Anvil vs. Hammer

Cold War political divides have tended to place liberals as a hammer working towards certain goals and conservatives as a defensive anvil that resists the change, slowing it but never reversing.

And wealthy donors, corporations have tended to fund both parties. Most Americans support some of what each party officially aims for, and big business supports some of what each party officially aims for. The two parties conflict, and miraculously moneyed special interests, big business get everything they want. Free trade, mass immigration, war: the wealthy-that-be triumph.

And while liberals proclaim to believe in some ideology or other, it’s really conservatives who are fiercely ideological. No matter the situation, a conservative has the same answers, no need to think. Liberals on the other hand have tended to be more flexible, goal-oriented. If the environment changes, liberals have been readier to adapt.

This is all vague in concept, and I’ve found that most conservatives *do not* like my questioning the wisdom of their ideological loyalty. Conservatives have always lost politics a certain way, and they intend to keep losing the same way. It’s tradition.

I propose conservatives aim to become hammers, which is to say goal-oriented. Forget ideology. Become flexible, willing to adapt to a situation. Democrats, though less ideological, are similarly stuck in an ideology. If we helped give them some of what they think they want, we might find the US affords fewer wars, more strongly resists immigration (if immigrants compete for benefits or are less rewarding to employers), and demands transnational “American” corporations be brought back to the US, via trade trade protections. For a change, poor populists might win some victories over the moneyed powers-that-be. We are *not* going to achieve a libertarian wonderland. Such is anathema to Mexican culture, and voting in good faith that a miracle will pass is foolish.

If such political maneuvering is not possible, then it seems American politics can only be bought due to a design flaw in the system. And the solution then would be to pursue power, ie. pursue great wealth… or to give up on politics and focus on cultural influence, which is another sort of power.

In the Ukraine, we see West Ukrainians glorifying WWII Germany, and we see East Ukrainians glorifying WWII Russia. Each side seems to believe it has been sent back in time to fight evil.

Similarly in the US we have conservative capitalists refighting the Cold War against “Marxists”, unaware they’ve already lost it. Many incredible attacks were achieved under the banner of Marxism and its derivatives, but historically we have slave revolts, revolts of the poor, empires that forcibly relocated and intermarried groups until they were one, new religions, struggles against atheism, the worship of “reason”, demagogues who came to power on false promises, tyrants, oligarchies.

What I mean to say is, historically we have all of the tactics which today we see as “Marxist”. It is not a new thing. Capitalism is not a real identity. A people have a faith, genetics, land, language, ethos, literature, cuisine, and so forth. These are what matter, and it’s necessary to adapt to a changing environment to survive. Politics is most about survival. We learn from past political traditions, but we also must adapt when proven necessary.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but a people cannot be free if ruled by foreigners or if extinct. So, survival and self-rule are more important than are British and American libertarian ideals of freedom. Put another way, if freedom (libertarianism) leads to slavery, it is not very free.

It might not be the best example, but a lion must learn from its mother how to hunt. It is not born knowing how to hunt. As a result, a young lion is able to more readily adapt to a changing environment. We too should become able to adapt. If we pretend we’re genetically encoded to always vote for libertarian or Republican Party positions, we’re not going to survive.

Buchanan might say that “prudence is the mark of a conservative”, might herald Senator Taft as a model flip-flopper. However, American conservatives are not all that conservative. They rarely pivot, rarely adapt.

Finally, American conservatives have tended to target only a handful of target audiences. The moneyed-powers-that-be target all audiences, attempt to buy everyone. We would do well to work with all who share some or another common interest. Example: Trade unions oppose free trade and historically oppose mass immigration (I assume today they are corrupted). Nevertheless, we place trade unions on the “liberal” side. Environmentalists have historically opposed immigration, though again they’re viewed as “liberal”. And so forth. Similarly, we’ve always had non-whites unite against whites. It would be ideal to split the Rainbow Coalition.

7 thoughts on “Anvil vs. Hammer

  1. redphillips

    I don’t think it’s correct that lions aren’t born knowing how to hunt. Hunting is largely instinctual. The mother helps them improve their technique.


    1. weavercht Post author

      It takes a long time for them to learn the technique from the mother. Male cubs have to fend for themselves only around age 2 or 3. I believe much of the time before that is spent learning to hunt, often failing miserably. I realise they must grow as well.

      On nature shows you’ll often see these large male cubs laying about, and their mother will struggle to bring in enough kills to feed them all. Occasionally you’ll see the cubs attempt a kill, but it usually results in failure.

      The advantage to relying upon learning rather than instinct is the ability to adapt.

      It’s absurd to maintain bad traditions and just go extinct.


  2. redphillips

    I’m not sure I agree with this, but it’s good thinking. You should tighten it up and submit it to Traditional Right. I assume they allow pseudonyms.


    1. weavercht Post author

      Naw, I’m stuck in rant phase until I can focus more on this sort of thing. Really, I’ve written the same thing before, just have more to add now. I think the above would go well into a series of memes.

      Today I’ve driven 4 hrs total and had things going on – it’s tough to focus on a serious project like that. For example, Solzhenitsyn mentioned in his Harvard Speech that man naturally tries to expand to the max within the legal bounds. I could add that in. And if I add specifics, I’ve got a book. Chesterton made some rough attacks on capitalism, but they need historical backing.

      Basically I’m arguing that First Things are more important than ideology. If traditions threaten First Things, more important traditions, then they must be corrected. And if you find yourself born into a particular society, rather than into utopia, you have to figure what’s best within that particular society as it currently exists. You can’t demand it become utopia.

      As the US becomes increasingly nonwhite and Democratic, whites will have to grow out of libertarianism and become adults, focus on what’s possible and what’s important. We’ve had fun battling Marxism and windmills, rescuing capitalists and damsels in distress, and now it’s time to sober up.

      Anyway, I appreciate the reply as always. At some I’ll pull everything together. I’m something of a perfectionist, so I don’t like overlooking any single point. I like completion.


  3. weavercht Post author

    I need to make a series of cartoons/memes to argue my case. Cartoons are what people understand, not animated but written.

    Too often if you ask a conservative what he stands for politically he’ll say 1. ideology or 2. whatever the Democrats don’t want, which signifies he really doesn’t have a plan, just opposes the Democrats.

    I realise this isn’t making for a pretty argument.


  4. roho

    I like the thought pattern that you have going on, and love anytime the actions of nature compare with the logic of man kind.

    I don’t believe that Conservatism and Capitalism are one and the same. As a younger man, an older man once asked me, “So, your a capitalist?……….So, how deep are you in the market, or do you simply work a job and claim to be a capitalist?”

    I sometimes think that capitalism was woven into conservatism, in order to make labor controllable.


  5. Kirt Higdon

    With lower animals it’s about 100% instinct. With higher animals it’s a combination of instinct and learning. The lioness teaching her cubs to hunt is acting on instinct, albeit a fairly complex and well-developed instinct. Humans, having free will, can act counter-instinctively and they can also train animals to act counter-instinctively, which an animal would never do on its own.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s