Russell Kirk - Ten Conservative Principles

[EMNofSeattle]

Individuals are not equal to one another, but societies and tribes have no innate advantage over one another outside of attributes gained through environmental circumstance.

This is a self contradictory statement.

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is a self contradictory statement.

It is not.

An individuals own attributes are not adopted or transmitted to everyone else in a society once they join. But once they join a group they are directed towards the inclinations of that group.

There was nothing, for example, innately unique to Punic tribe that made them more inclined towards mercantile affairs. Punics were not born with an innate desire to sail on ships, nor were they naturally better at sailing than the Romans.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It is not.

An individuals own attributes are not adopted or transmitted to everyone else in a society once they join. But once they join a group they are directed towards the inclinations of that group.

There was nothing, for example, innately unique to Punic tribe that made them more inclined towards mercantile affairs. Punics were not born with an innate desire to sail on ships, nor were they naturally better at sailing than the Romans.

This isn’t what you wrote though. You wrote that

societies and tribes have no innate advantage over one another outside of attributes gained through environmental circumstance.

This states environmental circumstance in fact does produce innate advantage.

The source of Punic people’s advantage of sailing over the Romans notwithstanding, this example shows that Romans were not equal to Punics.

 

[Jredbaron96]

This isn’t what you wrote though. You wrote that

societies and tribes have no innate advantage over one another outside of attributes gained through environmental circumstance.

This states environmental circumstance in fact does produce innate advantage.

Environmental factors are, by definition, not innate, unless you seek to argue that there exists some deep, instritic relationship between a tribe and the soil underneath their feet which bestows upon them some kind of specific natural ability.

The source of Punic people’s advantage of sailing over the Romans notwithstanding, this example shows that Romans were not equal to Punics.

Yes, because their culture flourished alongside the Mediterrenean coast where there already existed an extensive trade network to usher them in that direction. No Punic was born with an innately grasp of sailing than a Roman. That was an environmental element, not one innate to them as say genetics are.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Environmental factors are, by definition, not innate, unless you seek to argue that there exists some deep, instritic relationship between a tribe and the soil underneath their feet which bestows upon them some kind of specific natural ability.

Natural environment shapes evolution. This is observable in human populations throughout the world. The reason the Americas were settled quickly be Europe Is because of an innate inability of the people living in the Americas to resist diseases, they either intermarried with Europeans which reduced disease deaths or suffered fatality rates up to 90% in some small pox waves. There are tribes of people in Southeast Asia who have evolved the ability to see underwater.

Yes, because their culture flourished alongside the Mediterrenean coast where there already existed an extensive trade network to usher them in that direction. No Punic was born with an innately grasp of sailing than a Roman.

Ok, so what?

That was an environmental element, not one innate to them as say genetics are.

I would appreciate if you talk openly instead of coded language like you are now. I know what you mean by genetics, but you are trying to be sneaky

 

[Jredbaron96]

Natural environment shapes evolution.

Of course, but that again is circumstantial. Skin color is determined by exposure to sunlight, which is why people closer to the equator have darker skin. If you transplanted that population to Siberia however, and given enough time, their skin color with lighten, and vice versa.

Had, for example, pigs and cows and horses been native to the America's as well, not only would the course of Native American civilization change, but so would the ramifications of first contact.

There are tribes of people in Southeast Asia who have evolved the ability to see underwater.

I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration.

I would appreciate if you talk openly instead of coded language like you are now. I know what you mean by genetics, but you are trying to be sneaky

What?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Of course, but that again is circumstantial. Skin color is determined by exposure to sunlight, which is why people closer to the equator have darker skin. If you transplanted that population to Siberia however, and given enough time, their skin color with lighten, and vice versa.

This is change that takes place over long periods of time, and I don’t know I fully agree with it since many indigenous populations in Alaska and the Russian Far East have darker skin than people in Western Europe

Had, for example, pigs and cows and horses been native to the America's as well, not only would the course of Native American civilization change, but so would the ramifications of first contact.

They didn’t though, and they didn’t have time to evolve immunity

I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration.

The Moken tribe in Thailand has been demonstrated that children can change the form of their pupils to a far greater extent than normal giving them clear underwater vision.

What?

