Diversity, Inc.

DiversityThumbby RobL
With only the slightest sagacity it becomes readily apparent diversity is a property possessed solely by Conservatism. Modern Liberalism (not ironically but intentionally) is limited to uniformity, stagnation, regression and repression.

Conservatism has always offered diversity from its founding contributions post Enlightenment through the present day. Conservatism is in fact what we once referred to as classical liberalism. Modern Liberalism is merely the contemporary namesake for an unchanging, unyielding ideology. Whether calling itself Jacobin or Fabian, Marxist or Socialist, Progressive or Communist, Liberal or Community Organizer, regardless the moniker the idea is the same, Leftism. And the goal is to redistribute wealth through a massive State in order to create the Elitist vision of a utopian society.

Compare on the other hand Conservatism which is rich with variation, vast in viewpoints uniquely differing from each others. But a historical review displays the diversity of Conservatism.

From the onset America was formed between a struggle of those who wished to conserve the principles of the Magna Charta and Enlightenment to those who wanted to preserve the post Enlightenment stability remaining loyal to the crown offered.

Another life and death struggle ensued between the proslavery Southern conservatives and the Union preservation conservatives of the North.

Post-bellum the debate advanced between industrialization and landed Cconservatives. This evolved to the Pre-Post WW1 era dialogue between southern agrarian, academic new humanists and return to normalcy Conservatism. Today we have a robust debate from the tensions arising between libertarians, religious conservatives, neo-cons and mainstreamers.

The liberal would offer conservatism only offers bloodshed, after all the Revolution and Civil War were violent events, Leftism is the best solution to end this suffering. Of course history proves otherwise. The Leftist inspired French Revolution was vastly more violent per capita than the American Revolution for as typical with Leftism, the assault is taken out directly upon the people in the name of the people. A quick scan from National Socialism (heavily indebted to their Progressive forebears), through the Soviet, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc communisms easily reminds how deadly Leftism is. Yes fighting for liberty is a bloody work but in the end it yields freedom, where as fighting for Leftism yields killing fields and mass unmarked graves.

Modern liberalism remains a rehash of either the inexorable drive to boring (but bloody) old totalitarianism or collapse under its own weight until the struggle to rebuild the behemoth can begin anew.

So here we are today, Liberalism once again ascendant but essentially unchanged. It is they who remain staid and ironically it will be conservatism, if we can rediscover it, which will progress as it always has society to better things.

The threat and great disadvantage of Conservatism ironically is it’s abundance of diversity. For liberals are united and aligned in their utopian vision which drives the zealotry necessary to achieve. Conservatism remains muddled in the vigorous debate and thus finds herself engaged frequently in splintering feuds which fracture the ideology along its various fault lines. The long conversation must continue but it’s best if Conservatives set aside a bit of the inevitable human passion which arises from such noble and glorious pursuits, to remember our shared Conservative principles of small limited constitutional government, individual liberty, free markets and rule of law. A failure to rally around the core conservative principles risks earthquakes along the fault lines and shattering the nation allow our ship of state to be swamped by resulting Leftist tsunami. • (1322 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Diversity, Inc.

  1. the krell says:

    Nicely done.

    What I find stunning is that despite all of the evidence, the Left and those who sympathize with the “compassion” alleged by the Left, that people still believe its conservatives who are a)not the ones who a truly compassionate and b)that more than the help show up at conservative meetings.

    When I went back to college in the fall of 2010 my intro to poli sci professor refered to the tea party as a bunch of old white guys who want to protect their white ways. Again this was despite the fact that tea party meetings contained a wide swath of people who want a “small limited constitutional government, individual liberty, free markets and rule of law”. Since it was my first semester back after an 18 year hiatus, I had yet find my comfort zone so I didn’t argue the poiny with much spirit.

    It is sad that so many refuse to see the truth no matter how many times it hits them in the face.

    • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

      Wouldn’t it be great, being a bit older, bit wiser, bit more experienced and filled with knowledge of the real world, not the nonsense primary and secondary school filled us with, and go back to college and provide the ‘professors’ a real education?

      • the krell says:

        heh heh heh.

        Now three years into it I am far less timid. In a class on the oil business, which was in fact very interesting, when the discussion turned to global warming, I was drawn into the discussion by the professor because she knew my view on global warming alarmists, based on an essay I wrote. It just so happened that at that time 60 former and current engineers, scientists and astronauts singed a letter written to the head of NASA condemning what a JPL scientist was saying about global warming. (Sorry, but I am fuzzy on the names, but this was early spring 2012.) She chastized me and the letter because it was only 60 people in the face of thousands of a-hole science types who were promoting global warming. I went right after her in class telling her that it was unfair to judge the content of the letter because only 60 people signed it. The next week she apologized to me in class.

