The definition of conservatism

[Tennyson]

I have found a couple of good definitions for this word.

English Anthony M. Ludovici

The preservation of the national identity throughout the process of change by a steady concern for the whole of the nation's life.

American Samuel Francis

The survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.

[Marcus Marulus]

Reactionaries:
Reactionary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph de Maistre:
Joseph de Maistre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservatism:
Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I took these from Wikipedia. Wiki is no reliable source, in order to educate himself properly on a certain theme, one must look in serious encyclopedias, but nevertheless it is good as a first reference.

I am not altogether sure that conservative and/or reactionary policy is good from the standpoint of European preservation. We have been
all victims of the so-called left-right (conservative-liberal, reactionary-progressive) divide.

The true European policy should reject pre-conceived schemes and make up a political philosophy that is the most suitable for the preservation of our cultures and nations.

[Menydh]

The definitions given by Tennyson are extremely generous, not to say fantastic.

A Conservative does not have a notion of nation but of country, and consequently their idea of preservation is focused on social status, not on national identity.

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Definition of conservatism - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

To preserve the wrongs of the past, one might as well let them keep rotting.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

A Conservative does not have a notion of nation but of country, and consequently their idea of preservation is focused on social status, not on national identity.

Even in the Brothel of Brussels there are great many Eurocrats who proclaim to be Conservative! Not all Eurocrats are professedly Marxists. These euro-conservatives don't even care for the country they come from, but they push for creation of a kind of euro-nation and euro-super-state, which would be an amalgamate of all existing nations. They think this monstruous super-state should be somehow conservative. The main "conservative" thing they would like to "conserve" ad infinitum would be their eternal privileges.

An example: the Berlusconi's minister Rocco Buttiglione. This was the man who got fired from the European Commission because of his publicly expressed negative views about homosexuality and feminism. Now I can fully agree with him on this one.
But there is a catch: this man was also one of the main supporters of the European Constitution, he was dedicated to abolishing, as much as possible, any sovereignity of European states. He is a pan-Europeanist Conservative (he wants God and Christianity to be mentioned in the Constitution etc.) Also a strong supporter of close ties with the US, of the free market etc.
These Conservatives are bent on destruction of European identities, but through other means, other kind of rhetoric...They may be even more dangerous than liberal-lefties, because their "conservative" discourse can fool some nationalists.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

This is the most important part of it...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by prometheus

But there is a catch: this man was also one of the main supporters of the European Constitution, he was dedicated to abolishing, as much as possible, any sovereignity of European states. He is a pan-Europeanist Conservative (he wants God and Christianity to be mentioned in the Constitution etc.) Also a strong supporter of close ties with the US, of the free market etc.
These Conservatives are bent on destruction of European identities, but through other means, other kind of rhetoric...They may be even more dangerous than liberal-lefties, because their "conservative" discourse can fool some nationalists.

That case is similar to former Spanish PM José María Aznar. With the difference that I don't think that Aznar is a pan-Europeanist.

He comes from a profound Conservative background and family (even Francoists). He headed the group which opposed to the European Constitution draft without an explicit mention to Christianism, and was opposed to the entry of Turkey in the EU.

However, he encouraged immigration from Ibero-America on cultural grounds, discouraging immigration from Muslim countries. More of an assimilationist than a multiculturalist?

He also pursued radical Neo-Liberal economic policies and strong ties with Britain and America. I don't think that I need to mention that he was the promoter of the Açores Conference to support the invasion of Iraq.

While there is no doubt that present PM Zapatero is a traitor to the nation, Aznar was too. It is just different directions to betrayal.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

That case is similar to former Spanish PM José María Aznar. With the difference that I don't think that Aznar is a pan-Europeanist.

He comes from a profound Conservative background and family (even Francoists). He headed the group which opposed to the European Constitution draft without an explicit mention to Christianism, and was opposed to the entry of Turkey in the EU.

However, he encouraged immigration from Ibero-America on cultural grounds, discouraging immigration from Muslim countries. More of an assimilationist than a multiculturalist?

