Ronald Lasecki, with a large deal of bravado, accused conservativeism of decadence: “The values of conservatism do not represent [...] what is natural, but degeneration, deformation and grotesque overgrowth of functionally unnecessary or even incriminating and harmful elements” (“On the Unfitness of Conservativeism”, MP 15-16).
Although he did not indicate the intent of conservatism, on the bench of the defendants he selected classes of vacuum cleaners of the threshold of the modern era. "The modern age gives birth to a figure of a lander – a possessor, surviving from the work of others and not performing any social function in the performance of which it cannot be replaced ... specified a lifestyle gave space to make sensitivity and talent that had no conditions to flourish in the anarchist planet of the mediate Ages: care for the beauty of its own and its possessions, care for good manners and improvement of the arts of use, exercises of the art of beautiful speaking and writing; poetry, literature and philosophy, subtlety of culinary and aesthetic tastes, etc.”
Those who are attached to the “drinking, idle and comfortable” life of conservatives do not appreciate the Russian World, Zhengguó, muslim umma and another unwesterned cultures of the world, as this would endanger their comfort zone: “The support of conservative liberal civilization is not [...] a case resulting from political opportunism, intellectual or spiritual weakness, or yet the deficiency of an thought axis or failure to adhere to it by a given conservative, but is due to the very origins and essence of conservative doctrine. It represents something that is unnatural, degenerate and as specified unworthy of defence.”
The support of conservatives for the West, although not without exception, is indeed no coincidence. The West decadence is besides mentioned. Still, Lasecki's wrong. He simplified his trial, bringing conservatism to defend the class interest of the idle elite. However, the claim that healthy conservatism does not be contradicts facts. Conservativeism is the transmission of tradition. The deficiency of this ability would contradict the anticipation of social life itself. So if there are no healthy traditions, how does Lasecki himself avoid decadentism? Indeed, he does not avoid it. His protest is typical of the “spoiled West”. The attack on the elite is not an thought of Nietzsche or Sorel, but it has a more crucial precedent in Marcin Luther's speech against the Catholic hierarchy. The expected dichotomy of nature and civilization is simply a repetition of the thought of a good savage James John Rousseau. The punctuation of oppression replicates the creed of the generation ‘68: ‘a sex act is reduced [by conservatives—p. W. K.] to a purely method work of marriage, the sexual drive of a man is to satisfy in a brothel and the female suppresses it within herself’.
The final conclusion is the psychoanalysis of Sigismund Freud. The Vienna psychiatrist claimed that culture is grown alternatively of copulation until the unnatural coercion of male frustration results in a “death drive”. Both Eros and Tanatos are seen in the affirmative ideals cited by Lasecki behind nipponese author Yukio Mishima: “The top experience of Life has become for him heroic action and heroic death in glory; he died like a Man – a Barbarian, on the altar of glory laying down his life. Before his death he accused civilization that she had torn it distant from Nature [...] she deformed, caused illness and mutilated his young Life – for a man should start with the experience of the Body, after him only experiencing the Word.” Strangely well they correspond to the romanticist story of the scapegoat, literaryly discussed by Jan Maciejewski in the book “Nothing! Why must Poland's past repeat itself?’
The cultural chapter proposed by Lasecki from nature is completely arbitrary. Man as a social animal must make civilizations to live. Civilizations behind Felix Koneczne ("About the multiplicity of civilizations") here should be understood as collective life systems. The West does not accidentally realize the level of technological improvement by civilization. According to Koneński, the Latin civilization is the highest known of mankind. This would explain the highest level of technology it has achieved. Hence, it is common in the West to identify technology with civilization. As we know, “every magpie praises its tail.” This is, however, a misidentification. Man is always civilized, even if he does not have advanced technology. The savage Rousseau never existed. Therefore, culture cannot be abstracted from nature, like raubritters, hajduks, thugs, clefts, hajdamaks, anti-area movements of slaves and serfs, ludists, agrarists, völkists or neopogans. surely they are not specified an abstraction of modernsurvivors practicing endurance in an alleged deafness with the aid of a truck of modern equipment.
"Functional for peculiar ethnos in the environment of his life" will be what is biologically reproduced and culturally reproduced. Otherwise, ethnos won't exist. Culture and biology must closely interact within a single nature, like genotype with phenotype. In another words, genes and their expression in the environment cannot bear each other. According to Michael Tomasello of the Institute of Evolution Anthropology. Max Planck's people from another primates disagree in their ability to follow through on past generations' behaviour; in particular, their common intentions, common attention, motives and social standards. Tomasello calls this phenomenon a mechanics of “cultural collapse” (cf. “Cultural sources of human knowledge”, “Natural past of human thinking”, “Why we work together”). Unlike humans, monkeys take the experiences of their lives “to the grave” without handing them over to successors. As a result, successive generations of monkeys begin precisely where the erstwhile have no culture and do not make civilization. But the human ability to imitate enables tradition and only this allows specified a mostly hoarded progress. There is no way to make without tradition.
