Restorationists

No one knows what conservatives conserve anymore. The average person thinks that conservatives preserve the current social order, which is far from true for anyone who has a conservative outlook; to such a person, we live in a fallen time and what is required is an undoing of the radical changes that have occurred, knowing that such changes will appear “radical” or “extreme” solely because we are so far off the path.

For this reason, we need a new word for those who want to reverse Western decline: restorationist.

A restorationist wants to conserve what has made civilizations rise above the rest to excellence, and has nothing to do with “conserving” the inferior versions of what has been forgotten. A restorationist rejects our society as it is, and points instead toward a type of a social order that leads to the type of supremacy of competence that classical civilization created. A restorationist works toward a society that rejects government, laws and economic manipulation — all means of control — in favor of a cooperative, goal-based society ruled by principles enshrined in culture and an aristocracy.

Look at this wasteland. Jobs are jails, people are broken. “Culture” is disposable junk and novelty fetishism. Our social institutions are banana republic versions of what once brought greatness. People are solipsistic, isolated within themselves and yet determined to project their needs onto others. The result is a vast emptiness disguised by constant meaningless activity.

Restorationists aim to end all of this. We recognize there is no Utopia, nor human perfection, only constant battle against evil or the innate pitfalls of human consciousness. Our goal is to use the methods that have been proven to make the most healthy civilizations, and to extend them toward excellence, so that our civilization points itself toward greatness instead of the absence thereof. We know that a society is either heading toward excellence, or the opposite direction, and what appears to be a “grey area” is merely the time between an act and the arrival of its consequences.

Restorationism naturally excludes all currently de rigeur methods because these are infected with the limits that create our current society. What society fears and makes taboo includes those methods necessary to reverse the decay. If a political method is currently proscribed, that is because it will un-do and revoke the current system, not because it will not succeed. Power structures prohibit that which undoes them, and since our current direction is toward failure, those in power have systematically made taboo all necessary methods of reversing the decline.

For this reason, those of us who desire restoration recognize that there is no compromise with the current power structure. Government, law and ideology are not only corrupt, but corrupting influences, and everything they touch even slightly immediately starts heading toward destruction, just as how a drop of sewage converts a barrel of wine into sewage.

Nothing will motivate people in any meaningful way except restoration of classical civilization. Everything else is a band-aid, a short-term convenience applied in order to delay the inevitable end. If you wonder why conservatives lack the fanaticism of liberals, it is this: liberalism promises Utopia, and conservatism is afraid to offer the Realist version, which is a functional society that also provides existential beauty and pleasure to its citizens.

Currently the Right is riding a wave of victories as the programs of Leftism demonstrate their failures. Leftists being canny manipulators, they will quickly switch sides for a singular reason. They will want to infect the Right with the ideas of the Left so that after the Right-wing rebellion swings into power, it will re-create the Leftist idea and place society back on the path to ruin.

We either purge this sickness from our souls by going an entirely different direction, or it assimilates us much as it converts food into junk, culture into spam, theory into babble and civilization into parasitism. Seeing the problem in this light gives us new momentum, which is why the only social/cultural change that can compete with Leftism is found in restorationism.

(1/3)

amerika.org/politics/restorationists/
archive.is/iGDXD

Restorationists desire the four pillars of making civilization functional again:

1. Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.

2. Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.

3. Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.

4. A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.

Each of these four pillars is so massively taboo in our society that mere mention of it sends the people who are vested in the system scurrying for cover. These are the poisons that un-do our current dysfunctional order, which makes them medicine for those who wish to escape certain doom as civilization collapses, including the destruction of all they have worked for.

Twisting an internet witticism, this can be expressed as: To find out what is destroying your society, discover which ideas are considered beyond criticism. Our civilization is ruled by those dedicated to its decline so that they can parasitize it. The only solution is to restructure civilization so that it works again, which naturally makes such people obsolete, and they will move on to somewhere else where the pickings are easier.

(2/3)

Universal Education.

Welfare.

Human rights.

Women’s rights.

Gay rights.

Unions.

Equality.

Atheism.

All these things are entirely destructive, and none of them can be criticized.

Their removal, over time, would go a long way towards the restoration of a functional civilization.

cool autism but check my dubs

The fact faggots sage real threads has shown how far this board is falling

Pretty much, the fact that there is nothing left to conserve in today's conservatism shows that there is nothing real behind current established figures.

It is then no wonder that young people find nothing of value on it's surface alone. This will be the downfall of the establishment "right".