He also pursued radical Neo-Liberal economic policies and strong ties with Britain and America. I don't think that I need to mention that he was the promoter of the Açores Conference to support the invasion of Iraq.

While there is no doubt that present PM Zapatero is a traitor to the nation, Aznar was too. It is just different directions to betrayal.

There is a difference between a betrayal made in good intentions and a great betrayal made in profoundly wicked intentions.

Honestly, the Socialist government of Spain is probably the worst in Europe.

I don't care of the internal politics of your country but I do care if you don't secure your borders and irresponsibly make Spanish and EU citizens of hordes of Muslims and Negroes who are free to immigrate to my country.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The definitions given by Tennyson are extremely generous, not to say fantastic.

A Conservative does not have a notion of nation but of country, and consequently their idea of preservation is focused on social status, not on national identity.

That may have been the case in the early 1800s when the ideology of nationalism threatened the stability of multi-national empires like Austria. However, by the late 1800s with the establishment of nation-states and the threat of Marxism and liberalism European conservatives embraced nationalism as an integral part of their political ideology.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

That case is similar to former Spanish PM José María Aznar. With the difference that I don't think that Aznar is a pan-Europeanist.

He comes from a profound Conservative background and family (even Francoists). He headed the group which opposed to the European Constitution draft without an explicit mention to Christianism, and was opposed to the entry of Turkey in the EU.

However, he encouraged immigration from Ibero-America on cultural grounds, discouraging immigration from Muslim countries. More of an assimilationist than a multiculturalist?

He also pursued radical Neo-Liberal economic policies and strong ties with Britain and America. I don't think that I need to mention that he was the promoter of the Açores Conference to support the invasion of Iraq.

While there is no doubt that present PM Zapatero is a traitor to the nation, Aznar was too. It is just different directions to betrayal.

In Spanish:

Aznar pleading for the entry of Israel into NATO

Aznar and the Skull and bones

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by prometheus

In Spanish:

Aznar pleading for the entry of Israel into NATO

Turkey is already a member.

Aznar and the Skull and bones

Skulls and Bones is a society around which the "right-wing conspiracy" is centered in the deranged minds of American liberals.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

There is a difference between a betrayal made in good intentions and a great betrayal made in profoundly wicked intentions.

Could you name those "good" intentions?

Honestly, the Socialist government of Spain is probably the worst in Europe.

Mirrored on Swedish Social Democracy. Thank you.

I don't care of the internal politics of your country but I do care if you don't secure your borders and irresponsibly make Spanish and EU citizens of hordes of Muslims and Negroes who are free to immigrate to my country.

Then get your facts straight: 1) the bulk of immigration to Spain does not arrive through the Strait of Gibraltar or the Canary Islands, but through the Pyrenees and the airports (as with everyone else); and 2) there are the same and even higher numbers of immigrants in most other European countries as in Spain, with the difference that in those countries many more have already been made EU citizens.

There are many more Muslims in England, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany or France, than there are iin Spain. There are more Sub-Saharans in any of those countries than here.

As for South Americans, you shouldn't care much since according to you they started to arrive under good intentions policies. And, besides, they are unlikely go move to other countries.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

That may have been the case in the early 1800s when the ideology of nationalism threatened the stability of multi-national empires like Austria. However, by the late 1800s with the establishment of nation-states and the threat of Marxism and liberalism European conservatives embraced nationalism as an integral part of their political ideology.

I see where the disagreement originates. Before discussing any further, you should give your personal definition of "nationalism".

I'm afraid that we are speaking of two different things under a same name.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Could you name those "good" intentions?

Intentions which are good when judged on the basis of Aristotle's ethics.

Mirrored on Swedish Social Democracy. Thank you.

Illegal immigrants from Africa aren't flooding to Sweden. And where are Spanish nationalists? What is their share of votes in the elections?

Then get your facts straight: 1) the bulk of immigration to Spain does not arrive through the Strait of Gibraltar or the Canary Islands, but through the Pyrenees and the airports (as with everyone else); and 2) there are the same and even higher numbers of immigrants in most other European countries as in Spain, with the difference that in those countries many more have already been made EU citizens.

