How conservatism eats its own children

Conservative ideas mainly try to save the status quo.
Progress is something they cannot handle.
You can see very good how this behaviour destroys its own future by sacrificing there own children.

The best examples are the dying monarchies.
E.g. empire of the Habsburgers.

Over centuries they tried to hold the status quo by doing incest and selling and exchanging their children into monarchies.

But new ideas are stronger then tradition.

And so the empire falls apart.

https://youtu.be/YlhDp9jT2dU

Similar it was with sissy.
And also with https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Petznek
that is rudolfs daughter.

Vested interests are very much the single biggest impediment to human progress.

Something for those living in EU countries to think about: have you hobbled yourselves with a control system whose primary interest is to keep ever-increasing amounts of money flowing from yourself to itself? It has a parliament - but that parliament has no real power: for example, it is unable to propose legislation! Your democratic control over this organisation is much closer to zero than it is to 100 - and yet it makes most of the rules that you have to live by.

Credit where it's due: the EU has actually done a good job of getting Greece back to economic viability - link (a lot of this progress has been "achieved" by price inflation - but it has still been very impressive).

Mclane wrote:

Conservative ideas mainly try to save the status quo. Progress is something they cannot handle.

Suppose the pressure on a powerful leader was growing because the country's economy was failing, despite it having enormous natural resources. A good leader would deal with the corruption and take steps to improve the economy. The alternative for a bad leader is to invade a neighbouring country: a military victory is always good for the polls.

Now suppose the invasion fails. Most of the individuals in the country will, deep down, now want new leadership - but they cannot say anything out loud, or they would be arrested. For them, protesting would have a strongly negative value. So they express support for the leader and try not to think about the situation - such thinking would cause painful cognitive dissonance.

All this would change if there was an alternative to the bad leader, who had a good chance of replacing him: then, the calculation would be flipped. Suddenly, it would be worth everyone's while to go out and protest!

In this hypothetical situation (this is just a thought experiment - it doesn't relate to anything real), then perhaps the best strategy for countries in opposition to this bad leader to do is to fabricate the good alternative for the citizens of the bad leader's country.

Mclane wrote:

Conservative ideas mainly try to save the status quo.
Progress is something they cannot handle.
You can see very good how this behaviour destroys its own future by sacrificing there own children.

The best examples are the dying monarchies.
E.g. empire of the Habsburgers.

Over centuries they tried to hold the status quo by doing incest and selling and exchanging their children into monarchies.

But new ideas are stronger then tradition.

And so the empire falls apart.

https://youtu.be/YlhDp9jT2dU

Similar it was with sissy.
And also with https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Petznek
that is rudolfs daughter.

Conservative and Progressive opinions both have merit.

They are both there for the benefit of the other, as a sort of balancing beam.

Only extremists cannot see this.

The "conservative" views of traditional family values and sexual morality make sense.

As do the "progressive" ideas of racial equality and anti-imperialism.

Extremists distort everything, as do trojan horses who hijack an ideal disingenuously as a power grab.

Unfortunately, the low IQ side of the bell curve tends to miss the nuances and cheer the extreme ends along on a perpetual shit-slinging contest.

AKA Modern America.

The best thing is to kill the leader.
The bolsheviks killed e.g. the zar and his family.
It was tried with lenin.
It should have been tried much earlier with stalin.

She shot him and it was the right decision, with trump and putin the societies completely failed doing so.
That the russians are not capable to blow away these corrupt criminals on top of their societies shows that they are still very low in the development of humanity and societies.
Why do they allow these pimps like putin to decide about their life ?

Just take a bomb or a gun and delete these bastards out of history.


If a person kills so many others, as trump and putin did, assassination is the only possible method to get rid of him. It failed with hitler too. Not because the germans did not try. But he was lucky.
Erdogan and orban are another candidates. Assad and xi.
Society can only stand by killing the negative leaders.

They did it with caesar e.g. and ended the romain empire.
Without it, Christianity had no jesus to invent.

The romain empire rescued itself by beeing the religious empire for the next 2000 years to come.
But the religious empire is also not much better.

Take iran . The women there should better kill the old religious „leaders“ until these leaders terrorize them too much.

Mclane wrote:

The best thing is to kill the leader.
The bolsheviks killed e.g. the zar and his family.

Yep, sure. Murdering people is definitely the way to solve differences in ideology.

Thanks Thorsten.

The germans and Austrians tried 44 times to kill Hitler.
Lenin was shot too.
If Stalin would have been eliminated early, lots of deaths could have been prevented. Same with Putin. Or with xi.
Millions of people died all over the world because wuhan experimented with severe corona virus from bats. China has millions of people killed worldwide with its institute in wuhan.

These scientists explored about dangerous bat viruses because the chinese government wanted to have these kind of viruses as weapons against the west.
So by eliminating the chinese government earlier, millions of people all over the world would not have died in the covid 19 outbreak.

This is not about ideology. It is about evil.
If you don’t stop evil in the world, it will kill millions of people like Xi, putin, stalin hitler and lenin did.
Those who tried to kill these “leaders” tried to kill evil psychopaths from misusing their power to kill masses.

Trump is a similar example.
He is also evil and spreads his hate into the masses.
Boris Johnson e.g. similar case.

Or these Brexit idiots.

We really need more snipers.

The holocaust could have been prevented if the Germans would have successfully assassinated their fascistic leaders.

Mclane wrote:

China has millions of people killed worldwide with its institute in wuhan.

These scientists explored about dangerous bat viruses because the chinese government wanted to have these kind of viruses as weapons against the west.

So by eliminating the chinese government earlier, millions of people all over the world would not have died in the covid 19 outbreak.

This is not about ideology. It is about evil.

No Thorsten, it IS about ideology.

This is literally why you cannot analyse any situation properly and objectively.

You are an ideological extremist.

You invent narratives ("invented COVID as weapon against the West!") that suit your ideology instead of adjusting your ideology in light of new facts.

For example, it is WELL ESTABLISHED by now that the Wuhan lab work was FUNDED BY THE WEST.

Here is documentation (obtained via freedom of information act) proving it.

https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/wuhan-patient-zero_chmura-gima-correspondence.pdf

Follow the money...



Notice how all of the documentation is in ENGLISH?

Thorsten, this lab is IN China sure, but it was NOT a Chinese project, so your "in order to target the west" claim is absolutely refuted and likely driven by your own racism toward the Chinese.

Big AMERICAN money funded COVID-19, not Chinese.