, television, running water and wore pig-skin shoes and traditional clothing until they were in their mid to late 20s, so "since we have history to fall back on" I suggest you actually read it and not make it up.
===========================================================
FRANK: "In [M. Arth's} model, you're certainly not forced to stay in one place, but if more of our towns and cities looked like his pedestrian villages and you add the element of people living with others who share their values, people wouldn't need to always be on the go because everything they need would mostly be within walking distance".
===========================================================
Corrupt likes to point out how the Far-left & Far-right are not so different. But can Corrupt admit that this applies to Corrupt, as well? We'll see if Alex doesn't censor my comment.
Question:
How do you make better quality Human beings?
Communist:
Change the ownership of the means of production because the external stimuli that makes men act like dicks will be removed.
Conservative Hipster:
Develop local communities, lower taxes, shrink gov't, eliminate welfare, privatize health care because the external stimuli that makes men act like dicks will be removed.
Nationalist:
Men are receptive to degenerative external stimuli because they have decayed in the first place and re-arranging the stimuli will only make their spiritual void project itself in any new forms that replace the discarded ones.
People need a sense of belonging that goes beyond mere ideas - they need to have the BIOLOGICAL FACTOR; the same genes for specific traits to the exclusion of others, the same descent, to be of the same ethnicity, share the same history through their ancestry, to have the same religion, because behavior is transmitted through genes and reinforced through conditioning and a group that has BOTH factors on its side is always stronger; fitter for survival than the weaker group that has just one.
To be blunt: you haven't answered EinZeta's question, you've only managed to convince yourself that you have. I'd also be interested in hearing Alex's opinion because I don't think he agrees with you. Alex?
Re:
What a lovely strawman you've built.
You mentioned medieval Europe, not me. The fact is, talented young people from smaller towns and villages did begin moving toward cities for the universities they offer, places where research could be done, etc. This is not necessarily the medieval timeframe, but you have a degree in medieval European history so that's what I must have been talking about, right?
My grandparents lived without electricity as well - what's your point?
I'd welcome Alex's thoughts on this. My response to the commenter was to facilitate discussion; I merely pointed out that Arth's pedestrian villages provide a great relief from modern day dystopic city planning/infrastructure and could signal the beginning of a better way to plan cities - combined with people living amongst others like them, that would be a step in the right direction.
Urbanites, NOT villagers, attended Colleges HISTORICALLY, Frank
Let's look at this exchange carefully, Frank...
1.
=====================================================
FRANK: "Since we have history to fall back on, we realize that, for example, in the European model, talented young folks would leave small towns and make their way into cities so they could indulge in culture, arts, science, etc".
=====================================================
2.
=====================================================
ME: Populations grew until arable land was occupied by a century prior to the Industrial Revolution peasants sent their sons to learn trades in the city, eventually there were too many tradesmen and not enough work. This helped along the Industrial Revolution, as these jobless tradesmen became the new proletariat, in Britain but by the 1800s landless peasants swelled their ranks and their conditions, including their origin as explained above, are described in the works of Marx and Engels.
=====================================================
3.
=====================================================
FRANK: What a lovely strawman you've built.
You mentioned medieval Europe, not me...
=====================================================
Frank...you said at the begining...'since we have history to fall back on...' but HISTORICALLY, individuals attending colleges & universities were URBAN folk to begin with, whereas villagers & small-town folk didn't have access to those institutions HISTORICALLY, only since the 20th century, so there is no such CONTEXT in which to reference the subject. Don't make excuses, don't have an inflated ego, just take the crticism quietly like you did on amerika.org: Wanna solve global problems? Be precise & take responsibility.
You missed the second point Frank...
=====================================================
FRANK: "In [M. Arth's} model, you're certainly not forced to stay in one place, but if more of our towns and cities looked like his pedestrian villages and you add the element of people living with others who share their values, people wouldn't need to always be on the go because everything they need would mostly be within walking distance".
=====================================================
Developing local communities, lowering taxes, shrinking gov't, eliminating welfare, privatizing health care and a country dotted with "Arthtowns" governed by Corrupt's Intra-social Parallelism of self-governing statelets for nazis, blacks, black nationalists, Christian extremists, Muslim extremists, hedonists, fags, PC liberals, scientologists...COEXISTING seperately WITHIN the same country would result in Balkanization even without the Majority inevitably opting to live in degenerative statelets over time because the citizens aren't bound by any spiritual, racial, cultural or even ethnic kinship; even they were, inevitable disagreements on foreign policy will ensue because the statelets are practically independent in every other respect. This is how every Multi-cultural Empire/Superstate collapsed in the past: it worked out a loose federalization of irreconcilable elements in its last days that only hastened the inevitble collapse.
