Conservatives vs Traditionalists. What are we?

[Anonymous]

#1310

Right now we are calling ourselves Traditionalists. Is this a good fit for everyone? I’m not even sure exactly what a traditionalist is. This is from the Melbourne Trad’s site.

Guiding Principles of the Melbourne Traditionalists

1. Loyalty to the Crown of Australia

2. Loyalty to our British and Western heritage

3. Loyalty to the family, Husband and Wife, Mother and Father and their children

4. Opposition to Liberalism, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism

5. Opposition to the destruction of White Australians, opposed to Multiculturalism, Mass Immigration and Diversity.

I have no strong allegiances to (1), I don’t necessarily want to oppose Right Liberalism and the White Australian part needs discussion before I can give an opinion on it. I like (2), (3) and most of (4).

What does everyone think about Traditionalism?

Personally, I think it is a pretty narrow definition and we are unlikely to make any real headway until we expand to include conservatives and right liberals.

[Anonymous]

#1312

Traditionalists is the a word I had not really used before this group, It’s not really used as a way to describe some ones political position (or it had not registered with me) compared to the more common terms. I only ever here it used eg. “he is a conservative with a Traditional view of insert topic”
If someone care to give us a quick rundown on how they use it would be usfull to more than just me I think. When trying to argue/sell a idea to a egalitarian centrist (the average Aussie slave) I personally fear it is extremely off putting to someone who has never really used or read the word used positively before. Takes too much explaining to get the person you talking to back to the point.
Eg I think as soon as you say Traditionalists people think all women should stay at home get married straight out of high school, only where knee length dresses and so on.

[Anonymous]

#1327

Traditionalism – adherence to tradition as authority. – respect of tradition? – adherence to naturally generated tradition as authority?
Conservatism – commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.

They seem to be similar concepts – conservatism operates more at the political level – traditionalism at the social/cultural as well?

I’m happy with the label – I won’t be single-minded about it though – It’d be 1 of a dozen and one reasons I’d be getting up to things. You know I think it’s a good label to apply to ourselves, but probably not so great to present ourselves to others under. It’d mean we always start from the same place in bridging the gap with others – something like “OK, explain to me why you’re a Luddite?” I reckon a really neutral name (not politically) would be good – something that would mean at least something to everyone, and make people curious.

Apple is a good example. People will at least think of the fruit – others of the apple hitting Newton on the head – others of Adam/Eve/original sin. Bugger me if I can come up with anything good though. Black Swan? – Perth/WA, similar to black sheep, Natalie Portman, etc.? Praetorian Swans.

“The Christian has a great advantage over other men, not by being less fallen than they nor less doomed to live in a fallen world, but by knowing that he is a fallen man in a fallen world.” – C. S. Lewis –> the Fallen, fallen swans, fallen centurion?

Strewth? Swans Strewth?

Rabbit hole? Alternative metaphor to the red pill.

Western Front? (a metaphorical battle front – fighting for the West)

Houston? (we have a problem – Houston’s job is to come up with a solution)

Decade? (before every election, there’s a decade)

Articulated Swan? (double meaning – as in mechanically articulated – articulated tractor)

name/nickname of a historical figure/place in Australia? Captain Stirling etc. An event name – Tea Party in the States. Eureka rebellion?

Pundits? Swan pundits? Fuck knows!

P

[Anonymous]

#1331

For picking a name I do like the Idea of having a name of an important Western Australian figure and a date.
Though I always lean to the thing that triggers the socialist loving country wreckers I’ll just put my idea. Think 1788 (the day of the first fleet), Captain Cook. two things that the Anti Aus day people hate. But that is fare to much an east coast thing, If we were to go through all the WA’s famous people I’m sure we could find some good event that marks a success for a new Western Democracy. Plus I can always learn more about our local past and I mean history and people who matter. No one cares what daft crap the local indigenous tribes figured out how to make a stick that curves when you throw it. Hello cave man I just sailed on a boat for 3 months from the other side of the world.
I just can’t get infowars constant bombardment of the USA’s 1776 independence day.

[Anonymous]

#1345

I think that we need to sort of what we think the labels mean, first, and then decide how we can agree on what lies behind those labels.

First: personally I use the word ‘traditionalist’ for the specific purpose of distinguishing myself from a conservative. ‘Conservative’ has historically meant many different things – conservative used to mean Monarchist, now it means Constitutional Monarchist (in Oz); liberals were the ones who come up with free speech, now they’re trashing it. However, I do apply the ‘conservative’ label to myself when the situation suits, but traditionalist seems to have a more well-anchored meaning with which I feel more affinity. Of course, that meaning still needs to be defined.