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is change that takes place over long periods of time, and I don’t know I fully agree with it since many indigenous populations in Alaska and the Russian Far East have darker skin than people in Western Europe

We know what causes skin color varistion in humans, and it's exposure to sunlight. Certain other environmental factors may come into play, but it's pretty common for people at northern latitudes to have lighter skin than those closer to the equator.

They didn’t though, and they didn’t have time to evolve immunity

Of course, but again those were just the circumstances they were in. Had the Native people of America been exposed to the same livestock as the people of Eurasia were, they would not have been as badly affected by the pandemics that followed in the wake of the arrival of the Europeans.

The Moken tribe in Thailand has been demonstrated that children can change the form of their pupils to a far greater extent than normal giving them clear underwater vision.

That is interesting.

 

[Sweden]

Individuals are not equal to one another, but societies and tribes have no innate advantage over one another outside of attributes gained through environmental circumstance.

Um. A big tribe has an advantage over a small tribe. One with better weapons likewise. And one with a greater proportion of warriors or hunters. And societies as well; a free and open society like the capitalist West had a built in advantage over the hidebound Communist East.

I also think it the case that Islamic theocracies, primitive, stagnant and intolerant of any new thought are at a major disadvantage. At least I hope so.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Um. A big tribe has an advantage over a small tribe.One with better weapons likewise. And one with a greater proportion of warriors or hunters. And societies as well; a free and open society like the capitalist West had a built in advantage over the hidebound Communist East.

These are all circumstantial things. I'm talking about innate qualities.

I also think it the case that Islamic theocracies, primitive, stagnant and intolerant of any new thought are at a major disadvantage. At least I hope so.

Many modern Arab states suffer from a wide array of problems, but that's a modern phenomenon. For many centuries Arab led caliphates and the Ottoman Empire were the most powerful and modern countries in the world.

 

[mrjurrs]

Largely due to many “conservatives” in modern American society being more leftist than Democrats 15 years ago.

There’s now “conservatives” that think they need to appease homosexuals and destroy the most basic social institutions to do so.

Does the term 'latent' have any meaning for you?

 

[Sweden]

These are all circumstantial things. I'm talking about innate qualities.



Many modern Arab states suffer from a wide array of problems, but that's a modern phenomenon. For many centuries Arab led caliphates and the Ottoman Empire were the most powerful and modern countries in the world.

It is not only Arab states. Islam is a major negative force is places like Pakistan, Nigeria and now Indonesia.

Btw I cannot think of any period when the Ottoman Empire could have been described as 'modern'.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It is not only Arab states. Islam is a major negative force is places like Pakistan, Nigeria and now Indonesia.

Define “negative”? You probably just believe religion in general is negative and so this is really a bias question and not a rational observation on your part. Arab states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia are very well run with low crime, high social cohesion, and low negative behaviors.

The other day I took a break at work and went to 7-11. Now going to a 7-11 anywhere in California after dark is like going to to the zoo and seeing what wierd specimens will wow you today, and there was a guy with a giant beer gut, wearing boxer shorts and a tank top, gauged ears, no socks, flip flops, and I kinda wished we had morality police who could take that guy away and do whatever it takes to convince him to wear clothes in public next time, you don’t see that in Riyadh

Btw I cannot think of any period when the Ottoman Empire could have been described as 'modern'.

The 15th and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Empire was exceptionally well run and administered.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It is not only Arab states. Islam is a major negative force is places like Pakistan, Nigeria and now Indonesia.

Each one of those countries is markedly different with its own unique trials and tribulations.

It's not even cohesive among Arab states. Morocco and Tunisia are fine relative to Syria and Iraq.

Btw I cannot think of any period when the Ottoman Empire could have been described as 'modern'.

Are you not familiar with Ottoman history?

 

[Sweden]

Each one of those countries is markedly different with its own unique trials and tribulations.

It's not even cohesive among Arab states. Morocco and Tunisia are fine relative to Syria and Iraq.



Are you not familiar with Ottoman history?

Yes, all different and all made worse by Islam. Look mat Nigeria, for example, and compare and contrast the Islamic and non-Islamic parts of the country.

I know something of Ottoman history but claim no familiarity.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes, all different and all made worse by Islam.

This is an unfounded opinion.

Look mat Nigeria, for example, and compare and contrast the Islamic and non-Islamic parts of the country.

