Western Europe & the Anglozone are the wealthiest most industrialized societies on earth. Life is good for an average W European or American. With this comfort, people naturally love doing whatever they want. It's not in their immediate self-interests to ever be conservative.
Globalism & the post-WW2 order have made the world the most peaceful it's ever been. Consumerism satisfies our carnal urges & a stable, peaceful society lets us enjoy them while also encouraging them. Nobody really cares about returning to antiquated ideas of the past as a result
Young people are never going to be brand-ambassadors of conservatism because conservatism offers nothing in return. Only people stuck in the past, in a mystical trance of the sirens of history have some romanticized urge to return to it. It's not gonna happen.
Smartest, most successful people I have known were either classical liberals or progressives. There wasn't much I could say to them that could convince them that liberalism, globalism have not made the world a much better, much more peaceful & richer place.
Ask yourself this, what's your selling point? Are you going to preach about the dangers of "free speech", "the gays" and "marxist degeneracy" to people to get them to subscribe to the idea that globalism, consumerism, liberalism are bad?
Or perhaps you'd like to tell them about their "ancestral blood" and appeal to their caste, race, or ethnoregional lineage? In a world where this means nothing and their own direct competition comes from people belonging to the same in-group, why should they ever care?
The only things people will still care about are those that are acceptable in the liberal framework, which sound sensible. You can tell savarnas that caste-based reservations are bad because they're anti-meritocratic (meritocracy is a very liberal concept btw).
You can tell savarnas that Islam is bad because it's regressive, because it defies the liberal order and hence disturbs our stable world. Those were the low-hanging fruits. You can only comfortably argue for them because these positions are very liberal themselves.
Can you ever hope to make convincing arguments as to why priesthood should be restricted to males, why women and non-dvijas cannot chant the gayatri mantra?
Can you make it "make sense" to your own friends or family that chanting om bhur bhuvah svaha is bad for them?
Can you make it "make sense" to your own friends or family that chanting om bhur bhuvah svaha is bad for them?
Can you argue and defend the caste system without once again pretending to imply that it was a very humane, liberal system? Are these arguments socially acceptable?
They are not. That's why conservatism is dead.
They are not. That's why conservatism is dead.
Political authoritarianism has also been forever sullied by the wartime violent excesses of the 3rd Reich and Imperial Japan. Quite simply put, the Germans and Japanese made sure authoritarianism will never be seen as a respectable or salvageable position in politics anymore.
An analogy I had made before was liberal ideas are high entropy. Conservative ideas are low entropy. To borrow an analogy from chemistry, the activation energy to catalyze the 'conservative' reaction is far far higher. It's metabolically expensive & so not spontaneous.
So you need a catalyst so that the reaction advances. Think of social taboos and the mos maiorum as these catalysts. They "enforce" conservative values in a society.
Loading suggestions...