A Note to Conservatives

One of the problems with Conservatives is ... The desire to be left alone. Here and there we see conservatives push a national agenda, win and then...go home. Great. The problem here is the disengagement once a win occurs. Why ?

The left occupies the institutions. They control all the Academic and Cultural places in the nation, they don't go home.

Conservatives need to take a long view of things, to STAY engaged. One of the most important projects to work on is getting conservative back in big Academia. Certainly on a personal level, working in academia may seem distasteful, considering the people who inhabit it currently, but this MUST be done. This is the long view, "The Long March" through the institutions that must take place if conservatives want to truly confront the existential threat to the Nation and to Western Society writ large.

You can not go home and expect things to go your way. Please consider this and act accordingly as you see fit.

First

Conservatives don't work in academia because the conservative movement is anti intellectual. This isn't hard to grasp. Facts have a left wing bias.

I agree; conservatives should enter academia so they stop being conservatives.

maybe fixing the american version of conservatism will get more people on your side. (this means ousting the religious fanatics of your side)

no one educated person wants the US of america to turn into the US of arabia.

A recent speech by Rep. Lauren Boebert — during which she invoked the end times and said it's time for Christians to "rise up" — demonstrated how Christian nationalist ideals, including some associated with violence, have made it to the halls of Congress.
"It's time for us to position ourselves and rise up and take our place in Christ and influence this nation as we were called to do," the Colorado Republican told the crowd at a Christian conference held by the Truth and Liberty Coalition in Woodland Park, Colorado, on September 9.
"We need God back at the center of our country," she added.

"We know that we are in the last of the last days," Boebert later said, referencing the belief held by some evangelical Christians that Jesus will return after a period of tribulation, or great suffering, and save believers. "But it's not a time to complain about it. It's not a time to get upset about it. It's a time to know that you were called to be a part of these last days. You get to have a role in ushering in the second coming of Jesus."
Boebert's comments expressing an intrinsic tie between the US and Christianity aren't new: In June she said she was "tired of this separation of church and state junk" and that "the church is supposed to direct the government."

mental illness

Religious magical thinking is a problem and it is all over the world. In India, if the crowd on the street thinks that you hurt a cow, you might be beaten to death.

Churches are not meant to lead the state, but morally sound people informed by reason, and religion can play a role in this, are meant to lead the state.

We could go down a rabbit hole discussing the problems with American churches, but it's off topic. And oh boy could I go on...

The biggest problem here is the magical thinking. "Just give it to god.", type thinking. This is a cop out and dumbing down of the people that subscribe to it. Just go home and pray. Don't inform yourselves, don't actually get involved...

I see what you are saying, but I will say that Evangelicals are particularly ineffective politically, quite seriously.

Half the world is ruled by religious fanatics, they are certainly not ineffective. And as a minority in the USA, they have a lot of power.

it is fine if a politician is religious, but when religion becomes institutionalized or an identity of a political party (like it seems to be happening with the republican party) i believe it is problematic. this isn't just evangelicals. i think there are a lot of christians that support this.

il get called islamophobic for saying this, but it is one of the main reasons i dislike muslim countries objectively. their religion takes over as the guide of their state. of course, progression from centuries old ideals still happens, but religion remains a key presence in the country's identity and culture. oh and not to mention: blasphemy laws. absolute cringe. you get beaten to death by the public if you commit blasphemy lol. as you said, in india, you get beaten for hurting a cow, in pakistan you get beaten for saying something bad about Muhammad, in the US, well idk, nothing yet in terms of religion.

i do hope the US and other secular countries do not go down that path. religion is absolutely fine as long as it isn't weaponized or does not become a part of a state's identity. secularism is the way to go for that. the magical thinking doesn't help anyone other than the elites that preach it for influence over the common folk.

You get sued for not making a cake.

Islam actually contains a code of governance within its religious scripture, that's why it gets mixed into government in more fundamentalist countries. That's what a caliphate is.

Funnily enough, the US had a big role to play in the revival of Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east. You know the Iranian coup orchestrated by the Americans ousted a socialist from power and led directly to the state of the country today?

yeah i mean, Islam legit got its own way of running a society (Islamic law) which is the main cause of the problem. It encourages a non-secular society.

but its always been that way. Islamic law or a variation has always been used by muslim empires. by "revival", i think you mean abolishment of british or whatever european law some country had inherited from a colonizer. islamic "fundamentalism" is just islam.

iran used to be a western puppet during its "liberal" era. the shah probably did some really bad things to piss off the populace enough for them to bring in islamic scholars as head of state and turn the course of the country. i have never seen anything about the shah being socialist. iran was a "secular monarchy".

Mossadegh

Nope, you get sued for operating a public business and then refusing to serve members of the public based on your bigoted beliefs.

Don't you mean the fundamentalist Saudi Arabia spreading Wahhabism that the USA sells weapons in exchange for oil to?

Sorry, you mean the Taliban who the USA funded to fight the Russians.

My mistake, you mean the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussain who the USA sold weapons to. To fight the Iranians. Who they created by over th....

Oh, I am back where we started!

I believe you have the right to refuse service to anyone in business. I mean can trump sue ppl for not doing business w him anymore cause of political beliefs?

"like it seems to be happening with the republican party"

Congratulations on winning the "Understatement of the Year".

Well I wouldn't do business with Trump because a) I like being paid b) I dislike participating in crimes.

Uh, do you even know what happened, or are you just regurgitating shapiro/gay frogs did sandy hook dude/dumbasses of the world?

The cake dude just didn't "refuse service". If they would have, this wouldn't have been a thing. They refused service and stated the excuse of why they wouldn't make the cake. That was deemed against the other people's rights, because the 'why' was motivated by sex/race/gender.


Edit: which is a picture perfect example of the absolute idiocy within the "conservatives" of the US.

I dont follow ben shapiro or alex jones, but alex jones did a great video on bohemian grove i saw many years ago. And i do my own baking. I'm pretty sure everyone is aware cake dudes a dumb ass. I like this bakery story better Bakery vs college