well, now that school is winding down, i took a break from readings at work to bait some
young conservative.which made me realize something. although i may take it as a given that conservatism in our day is little more than a rhetorical fallacy with the intention of perpetuating the ongoing subjugation of the
polis by de facto corporate rule .............. there's a lot of people who don't even understand what the fuck i just said, let alone what's wrong with conservativism. please, regardless of your political affiliations, read
this. it's a fairly concise synopsis of the genesis of conservativism. if you read it openly and consider the nature of the neo/paleoconservative movement (and aren't in business), i think that you'll never give conservatism a second thought ever again.
rather than rehash agre's wonderful piece, i thought i'd compile a brief little glossary. see, conservatism functions by co-opting language (thank you 204!) and altering its connotations, or exploiting its pre-existing connotations for nefarious goals. so when a conservative ideologue talks, they're not necessarily lying. what's happening is that they're selectively citing statistics and engaging in doublespeak - that is to say, repurposing facts and languages for their own purposes. liberals do this too, and often in the same ways. but either way, the meanings they attribute to the words they use don't correlate with the meanings assumed by the general public to do so. thus, when one is voting conservative, one is voting based on one's own conception of the conservative platform, which is essentially false.
as Agre notes, "Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice." so, when a conservative says certain things, they actually mean different things to us. this is an attempt to translate some common conservative turns of phrase into the common vernacular.
freedom is the main one, so there'll be a few:
freedom: the freedom to internalize (on penalty of legal sanction) the values of the aristocracy.
freedom of the press: the freedom for my friends and associates in the business world to own
all of the press.
free trade: the freedom of much larger corporations to get all the profit which might otherwise be accrued to smaller or foreign ones, and thereby consolidate the ranks of the aristocracy.
freedom of speech: the freedom to engage in blatant sophistry, misleading citation of facts, and ad hominem attacks, and then to pretend that you've made a logical argument. (sure, freedom of speech
does entitle them to do this. it also entitles me to call those who do it rabid kitten-eating child-raping heroin-addicted cum-guzzling self-serving profit junkies without a soul or semblance of dignity. and
please do note that i didn't claim that was a logical assertion.)
freedom in the Middle East: the freedom of the brown folks to submit wholeheartedly to the values of free trade, empty consumerism and American cultural hegemony.
freedom in school choice/health care/daycare/etc.: freedom for the aristocracy to develop their own,
far better schools, hospitals, and daycare centres without having to benefit the proletarian masses and (god forbid!) maybe letting them get a share of the profits.
and here's some more grab-bag entries.
democracy: the ability of a populace to choose at will an elected dictator who will systematically institutionalize the interests of the corporate power structure.
traditional values: the rule of the common people by a quasi-hereditary aristocracy and the universal imposition of the economic, political, and moral values of that aristocracy by force of law.
economic growth: an increase in the amount of profit acquired by the aristocratic capitalist class (generally, the top 5% of all earners), regardless of the costs accrued to the working class and/or the vast majority of humanity.
culture of entitlement: the ridiculous claim that, perhaps by virtue of one's being born on this earth, one ought to be entitled at the very least to a free and equitable enjoyment of its resources, and the profit accrued from such. (digression: conservatives piqued at this claim,
please note the Lockean proviso. 'as much and as good for others' ought to entitle people to a substistence-level stipend, regardless of your greed.)
Liberal waste: the usage of surplus income to benefit society as a whole, rather than the aristocracy.
Liberal corruption: cronyism and backdoor dealings which don't wholly benefit the aristocracy.
a strong military: a strong mercenary contingent to serve the global policy goals of the aristocracy where force is necessary, and not incidentally keep the global arms race running strongly and funding the military-industrial complex.
the war on terror: the perpetuation of a constant militaristic devotion to aristocratic rule and the ideological construction of an enemy to justify an authoritarian state.
....
alright, that's about all i could stomach for the moment. and hey; for equal opportunity's sake, i'll throw out a few bits of liberal doublespeak that are equally nauseating. but i think anybody rational person will agree with me that the conservative ones are a bit more worrisome. and also note how much more, and more complicated writing i had to do for the conservative ones. this, i think, is one of the great strengths of the conservative movement: a vast majority of the population is far too stupid to even comprehend the explanations of the real conservative agenda, or read the material necessary to do so. haha. anyways:
support for the arts: a nice fat grant for my pet project.
public broadcasting: TV and radio stations that'll play all the lame shit nobody would watch on an advertiser-funded network.
and of course...
the aristocracy: people that are a fuckin' hell of a lot richer than i'll ever be.
