Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

Aren't left-conservatives just tankies?

4

d4rk OP wrote

i wouldn't exactly be here if i was

3

ziq wrote (edited )

So why are you trying to create a conservative left movement? I don't get it. Which conservative values are you attracted to?

4

ziq wrote (edited )

I know you're going to ignore me like every time I try to talk to you so I'll just say what's on my mind.

You said earlier today that the right is radical and you're always saying the left is conservative, it rubs me the wrong way because it feels like doublespeak. Conservatives embrace tradition, especially traditional family values (patriarchy, heteronormativity), as well as religious morality aka hatemongering. They react to any attempt at progressive change with fury and forever try to reclaim a bygone era when white supremacy and misogyny was celebrated and alternatives were unthinkable. That isn't radical, it's reactionary.

4

d4rk OP wrote (edited )

I can see why you have a difficulty wrapping around such an idea as a conservative left because we're using either side of pre[1] & post-80s[2] definitions. I know that the term conservative holds a lot of baggage, that includes the afformentioned however I support none of them since they cause more social instability.

As it stands, the nuclear family is fast deterriorating, in comparison new domestic relations have begun to unfold and are much more stable. This whole new world is changing for the better thanks to people like you, Anarchists and Socialists of ever stride and step. (to be contd)

4

ziq wrote (edited )

you were born in the 00s so why would you use definitions from decades before you existed? I was born in the early 80s and have never heard any usage of conservative other than the modern.

your link doesn't work btw, which is a shame because I'd be interested in seeing whatever definition of conservative you're using that completely changes the word's meaning

5

kin wrote

I honestly think that OP is really trying to create a new line of thought, even if sometimes seems confused and misleading. And maybe in somewhere in the near future their whole ideology slips into the otherside

4

d4rk OP wrote

Definition no. 2, looks more accurate in my case.

4

ziq wrote

So you mean exactly what I thought you meant. Moderates aren't radical, they reject change because it threatens their privileges in society. They've accumulated wealth and power and they don't want anyone to level the playing field and cost them their comfortable perch on the social ladder.

4

d4rk OP wrote

its not about values, conservatism is just slow progressive. However i do believe in the same bedrock anarchism as everybody else: anti-capitalism, anti-state, anti-objectification of which I understand makes a better and more stable society as opposed to our current condition.

4

ziq wrote

What does slow progressive mean and why is it desirable?

Objectification of what?

Is your ideology informed by you Catholicism?

4

d4rk OP wrote (edited )

  1. its the progressive we have today, the reason why it should be decelerated is so that everyone can be less, on the fence, with the changes and allow inputs to truly become a diverse and inclusive society.

  2. People, defining people as something is simply put wrong. I agreed with you sentiment of letting them define themselves and us using the definitions they are comfortable with.

  3. No, because Catholicism is as with many religions a mythology. Ideology isn't mythology, its rational and deductive.

4

[deleted] wrote

5

d4rk OP wrote

honestly, read the wendy brown workshop on it or this magic piece[1] because I am totally shit when it comes to these things, don't kill the messenger

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm 36 minutes in and they haven't mentioned left conservatism once

they decried capitalists supposed rejection of authority once tho, which made no sense

5

[deleted] wrote

4

ziq wrote (edited )

now the person speaking is specifically criticizing conservatism and its cruelty: "the nostalgia for another time when white men were (unopposed)" and contrasting it with "the new generation" that has no nostalgia at all for that past

I feel like OP is taking something from this video (and my own essays and comments) that just isn't there

5

ziq wrote

well it's over now and all they did was advocate for progressive politics and denounce conservative politics.

so confused

4

d4rk OP wrote

welcome to the club

3

ziq wrote

is left conservatism your invention?

4

d4rk OP wrote

nope, wendy brown et al, had a whole workshop on it.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

The one you linked already?

3

d4rk OP wrote

there's a separate article about the workshop, the one i linked is a summary of the ideology proper.

3

d4rk OP wrote

well it isn't so different from raddle anarchist beliefs other than its for democracy.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

You've repeatedly called my views fascistic on your twitter, even made memes about how abhorrent and awful you think my views are, compared my thoughts to the thoughts of a transhumanist nazi who wants to control everyone with giant weaponized robots, and said you want nothing to do with me or my politics, so I don't think it follows that the strain of radical post-left politics Raddle overwhelmingly embodies is similar to your self-defined "moderate" conservative-left ideology.

I don't think you understand my personal politics if you think I've ever advocated for dark enlightenment or any brand of transhumanism or micro states [edit] so I'm struggling to understand why you think anarchy is in any way a moderate view.

5

[deleted] wrote

3

d4rk OP wrote

because not all of them give an even spread to people? Opsec is good but if anarchism is niche all of what we're doing now is kinda in vain.

3

[deleted] wrote

3

d4rk OP wrote (edited )

no, i just called it that cuz of CARR, I just wanted to juxtapose the name

4

ziq wrote

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but I'm struggling.

its the progressive we have today

But we live in a regressive, cryptofascist, collapsing civilization. What progressivism do we have today? Do you mean like AOC on twitter calling for social justice?

the reason why it should be decelerated is so that everyone can be less, on the fence, with the changes

You mean progressive reforms as in what progressives like AOC and Omar advocate for should be rejected because they're too radical for conservatives to accept?

and allow ipus to truly become a diverse and inclusive society.

What's ipus? If it's a typo and you meant 'us', how would slowing down progress and advocating for more conservatism, or a 'slowing down' of progress lead to a diverse and inclusive society? I'm not following your logic. How do you get from point a to point b?

Also, in a civilization that's rapidly collapsing due to conservative ideology that prizes profits over life, in a civilization in the midst of the biggest mass extinction event in natural history, how does slowing down progress in favor of appealing to traditionalists not end up with even more misery and suffering for anyone outside the traditionalist group?

4

d4rk OP wrote (edited )

before i begin, please calm youself. I will do these by points for you to understand.

  1. I do not wish to conserve an establishment that is clearly deterriorating and affects the stability of society. Algernon Sidney made it clear, any state that cannot put the wellbeing of the least of its citizens first is not worth existing or being a member of.

  2. AOC &c. are reluctant members however of this new establishment many decades in the making. What neoreactionaries call the Cathedral. It is more stable and more rational as opposed to the Nation-State and Representative Democracy.

  3. How do you get from point a to point b

I'm pretty sure Harold Wilson would have said it better, white heat. An even spread of perspectives and opinions as opposed to direct schizophrenic libidinal hoowey that creates further division and instability, that is mostly peddled.

  1. As I described in a previous post you have commented, when the right "grasps from the root", as the word radical suggests. It metricizes, mechanizes and objectifies people, cultures & lives in the quest to fulfill it's own insatiable and unstable course to annihilation. No more can this be found than figures like Mencius Moldbug, Nick Land and S.L.M. Mathers. Of which I have drawn plenty criticism of in the past few weeks.

Lastly, I'd like to thank you for giving attention to the typo, its good to have an editor as an interlocutor during discussions.

3

masque wrote (edited )

What I'm getting from all this is that you potentially agree with anarchists about what the ideal society might look like, but you want to get there real slowly to make sure you don't fuck up?

3

d4rk OP wrote

You have the most accurate description of my thought in this thread so far.

3

masque wrote

Interesting.

Unfortunately, I believe that incremental progress fundamentally cannot lead to an anarchist society. Making small improvements to our capitalist society will only ever progress towards the best possible version of capitalism.

2

d4rk OP wrote

i never said anything about incremental improvement on capitalist society. The whole point of leftcon is the fact that conservatives can no longer support an inherently unstable status quo as that of Capitalist Nation-States.

3

masque wrote

If you live in a capitalist society, and you want to improve society incrementally, you will be performing incremental improvements on a capitalist society, whether that is your intention or not.

Conversely, any non-incremental changes to society are, basically by definition, not conservative.

3

d4rk OP wrote

I agree with the second point, however I wonder how spaces like ours is a capitalist society.

I get how facebook discussions and twitter threads exist within this public sphere within Capitalism, but as I remember Raddle was promoted as something completely different.

3

masque wrote (edited )

I sorta assumed that your political beliefs describe your vision for society as a whole, and not just Raddle specifically?

3

d4rk OP wrote

socialist society** as a whole, raddle in particular. not the contemporary fastly crumbling capitalist society. I see raddle as a better, more stable & democratic space than other sites like twitter or facebook. Also, this being a post-left site, I already assumed this site as discussions within the fledgling confederated socialist society where new politics within it can form.

3

masque wrote (edited )

Allow me to clarify my point of confusion.

You call yourself a left conservative. Presumably this entails a set of beliefs about how you want to improve the society that we all live in, consisting of our current methods of production, systems of governance, and so on. Do you, or do you not, think that this society can change into a more ideal society through a series of incremental improvements?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not talking about conceptualizing an ideal society using the current one as a basis. I'm talking about how we can actually make the real world reflect whatever we take an "ideal society" to be through some series of societal changes.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Honestly what they're saying feels deliberately obtuse. Why would their conservative ideology be about changing raddle, a website, incrementally? It makes not a lick of sense.

3

masque wrote (edited )

I figured that perhaps there was some sort of miscommunication, and they were talking about incrementally refining the ideas of Raddle to produce a final vision to apply to society (hence my clarifying edit, which was maybe not that clear). But if that's not what's going on, then I have no idea.

3

d4rk OP wrote

Yes I agree that this idea society comes through a series of incremental improvements. And I agree with your edit.

3

masque wrote (edited )

Then what I'm trying to say is that I don't think any series of incremental improvements to our current, existing real-world society (which is a capitalist society) can lead to anything other than "the best possible capitalist society." Our current society relies heavily on the state and markets/property. Most changes that weaken one of these institutions (without strengthening the other by a commensurate amount) will likely not result in an improvement in material conditions, and any change that doesn't weaken these institutions is not progressing towards a non-capitalist society.

Thus, in order to progress towards a non-capitalist society, we must make changes that are not improvements in the short term - in other words, things must get worse before they get better. And in order to minimize the amount of time during which things are "worse," we want the necessary changes to happen quickly, ideally simultaneously. This is what a revolution is, and it is antithetical to anything that could remotely be described as "conservative."

3

d4rk OP wrote

Firstly, I do believe I am confused

Either you just retracted your edit

I'm not talking about conceptualizing an ideal society using the current one as a basis.

when you said this:

I don't think any series of incremental improvements to our current, existing real-world society (which is a capitalist society) can lead to anything other than "the best possible capitalist society."

Or do you confirm my own position that the contemporary society of which you call the Current Capitalist society is no longer stable enough to provide for social change to spread out an enculturate.

I would once again affirm my position of no longer being in the Contemporary Capitalist society and wish these incrimental changes within socialist society. I agree with your last point, that..

in order to progress towards a non-capitalist society, we must make changes that are not improvements in the short term - in other words, things must get worse before they get better. And in order to minimize the amount of time during which things are "worse," we want the necessary changes to happen quickly, ideally simultaneously. This is what a revolution is,

3

masque wrote (edited )

Either you just retracted your edit

My edit was badly phrased for what it was trying to accomplish; see my reply to ziq.

Or do you confirm my own position that the contemporary society of which you call the Current Capitalist society is no longer stable

The current capitalist society is not stable. I agree with that.

I would once again affirm my position of no longer being in the Contemporary Capitalist society

This is where you're losing me. We are still in a capitalist society currently, unstable though it may be.

Here is my current best guess at your position:

You think that our current society is unstable, and you're taking it for granted that it will imminently collapse into some sort of socialist society. Your position of "left conservatism" is concerned with how best to improve society once we have already achieved some sort of socialism in the first place (and, specifically, you support improving that society incrementally).

Is this an accurate summary of your beliefs?

3

d4rk OP wrote

I get your confusion but the way I define society isn't temporally or chronologically, as that is a Hegelian invention. Rather I see two different societies capitalist and socialist existing as contemporaries, one old and decaying, one that is new and stable respectfully.

However, I do agree with the last point and you do get the gist of it,

3

masque wrote

If we understand "society" to be the sum total of our patterns of production, governance, and interpersonal interactions in general, then the idea of two contemporaneous societies doesn't really make sense. How do you define "society"?

3

d4rk OP wrote (edited )

a culturally identifiable assemblage with multiple bordering effects.

2

ziq wrote

This isn't a post-left site, it just has a lot of post-leftists because leftists prefer the company of liberals on regular social media platforms.

1

broseph wrote

How are we conservatives? We're literally as far left as you can get.

1

kin wrote

Maybe you have written something and you can point me out, but there is an objective reason to your obtuse shunning towards "western occultism"? Like with Crowley, MacGregor Mathers, etc. You consider Blavatsky and the early rosacrucian in the same way? If you compare some stuff from Kenneth Grant, Michael Bertiaux, Eugen Grosche maybe Crowley look like a choirboy..

Anyways, here is a source of research that I consider unbiased

3

d4rk OP wrote (edited )

My own critique of their style wasn't exactly on their theory of occultism as it was from a postcolonial standpoint. I call Crowley, Mathers &c. as racist because they hack, saw & hew indigenous magickal operations from other cultures to the point nearing appropriation and parody. Its debasing.

However with Blatavsky & Renaissance magic, I'm ok with with this idea of neo-indigeneity. Practices like Techno-Paganism & Chaos Magick are in this same vein not only because it is organic but adaptive to the times.

Now on Kenneth Grant, he looked very based at the beginning because Typhonian and Lovecraftian themes which were adaptive until I read this part which made me throw away the paper immediately:

He was particularly interested in the Hindu tantra, incorporating ideas from it into the Thelemic practices of sex magic.

The tantra isn't sex magic, among other western orientalisms.

Same Problem can be said about Michael Bertiaux and his metricization of voodoo incorporating it into thelemaic ritual. I will however say he is in the clear because he was initiated into the voodoo succession meaning he was taught properly and his contributions were most likely done under supervision and the utmost respect of the priests.

Lastly, I would like to admire Eugen Grosche for flipping the table at Crowley. They made quite possibly an indigenous magickal practice deriving from basic canon and understanding of magickal operations organically.

4

kin wrote

nice! Very good points, thank you for the answer

3