But try explaining this to a Conservative Hipster that Men are receptive to degenerative external stimuli because they have decayed in the first place and re-arranging the stimuli will only make their spiritual void project itself in any new forms that replace the discarded ones and he won't understand because his main characteristics are...
-inability to differentiate between form-substance (eg: 'conservatism' as discussed here - http://www.corrupt.org/news/conservatism_is_winning )
-lack of biological imperative/race, ethnicity (eg: marrying & breeding outside of their culture but advocating a traditional lifestyle)
-hypocrisy/contradictions (eg: marrying & breeding outside of their culture but advocating a traditional lifestyle)
-lack of spiritual imperative (eg: 'what religion should I raise a child?')
-falling into semantic traps (eg: 'conservatism' as discussed here - http://www.corrupt.org/news/conservatism_is_winning )
-free phraseology (eg: 'Since we have history to fall back on, we realize that, for example...')
-blending of personality & lifestyle with politics (eg...Do I really need to give an example for this one, Frank?)
Frank...
People need a sense of belonging that goes beyond mere ideas - they need to have the BIOLOGICAL FACTOR; the same genes for specific traits to the exclusion of others, the same descent, to be of the same ethnicity, share the same history through their ancestry, to have the same religion, because behavior is transmitted through genes and reinforced through conditioning and a group that has BOTH factors on its side is always stronger; fitter for survival than the weaker group that has just one.
This is the GLUE that holds society TOGETHER; it's not parallel communities, low taxes, small gov't, eliminating welfare, privatized health care and a country dotted with "Arthtowns". That's why NATIONALISM is the MOST IMPORTANT consideration; the #1 consideration upon which implementing parallel ethno-cultutral communities & low taxes makes sense...but without NATIONALISM taking presedence before the the others, the seeds for a lack of consensus are made to reep.
your arguments are tiring at best
Again, you take elements from your own PhD (and how proud of you we all are) and inject them into a discussion where they have no place.
Urbanites attended universities - until people from outside cities became urbanites by moving in and attended them, too. Happens here, happened in Europe. People have migrated toward cities all through history, and in particular people who had more to offer than being a farmhand.
Nice attempt at trolling but you can stop copying and pasting from your thesis now.
Your criticism of what you call the Corrupt model is only a criticism insomuch as how the process would be started - as I've said repeatedly - vs. what the final product would look like. We like to ease people toward a certain way of changing things, beginning something new, and see where it takes us as it makes more sense than what we currently have (a static society of consumers). You're using that info as some grand final product we're selling on here, which we're not. Again - strawman
Just pointing out your errors with 10 concrete examples, Frank
Just pointing out your errors Frank & because you find that 'tiring', it doesnt mean that the errors aren't there just because you use a label like 'straw man' first because the fact remains that between the 2 of us, I at least referenced almost 10 concrete & verifiable examples, which is exactly what you found tiring: that you're a Conservative hipster & that your assertions can't be made within a historical context since this kind of generalizaing contextually references norms (urbanites attending higher education for the last 6000 years) and NOT exceptions (a minority of idealistic villagers moving to cities for cultural appreciation since the 20th century, with majority doing so for practical reasons).
No need to elaborate on calling you a hipster, since you meet all the criteria...and reminded me of another one:
-egoism; (eg: refusal to admit error even when unable to defend his POV)
SECONDLY...I criticise Parallelism as you know it: in its Intra-Social model because the origins of this idea go back to ANUS and the concept was initially International in scope, meant to replace Globalism; the intention being that each ethno-culture would be allowed to build its own civilizational ideals within its ethno-historical territory in a world-order that keeps non-local non-local commerce to a minimum with an equally minimum interaction between respective groups. THAT IS HEALTHY.
If you don't think that implementing this social order Intra-Nationally, that organizing one given country along this model isn't stupid, then you don't have the right to say things like 'since we have history to fall back on, for example...' because examples abound of dying empires implementing a loose federalism in the centuries preceeding their collapse.
and therein lies the problem
I used the word talented, which necessitates a minority - which I implied. You're implying it here too. Looks like we agree and can move on from your trolling now.