There are many more Muslims in England, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany or France, than there are iin Spain. There are more Sub-Saharans in any of those countries than here.

Those countries have a longer history of immigration than Spain and the trends in those countries are reversing. That is not the case with Spain.

Spain plans to offer asylum to \'sexual refugees\' | Spain | Europe | International News | News | Telegraph

I see where the disagreement originates. Before discussing any further, you should give your personal definition of "nationalism".

I'm afraid that we are speaking of two different things under a same name.

Nationalism is an ideology of the right of nations to sovereign nation-states. Nation is defined on the basis of shared language, culture, origin, blood and customs.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Intentions which are good when judged on the basis of Aristotle's ethics.

Such as helping towards the ethnic destruction of a nation by bringing in immigrants on religious grounds and with an economic goal and perspective?

Illegal immigrants from Africa aren't flooding to Sweden.

Look at the map of Sweden. Then look at the map of Spain. Finally, look at the map of Africa. Does it tell you something?

http://www.primap.com/en/Maps-Europe-Map-1200.jpg

And where are Spanish nationalists? What is their share of votes in the elections?

Not better than Sweden's. In contrast, immigration here is a much more recent phenomenon and riots have already started.. in the far-left wing areas.

Tell us about nationalists in Finland.

Those countries have a longer history of immigration than Spain and the trends in those countries are reversing. That is not the case with Spain.

Spain plans to offer asylum to \'sexual refugees\' | Spain | Europe | International News | News | Telegraph

Reversing? Some of those countries, including the country where that newspaper belongs, are not only not reversing the numbers of immigrants, but they are actually leading the numbers of native migrants out of the country.

I've told you before today. Your obsession with Spain since the day you joined is reaching pathological levels. If you have a good reason for it, say it now. Else, I would advise you to do the same as I do with Finland, which is ignoring it for most of the time.

Nationalism is an ideology of the right of nations to sovereign nation-states. Nation is defined on the basis of shared language, culture, origin, blood and customs.

That falls short of defining Nationalism. Still, it doesn't explain how (or why) elsewhere you create such confusion between nationalism and nation, and state, citizenship, trans-continentalism, etc.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Such as helping towards the ethnic destruction of a nation by bringing in immigrants on religious grounds and with an economic goal and perspective?

The immigration policies of Socialists are much more liberal than those of the Conservatives who are at least a lesser evil if not anything else.

Look at the map of Sweden. Then look at the map of Spain. Finally, look at the map of Africa. Does it tell you something?

That map told me nothing.

Tell us about nationalists in Finland.

The mainstream political parties have kept immigration under control. There are few immigrants here compared to other European countries.

So tell us about nationalists in Spain.

Reversing? Some of those countries, including the country where that newspaper belongs, are not only not reversing the numbers of immigrants, but they are actually leading the numbers of native migrants out of the country.

I've told you before today. Your obsession with Spain since the day you joined is reaching pathological levels. If you have a good reason for it, say it now. Else, I would advise you to do the same as I do with Finland, which is ignoring it for most of the time.

Most of the active members in this board are from Southern Europe and many from Spain. Thus, in this board I have discussed Spain often. In other boards I discuss other countries or peoples.

That falls short of defining Nationalism. Still, it doesn't explain how (or why) elsewhere you create such confusion between nationalism and nation, and state, citizenship, trans-continentalism, etc.

I don't see any inconsistence in my statements. Elaborate.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

There is a difference between a betrayal made in good intentions and a great betrayal made in profoundly wicked intentions.

There is no such thing as betrayal made in good intentions. That is contradiction in terms.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Skulls and Bones is a society around which the "right-wing conspiracy" is centered in the deranged minds of American liberals.

Both American liberals and American conservatives have deranged minds, as the whole philosophy of American politics is deranged.
I don't care a bit about their differences.

[Marcus Marulus]

Definition of conservatism and liberalism:

"Conservative is the statesman who is enamoured with the existing evils, whilst the liberal is a statesman who wishes to replace them with new evils."