Hence the reason why so many young people support gay marriage. They've never been told what role marriage plays in a strong and healthy society.

If something has already been destroyed, what's left to conserve?

I, like uncle adolf, believe women should have plenty of rights, just not the ones they have now. Give them benefits for staying home, not promoting degeneracy, a HUGE monetary incentive for having white kids, and so on. Check the reich's policies towards women, we need to have them working with us, not for us, otherwise they simply wont cooperate, and everything will fall apart.

Yes, but who pays for those benefits?

White males, wont really be a problem, once we get rid of benefits for mudslimes and latinos, blacks, "mentaly ill" (madeup x disosrder), there is gonna be plenty of money left, trust me.

bump

This is how single mothers happen

I just call myself a progressive and claim it's about racial seperation, hetronormity, technological advancement and space travel.

Bravo op, and well said. Because this is a good thread you can be sure shills are gonna hit it hard with deformation & ridicule. But you can be sure I'll use restorationist from here on.

It needs to be only if they're married, tbh. I like what HItler did for that incentive too. Loans to expectant married couples for them to build a home, each child they had canceled 1/4 of the capital of the loan.

conservative is something about cuckstianity, big business, low taxes, and bad cop (whereas libtards play the good cop) to new citizens.

I like your ideas, OP, though I do have a question in regards to spirituality: Which religion do you see as the one best fit for this? Or do you have something entirely different in mind?

I'm asking this, because, well everything in regards to the material state of being, whether it be our possessions, or our bodies, is fairly well known to us and it's not that hard to figure out how to use those things for the goals set ahead of us, but the spiritual side is a bit harder.

To be completely honest, I don't think any current religion (or at least those I know) could be considered at least good enough for this sort of movement. They all have too much constraints in them, that prevent a true believer in really reaching their potential and anything other than old pagan religions isn't even remotely nationalistic. And having some sort of spiritual belief/religion that has a lot of rules that just get ignored by majority of people is rather pointless. A belief system that is both easily comprehensible, logical and free of needless superstition would be needed - to make it appealing to the masses, and to prevent any sort of manipulation such as allowing free interpretation of it (or at least make it much more harder). I honestly can't think of any current religion that would fit this.

Sorry if this isn't even close to being comprehensible, I've just got home from a rather long and exhausting work day.

Orthodox Christianity?

Switched devices.

I suppose that is the best one out of the existing belief systems, though I think there are things that speak against it, mostly related to the Bible, which is a mess in my opinion. Too many metaphors, too many things left for interpretation - one of the main reasons for the split among Christians. In the end, Orthodox Christianity is just like any other Christian church - based on a different interpretation of the same thing. Even if all other denominations suddenly just disappeared, sooner or later new ones would pop up, with their own interpretation of a many times very unclear text. That's also why I stopped believing in the Christian God of many faces created through human imagination, which is just as flawed and limited as we are.

Orthodox Church, just like any other Christian Church, is built upon the methapors, it does not really try to explain them, bringing me to my next point - needless superstition. Great things do not necessarily require unexplainable magic. For example, the 40 years long journey of Jews through the desert - every theologian I know of takes this at face value. But was it really just long travel? Could it not just be a methapor for a more likely thing - a long war for freedom?

Still, I have to admit, Christianity is a very good base, in many ways has been proven throughout the ages and offers a lot, but in it's current forms - all of them - it still builds upon mysticism and similar stupidity, while proper explanation and study of it would not harm it and make it any less true. Quite the opposite, actually.

Orthodox Christianity is the best of the ones we have available, but we could do better, at least I think so.

I had a similiar idea, OP, in regards to changing the name, the tone, from conservative to something else. I had initially though about "traditionalist/ism" but the idea was the same. I also agree with the problem you point out about conservatives, they fail to identify, articulate, and layout what they are trying to "conserve", which I believe is a policy failure. As that term can no longer describe what needs to happen, a new term, or label, needs to be developed and pushed. Your 4 pillars are good, well thought out and provide a good base. If you are going to continue to use that verbage, I would suggest removing the term nationalism from pillar one, and replace by describing what nationalism is. Not for Holla Forums per se, but if you are going to try to push it to normal folk. In pillar 4, I would replace relgion with spirtualism. I belive people are more naturally spirtual than they are religious. Remove religion all together from the solution, for the exact points you hightlight in

Stick with spirtualism, as it more correctly identifies the human character.
Good post, would drink a beer with you.