Disposing of conservatism would so be tantamount to bringing people back into the tree. "The fundamental fact is that each age and culture originates from erstwhile epochs, makes its own contribution, after which everything passes to successors" (John Bagot Glub, "The Cycle of the Lives of the Empires", 2017, p. 280). This capacity is subject to both changes (mutations) and circumstantial environmental verification (natural, sexual and political competition). As successive generations cease to be able to practice effective behaviour of their predecessors, there is simply a fall. According to John Glub, the life cycle of empires is not peculiarly long and ranges from 200 to 250 years (ibid., p. 29). Hence, the binding of decadence of conservatism to 17th-century landownery is as accurate as selective. It is equally possible to list the decadent patricians of the Roman Empire, the bourgeoisie of the fin de siegle era, or the elite of any empire discussed by Glubb, Spengler, Huntington, or Koneczny. However, the fall does not contradict the existence of phases of flowering, but assumes them. Both phases of culture is passed on in the same conservative way. "mistakes in copying", sometimes referred to as inventions, although blind branches of tradition can enter the message more often. They usually end up dying, not turning around. So not the maintenance itself and what is being preserved should be the subject of criticism. It is absurd to identify conservatism with a fall. We are always dealing with feedback (converging or diverging) culture and environment, not any interior feature of conservatism.
The laws of cultural evolution are poorly understood, but we know rather well the laws of biological evolution determining the culture that evolutionary psychology formulates. Natural selection and selection and sexual selection do not go to a pre-defined goal, apart from endurance itself, but they “preservate” solutions that supply the transmission of genes (which assumes purpose, as noted by American tomist Edward Fester: “If you want to be a Darwinian evolutionist, you must be an aristocrat”, in “Aristoteles’ rematch. Metaphysical Basics of Physics and Biology”, 2025, p. 455). 1 specified solution is the collective adaptation of animal herd life. Human societies are much more hierarchical than a swarm of bees or a herd of chimpanzees. And in the second we are dealing with monopolization of procreation by dominant males and the hypergamy of females. So if we are talking about the nature that biology sees, it is not conservatism that "destroys the instinct of reproduction," as Freud seemed. Monogamy by assigning 1 man to 1 female alternatively spreads sex in the population (happyly the number of males and females is about equal). In contrast to polygamy, which deprives men of access to women, condemns them to forced celibacy, prostitution, rape, brandy or war. Cultural codes cannot prevent reproduction and reproduction cannot endure culture. The essential code has always been religion (culture), regulating sex life.
Taken from the enlightened libertines of the swarming about the alleged sexual freedom of chaotic tribes dispelled like smoke. After a thorough examination of the first cultures that have survived to our time, they have proved to be an illusion of perspective. Since in Latin civilization nudity usually has sexual connotations, so the tribes walking naked, were considered sexually liberated in the West. However, the reality proved to be more drastic than in Europe and this fact was shouted by the sexual revolution – a typical blind branch of tradition. This does not change the fact that each culture must reconcile biologically different reproductive strategies of females and males (laco. Colere means cultivation). Christianity did so through patriarchy and monogamy. discipline does not know societies that reproduce without patriarchy and religion. If there were any, we have no evidence of them.
Monogamy surely requires victims from both sexes, but it is hard to imagine a culture that besides provides sexual freedom and population reproduction. Without a unchangeable family, it is simply impossible. The West tries to get free of conservative inventions and achieves an effect consistent with technological cognition and dies out. The first step towards decay was made by Marcin Luther allowing divorce. That's why I listed Luther as an antennae of social rebellion. Whether 1 likes it or not divorces objectively reduce the childhood, question the patriarchate, subjective codes and social relationships, that is, they simply break down society at its very core. A decaying society produces individuals infected with skepticism and decadentism. Social decay will be closer to what is subjectively and sensually available than what is nonsubjective and common.
Understandably, Catholicism will “comply with branded gloves, good brand gloves and whisky” alternatively than monogamous, inextricable marriage. The last effort to establish purely empirical objectivity was neo-positiveism. After his fall he was replaced by relativism, subjectivism, and postmodernism in an unprecedented form. Prosperity, abortion, partnerships, LGBT are the logical consequences of the first breach. Tertium non datur. Józef Maria Bocheński OP insisted that the word “suck” is the technological word for the father of sociology Emil Durkheim. It is appropriate to agree with the Polish Dominican. Resigning a marital work is not functional for any ethnos.
Without indicating the origin of the collapse, the illustration of decadence with political doctrines having "conservativeism" in its name does not find anything. There are 2 ways to address any social order that may grow or weaken (see M. Kuz, Ibid., p. 151 et seq.). In total, this gives 4 possible policy options: detachment (supporting weakened order), reconstruction (opposing weak order), protest (against strong order) and articulation (supporting strong order). Why do we identify conservatism with Ronald Lasecki only with the detachment policy of the globalist elites of the West today, as did the elites of the 17th century. Is Donald Trump more worthy of being a conservative or a degenerate?
Vladimir Kowalik
Photo by Marion Marechal and her supporters
Think Poland, No. 19-20 (11-18.05.201025)