You mean compare Islamic Nigeria with Christian Nigeria? Sure, of course I doubt you like Christianity more,

I know something of Ottoman history but claim no familiarity.

This is obvious. So as a primer, the Ottoman Empire largely retained the Byzantine Bureaucracy that was in place when they conquered Anatolia, the Ottoman Empire was relatively tolerant towards religious and ethnic minorities. I mean you’ll undoubtedly Google various atrocities they committed, but we’re talking for an imperial power in the late Middle Ages to early modern period.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

We know what causes skin color varistion in humans, and it's exposure to sunlight. Certain other environmental factors may come into play, but it's pretty common for people at northern latitudes to have lighter skin than those closer to the equator.



Of course, but again those were just the circumstances they were in. Had the Native people of America been exposed to the same livestock as the people of Eurasia were, they would not have been as badly affected by the pandemics that followed in the wake of the arrival of the Europeans.

They weren’t though, but even if they were, their evolved situation to their territory would effect them in different ways. But I don’t really want to argue evolutionary biology in humans for a long period of time

I am not however arguing biological determinism that, ones membership in a certain tribe/ethnicity/ etc means they innately belong is a specific place in a social hierarchy. Which is what I think you are arguing against, if you that is what you want to argue I am not contesting that.

That is interesting.

I certainly think so.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes, all different and all made worse by Islam. Look mat Nigeria, for example, and compare and contrast the Islamic and non-Islamic parts of the country.

How have Morocco, for example, been made worse by Islam?

I know something of Ottoman history but claim no familiarity.

The Ottoman Empire could, for a couple centuries, lay claim to being the most powerful country in the world. Compared to many of its contemporaries it was a place of relative tolerance and enriched culture. Even after the beginning of its decline it remained a powerful force that required large coalitions of foreign states to defeat it.

They weren’t though, but even if they were, their evolved situation to their territory would effect them in different ways. But I don’t really want to argue evolutionary biology in humans for a long period of time

I am not however arguing biological determinism that, ones membership in a certain tribe/ethnicity/ etc means they innately belong is a specific place in a social hierarchy. Which is what I think you are arguing against, if you that is what you want to argue I am not contesting that.

The point that was I getting at is that outside niche areas like the tribe you mentioned, or say East African dominance of long distance running, no ethnic group or race holds some general advantage over another that cannot be chalked up to circumstantial reasons.

The Native Americans didn't lose out to the Europeans, for example, because Europeans are born with naturally higher levels of stamina, intellect, or physical strength;

 

[Sweden]

How have Morocco, for example, been made worse by Islam?



The Ottoman Empire could, for a couple centuries, lay claim to being the most powerful country in the world. Compared to many of its contemporaries it was a place of relative tolerance and enriched culture. Even after the beginning of its decline it remained a powerful force that required large coalitions of foreign states to defeat it.



The point that was I getting at is that outside niche areas like the tribe you mentioned, or say East African dominance of long distance running, no ethnic group or race holds some general advantage over another that cannot be chalked up to circumstantial reasons.

The Native Americans didn't lose out to the Europeans, for example, because Europeans are born with naturally higher levels of stamina, intellect, or physical strength;

You may be right about Morocco. That's where my dentist's parents are from. I'll ask her the next time I see her (no not really).

 

[Evilroddy]

So, are we to conclude that the Poeni (Punic Carthaginians) were arch-conservatives and the Romans were just two-faced, opportunistic republicans who were impatiently waiting for a strongman to cross the River Rubicon? Has this thread taken a rather drastic turn, or what?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So these are apparently the principles, according to the article in the OP.
Note that there is significantly more explained in the article, but I just copied and pasted them.



At a glance I'd say Trump violated all of those principles. Maybe not the seventh.

Regardless, do you agree that they each describe, at least some facet of what we call "conservativism.

Me ? I am not so sure. Most authors will acknowledge that there is no universal description.

As I've thought through them, I don't know that they are specific to conservtives. In fact, I know they are not.

 

[The Mark]

Regardless, do you agree that they each describe, at least some facet of what we call "conservativism.

Me ? I am not so sure. Most authors will acknowledge that there is no universal description.

As I've thought through them, I don't know that they are specific to conservtives. In fact, I know they are not.

I don't think they accurately describe conservatism, I think they were the authors attempt to define conservatism, and are thus biased by their perspective and experiences.