You're forgetting something, user: we have history (largely jewed, but you can still find independent historical sources, as Holla Forums shows) and you can look at historical development of specific Christian denominations and pick out the obvious failures, for example based on the founders' lives or evidence of subversion.
Even more so, Jesus was a historical person. There are Roman records, Josephus, Tacitus, fucking Talmud (different versions show that his name was censored - replaced by code names); considering how much Jews hate him and how they accept it (grudgingly) as real, it's very unlikely to be all fake. Christianity is about believing in a real, historical person - recorded independently as an important Jewish teacher - and that he was God and the Son of God.
Next, question if his miracles and resurrection are real. These are things which could have been easily disproved by (((pharisees))) - open grave, resurrecting a man who was already buried and decomposing, healing the man who was born blind, multitude of miracles (it's much harder to fake a hundred than five), apostles talking in many tongues etc. If (((they))) could just show that it's fake, the apostles would have been mocked as crazy. And face it, Christianity surviving to this day does not make sense - it's impractically pacifistic, which in those times meant suicidal (nearly everyone important was killed eventually and they should have been well aware it'd end that way since Jesus was killed and there were many attempts to kill him earlier). Was the grave open? If not, how did the kikes not shut it down by showing the apostles as frauds and liars? If yes, who opened it despite Roman guards? The apostles? If they were suicidal, they should've fought to the death for Jesus to escape; it's not like they should've had much of a chance to succeed. Someone else? Why if not for an overcomplicated death wish? How were the random fishermen able to preach the religion afterwards? Too many questions, one simple answer: Christianity is absolutely right. And by historical tracking, you arrive at Orthodox Christianity as the historical and spiritual successor to the original.
There's much, much less myth than you think.
Too much detail for a metaphor, too much detail given to specific wars afterwards. If you accept the Bible as historical evidence (at large; there's trouble with different translations etc), some parts of the old Israeli history are described in crazy dry detail to be metaphors and the whole history is recorded extremely well. There are plenty of metaphors otherwise and a lot of them have many meanings, but if some part is supposed to describe a historical event, then it doesn't make sense to describe it in overly detailed metaphors that sound like a different historical event.
You're saying this after complaining about too many individual interpretations?
You think there won't be six gorillion different interpretations and 99% of them won't get sucked back into large denominations because the people who made them don't care enough (or become crazy cults)? Discussion is good and everyone has a slightly different opinion anyway (that doesn't automatically make everyone a heretic), but that can be done within existing denominations; you're advocating mass fracturing that's never led to anything good.
Plus "we could do better, we could always do better" is liberal cancer; we don't know what's better.

By this you mean the goal is to restore the Aryan ethnocentric religion, right op.

Strongly agree with this.

Government makes people lazy. As long as they thing somebody else is working on the problem, they relax and lose their vigilance.

The only possible way for a culture to preserve itself is if all the men know they are the first and last line of defense - if they don't do it there's no other institution to which the buck may be passed.

I like it, I'll adopt it.

Terrific summary, especially since government in our time is not only impossibly distant, both from a geographical and institutional perspective, but because many of it's tasks are pimped out to equally massive and distant corporate entities (a la the NSA partnering with jewgle)

I like it a lot. I will also adopt this.
Probably couldn't have put it better if I spent 3 days staring at a notepad good job bringing us this.

This is false, this not what the average person thinks when they hear the word "conservative." "Conservative" is associated with the religious right, they think of Jerry Falwell when they think of conservative, they don't take the word at face value for "conserve" they think it means "muh evil white right wingers who want to set 'gay rights' back 200 years and take away abortion AHHHH." This is all the term "conservative" conjures up in the average person's mind.

I agree with your larger point, however, we need full restoration of something resembling any European nation or America from the 13th century to 18th century. Take your choice, any of them were far better than what we have today, even if some were less perfect than others.


This is entirely correct.


Women have had plenty of rights throughout all of the western world. There is a difference between the right for a woman to have a normal life, get married, go outside, play with her kids, have friends etc., and the perverse lie women's "rights" we've seen throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, which has nothing to do with women's "rights" and everything to do with destroying western institutions and culture.

Be wary of adopting new labels. The press will find the lowest common denominator of the group and claim that it represents you.

Just leave

This is one of those threads where I agree, but.have nothing further to add. Probably why the threads dropped tbh.

Seriously. Fuck right off. Just because someone chooses not to buy into a bullshit special-snowflake religion doesn't mean they should be scrutinized.

I agree with the rest, but would change atheism into nihilism

The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.