I’m in 100% agreement with the principles of the Melbourne traditionalist site. However, point 4 is curious, because there’s a lot of meat in it which they don’t go into. In effect, by rejecting everything going back as far as “right liberalism”, they’re advocating per-Enlightenment values, or ‘traditional Christian values’, as I also do. But why haven’t they come out and said it outright?

My gravest concern, and I’ll put it right here, for all to see: I fear that our group will have troubles in the future, in the divide between traditionalists and right-liberals. So I don’t particularly want to pursue expanding the group by admitting large numbers of ‘right liberals’ just for growth’s sake. However, that said, I think we’re all a bunch of very smart guys, and if anyone can sort it out, it’s us. So, perhaps we should commence an intellectual discussion on the merits of right liberalism? afterliberalism – not to use your words against you, but you yourself have admitted that it’s Enlightenment values which have led directly to the mess we’re in today. So do you think it’s wise to (arguably) dilute the group’s resolve by allowing in more libertarian ideas? I don’t mean this as a rebuke or criticism, but as an honest question.

[Anonymous]

#1397

For me
Conservative means right liberal ie the belief in autonomy, the right for the individual to self determine, equality of opportunity and freedom to pursue economic advancement, ie free trade. And conservatives believe in universalism. That is that the above beliefs can apply to anyone, anywhere.

A traditionalist rejects universalism. He believes that he belongs to a particular people with particular customs and rules which do not apply to everyone. Thus a traditional Chinaman, African and Englishman will all look and act very differently but will be following their own particular customs.

So an Australian Traditionalist would believe in God and salvation through Jesus Christ. He would be loyal to the crown, have the blood of the British running through his veins, believe in strong traditional family values and practice the traditional cultural practices in music and sport.

While Australia was a homogeneous country, much of the right liberal conservative values correlated to traditional values but with multiculturalism and mass immigration, those days are gone. Which is why there is now the split.

So for those who want to remain right liberals, they should join the liberal party or Australian conservatives. While both have sensible economic policies, they don’t have any answers for the deeper issues of race and culture.

For me I look at the historical examples of Russia and Byzantium. The Russian people survived the USSR but the Byzantium Greeks in Constantinople did not. I don’t know if my people will survive multiculturalism, this is why I am a traditionalist.

[Anonymous]

#1398

Good answer

[Anonymous]

#1402

Hey Ultraright, I’d be curious to know what is more important to you: if you had to choose culture or race, which would you choose? I mean, hypothetically, if it were a toss up between black Christian immigration, or Soviet communist immigration (remember hypothetical!), which would you go for?

[Anonymous]

#1415

I think culture is a result of racial characteristics. While religion is important, it doesn’t mean that two racial groups with the same religion will get along in a mixed society.

For example, if we look at the situation of blacks in the US, they have failed to integrate and are really an almost separate society despite years of attempts to integrate them. Yet both white and black Americans are mostly Christian.

Now I believe that anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their saviour will have their sins forgiven and receive their salvation, black or white, but that doesn’t then mean they will be able to form compatible societies in this world.

It seems to me that that the curse of the Tower of Babel still holds, preventing multi racial and multi cultural societies from forming which can form a one world government and hence challenge God.

We can see that with Christian African refugees in Australia, their children, freed from the stricter African environment, form Apex gangs and terrorise Melbourne. Their parents unable to control them.

So to answer your question, If we must have immigrants then the ideal immigrants are from Great Britain. Soviet Russians would be ok eventually because as we have seen with the fall of the USSR, Russians have reverted to a more traditional white society, communism being unable to sustain itself. But really Russians are better off in Russia with their own people as there would still be long term assimilation problems if to many came here. Black Africans belong in Africa as they will never assimilate.

[Anonymous]

#1426

I had a hunch you’d think that way…
But I agree with you. At least in terms of Christianity – it’s already difficult enough as it is, let along having ethnically diverse congregations with little shared cultural background trying to understand each other. Of course, they can and do work. But it strikes me as a sub-optimal situation.

Also note that the black as a community used to do quite well in the US. But with the advent of welfare and liberal family laws, they’ve undergone this decay. It seems they were better off when they were segregated. I’m not going to defend ‘no sitting on the bus for blacks’ laws, but at least when they were segregated they had something they could be part of and respect.

[Anonymous]

#1428

There is a quote “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man” probably from the Jesuits.

But that statement is wrong and the starkest evidence for this is in the failure of the aboriginal stolen generations. Despite being raised by white people in better conditions than what they would have experienced, the most common feelings of the stolen generation are anger, bitterness and a desperate desire to reconnect with their own people. That is to reassert their own aboriginality.

Which just demonstrates that race is a fundamental part of a persons being and identity. It cannot be educated away, even on children who are the most prone to outside influence. If you can’t convert children you certainly won’t convert adults.

[Anonymous]

#1429

Excellent point

[Author]

Posts