        Subsequently we had a private conversation where I admitted that there could be a place for a certain amount of government oversight and she admitted that she was moving to the right regarding how much government is really necessary.

        Small victory, but important none the less.

        • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

          You are on to something. Yes small battles small victories. If you try to achieve victory with one battle, too easy for the Left to paint you as the zealot, the ideologue, the racist, or whatever the slander of the day is.

          The Left is not only ascendant but nearly victorious because they fought small battles over generations. Conservatives slept, were not concerned, or thought they’d look good if they went along. Now we pay the price for generations of absent vigilance.

          As Dr. Sowell said, we have mastered the technique of preemptive surrender.

          Anyway only by us troops on the ground wherever we are sawing Americans one voter at a time can there be hope in redeeming this nation and saving her from bleak socialist sunrise perpetuity.

          • CCWriter CCWriter says:

            Perhaps one reason for the effectiveness of small victories is that the person you are persuading can see firsthand you are not a hateful racist nut, but a thoughtful, reasonable person. If it is apparent to him or her based on your behavior (vigorously making your case but not stooping to unworthy tactics) that you were not as advertised by the left, perhaps, they may think, other things the left says might not hold up? And in private conversations they may be able to admit these things.

            • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

              Yes so true, you describe well the arc of my epiphany.

              It started as a small quibble, an area in which I was expert in was presented falsly in the media. Further reading revealed all media outlets where reporting the issue falsely. I then noticed that certain politicians were providing the media with the false narratives and seemingly vice versa, the two entities were paralleling each other.

              So then I looked into other issues relating to my area of expertise and noticed those were presented falsely as well. Thus I reviewed alternative sources of info and analysis, found them more accurate. Impossible to miss at this point a certain political party and main stream media were marginalizing the correct alternative media reports, why? I could no longer take anything presented in the mainstream media as accurate so I broadened my horizons on a great many things. My initial quibble lead to a trickle and multiple trickles coalesced into a cascade and from the resultant deluge I emerged reborn.

              For years the Left has built up layers of narratives, facades, and fabrications so it took work on my part to peel them away but I’m not a reptilian of the Left, I do not molt in order to grow new skin. I’m a man, my humanity and desire for liberty could not be embalmed forever. If I can escape the mausoleum of the Left to breathe fresh a free man, so can everyone else. But the Left has built a complex labyrinth so we will need patience and guile to guide humanity out of the lair.

              (Sorry if I got a bit carried away here but it was fun)

  2. Black JEM says:

    A certain strategy I have begun to use is to essentially say I don’t trust anyone in DC – and the chummy business relationships (crony capitalism) that have ensued. Invariably the left is motivated by an irrational fear of big business – to which I reply that the things you have to fear from big business are only possible because big government creates the environment for big business to rig the game in their favor.

    The pauses on their faces are priceless.

    And I then tell them to read Williamson’s book (The End Is Near and It’s Going to Be Awesome: How Going Broke Will Leave America Richer, Happier, and More Secure). I cite the part where I think he quotes Manzi to describe the impossibility of central planning being able to match the decisions of millions of people following their own desires based upon simple math – amount of information to digest “x” amount of available time.


    I even got one avowed leftist to borrow the book and give it a read. In the end, their utopia will fail. Our task is to try and be prepared to pick up the rubble and start anew.

    • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

      Yes, good!

      I think it was Hayek who expanded on Adam Smith offering the free market can adapt to the infinity of human potentialities where as centralization can only limit potential because management can only order the finite. Thus government bureaucracies will always be restrictive, constrictive and corrupt to boot as they require humans to manage fraught with the vice such endeavors in human nature guarantee.

      (or something like that)

    • CCWriter CCWriter says:

      Yes, Williamson’s book is great. I have it high on my to-do list to write a review of it for this blog. I think he writes it in such a way that even liberals might be willing to read it.

      But to your point, in my opinion we are not supposed to be waiting for some spectacular across-the-board collapse. We are supposed to be sprouting new ideas and ad-hoc solutions wherever cracks open up, and without waiting for permission.

      • Black JEM says:

        I hardly feel it will be an across the board collapse. It will just start showing up in certain places – Obamacare is a great first example.

        It is being stillborn as we speak. Businesses are working right now to attack the problem and with data mining finally taking place hardcore in the medical arena, new and interesting solutions are being created.

        • CCWriter CCWriter says:

          Let’s hope so. Part of the whole problem is the attempt to minimize, misattribute, cover up, ignore solutions as they are being created. Maybe it will be different with Obamacare.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *