That would be inherently self defeating to Conservative ideology.
Conservatism isn't meant and was never meant to prevent progressiveness and maintain the status quo at all costs. That's shitty lefty doublespeak as usual. Conservatism inherently does not have a path "Forward" only a foundation upon which to erect should the country need a fallback.
The point for Conservatism was to allow progressive change to society GRADUALLY and carefully monitored to prevent a shit show.
I disagree with your "point of convervatism". That's more liberal doublespeak again. Much of the change that "liberals" push for are negative, period. There's no gradual about it. Conservatives didn't have apprehension and wanted to slow down change, they simply didn't want the change but slowing it down was all they might have been able to accomplish. Liberals thus push the concept that the change was inevitable but much of what has changed is not inevitable and we can change it all again to be exactly what we want not what liberals propose is an inevitability.
For example, there's nothing to stop us from banning women from working or relegating them to nothing more than property of men. There's nothing inevitable about modern feminism. We can do away with it for good and call the patriarchy, progress.
I mean you can disagree with it all you want, I am correct. Conservatism has never been opposed to change, just that change is promoted gradually and tested within the confines of the existing society. You can look up the mission statement of any historical Conservative movements ideological definitions and you'll see this. (Excluding pure Evangelical theocrats masquerading as Conservatives such as the "Freedom party")
Liberals thus push the concept that the change was inevitable but much of what has changed is not inevitable and we can change it all again to be exactly what we want not what liberals propose is an inevitability.
Except history itself has shown that they are in fact correct in that one avenue. The United States never would have been founded without progressive change and shift away from a Theocractic Monarchy that was Great Britain. Change IS in fact inevitable and the earliest Conservatives thought very pragmatically about this. Knowing society will change, it's best to try and control the vector and speed of change rather than prevent it entirely.
Now here's the kicker on how fucked up "Horseshoe" Theory really is, ready?
For example, there's nothing to stop us from banning women from working or relegating them to nothing more than property of men. There's nothing inevitable about modern feminism. We can do away with it for good and call the patriarchy, progress.
You are absolutely correct! However, you and I would no longer be Conservatives. We would be "Regressives" which is equal and opposite of Conservatives. The libs would then become Conservatives to maintain their tranny/feminism bullshit. round and round the wheelhouse goes....
It's all less about the political definitions and more that we all need to objectively agree on what is immoral bullshit.
I agree with your take on things. What conservatives need to become is regressives but again, this label is not good. See, the labels are inherently derogatory. There's nothing regressive about a patriarchy, it is the superior ideology compared to egalitarianism thus it is progressive to promote a patriarchy and regressive to promote egalitarianism.
This is the point I'm getting at, we need to flip things around so that liberals become the regressives in society and the "regressives" become the progressives. Feminism is regressive and patriarchy is progressive. We want to progress society, right? Then patriarchy is inevitable. Progressives believe in patriarchy. You're regressive if you promote feminism.
We want to progress society, right? Then patriarchy is inevitable. Progressives believe in patriarchy. You're regressive if you promote feminism.
Well that's the thing, (I'm going to lump them all together for conversations sake) Lefties/Libs/Commies/Socialist in Western Society are selling to the masses a lie wrapped in a beautiful box with an elegant bowtie.
That wrapping is "Tolerance" and the bow-tie is "Equity". Of course they all support traditional systems but they want it to benefit ONLY THEM and people who agree to think like them so that they are easier to control as the end goal is complete demoralization of the populace.
Hell, at that high of a level it's even less about a system of societal governance and more of a much needed appeal back to root evolutionary biology. We need to put the guardrails back up in establishing clear roles based on ability, tied into that is a patriarchal system of societal governance but it is low on the totem pole in order of importance.
At some point, in the current US political dogma there will come the realization from one side that the two party system is "Fighting Gravity" and hoping to levitate. When that rationalization is realized by the masses we will see the next huge culture shift. It just depends on which side wins that battle which is why the left wing is trying SO FUCKING HARD to brainwash children with their ideology because they know the clock is ticking on that moment.
That would be inherently self defeating to Conservative ideology.
Conservatism isn't meant and was never meant to prevent progressiveness and maintain the status quo at all costs. That's shitty lefty doublespeak as usual. Conservatism inherently does not have a path "Forward" only a foundation upon which to erect should the country need a fallback.
The point for Conservatism was to allow progressive change to society GRADUALLY and carefully monitored to prevent a shit show.
I disagree with your "point of convervatism". That's more liberal doublespeak again. Much of the change that "liberals" push for are negative, period. There's no gradual about it. Conservatives didn't have apprehension and wanted to slow down change, they simply didn't want the change but slowing it down was all they might have been able to accomplish. Liberals thus push the concept that the change was inevitable but much of what has changed is not inevitable and we can change it all again to be exactly what we want not what liberals propose is an inevitability.
For example, there's nothing to stop us from banning women from working or relegating them to nothing more than property of men. There's nothing inevitable about modern feminism. We can do away with it for good and call the patriarchy, progress.
I mean you can disagree with it all you want, I am correct. Conservatism has never been opposed to change, just that change is promoted gradually and tested within the confines of the existing society. You can look up the mission statement of any historical Conservative movements ideological definitions and you'll see this. (Excluding pure Evangelical theocrats masquerading as Conservatives such as the "Freedom party")
Except history itself has shown that they are in fact correct in that one avenue. The United States never would have been founded without progressive change and shift away from a Theocractic Monarchy that was Great Britain. Change IS in fact inevitable and the earliest Conservatives thought very pragmatically about this. Knowing society will change, it's best to try and control the vector and speed of change rather than prevent it entirely.
Now here's the kicker on how fucked up "Horseshoe" Theory really is, ready?
You are absolutely correct! However, you and I would no longer be Conservatives. We would be "Regressives" which is equal and opposite of Conservatives. The libs would then become Conservatives to maintain their tranny/feminism bullshit. round and round the wheelhouse goes....
It's all less about the political definitions and more that we all need to objectively agree on what is immoral bullshit.
I agree with your take on things. What conservatives need to become is regressives but again, this label is not good. See, the labels are inherently derogatory. There's nothing regressive about a patriarchy, it is the superior ideology compared to egalitarianism thus it is progressive to promote a patriarchy and regressive to promote egalitarianism.
This is the point I'm getting at, we need to flip things around so that liberals become the regressives in society and the "regressives" become the progressives. Feminism is regressive and patriarchy is progressive. We want to progress society, right? Then patriarchy is inevitable. Progressives believe in patriarchy. You're regressive if you promote feminism.
Well that's the thing, (I'm going to lump them all together for conversations sake) Lefties/Libs/Commies/Socialist in Western Society are selling to the masses a lie wrapped in a beautiful box with an elegant bowtie.
That wrapping is "Tolerance" and the bow-tie is "Equity". Of course they all support traditional systems but they want it to benefit ONLY THEM and people who agree to think like them so that they are easier to control as the end goal is complete demoralization of the populace.
Hell, at that high of a level it's even less about a system of societal governance and more of a much needed appeal back to root evolutionary biology. We need to put the guardrails back up in establishing clear roles based on ability, tied into that is a patriarchal system of societal governance but it is low on the totem pole in order of importance.
At some point, in the current US political dogma there will come the realization from one side that the two party system is "Fighting Gravity" and hoping to levitate. When that rationalization is realized by the masses we will see the next huge culture shift. It just depends on which side wins that battle which is why the left wing is trying SO FUCKING HARD to brainwash children with their ideology because they know the clock is ticking on that moment.
Regression is definitely the better choice in a lot of areas. Progress is not inherently good.