Paul Joseph Watson’s Case for Social Conservatism

The Portly Politico is striving towards self-sufficiency.  If you would like to support my work, consider subscribing to my SubscribeStar page.  Your subscription of $1/month or more gains you access to exclusive content every Saturday, including annual #MAGAWeek posts.  If you’ve received any value from my scribblings, I would very much appreciate your support.

I’ve written before that social conservatism is the red-headed stepchild of modern conservatism.  Buckleyite fusionism threw a sop to the social conservatives, but largely in the context of the Cold War:  being a devout Christian was a middle-finger to those godless Commies in the Soviet Union, and so social conservatism represented another front in that conflict.

Since the end of the Cold War, when the battle against Marxism became more subtly a cultural one, social conservatives have been ejected in favor of economic conservatives and national security conservatives.  It’s square to insist that Americans should strive to live lives of chaste self-sufficiency and virtue, and self-restraint is bad for the bottom line.  Instead, let’s encourage all manner of degeneracy, so long as it helps GDP.

That’s my chief complaint with modern libertarianism.  In theory, I love the idea of “live and let live,” and I certainly live my life in that way regarding my fellow citizens.  Yes, yes—limit government regulations, cut taxes, encourage economic growth—but not at the expense of a cohesive social and moral order.  Libertarianism only works if the vast majority of people share the same values, values which must be grounded firmly virtue to function.

Otherwise, it’s just license to licentiousness in the name of “liberty.”  Libertarians seem to believe that the ability to shove whatever you want into whatever orifice you like is the height of human social development.  There’s no sense of prioritizing the concerns of liberty, order, and goodness.  Burkean traditionalism has fallen on hard times.

That’s the crux of a recent video from Paul Joseph Watson.  PJW raises eyebrows because of his association with InfoWars, but who cares?  Alex Jones has been proven right more times than not.  Regardless, I’m judging him on the merit of his ideas, not some perceived controversial status—likely bestowed upon him by his political enemies.  When will we stop letting the Left define our arguments for us?

But I digress.  This video is well-worth watching.  It will utterly shock you out of your complacency about the moral stakes of the culture wars.  We’ve embraced libertinism to such an astonishing extent that people intentionally get pregnant and abort their children as a sexual kink.  If that’s not an argument in favor of the death penalty for abortionists and those who seek them out, I don’t know what is.

I love free discussion and approach almost any oddity with an open-mind (although years of bitter experience have closed that mind considerably).  But there are certain activities, topics, and lifestyles that are beyond the pale.  People that have abortions for fun (which was a joke in an old episode of South Park—now, it’s wicked reality) should be roundly denounced and scorned.  There should be no attempt to “try to understand their pain.”  They’re murderers of the most callous, self-indulgent variety.

The stakes in the culture wars are high.  Economic growth is great, but it won’t solve these problems.

 

8 thoughts on “Paul Joseph Watson’s Case for Social Conservatism

  1. […] The couple of weeks I’ve been feeling bleak about the future.  I’m a declinist by nature when it comes to the macro view, but the micro was starting to get to me.  How do we get through to people?  We don’t have the luxury for the old days of slow, steady relationship building and piecemeal red-pilling.  Further, it seems every step we take forward, the culture takes three steps back. […]

    Like

  2. The poor of this country really need a voice. It’s pathetic what the Democratic Party has become, merely the cynical mouthpiece of degeneracy, sloth & idiocy. Tulsi’s a refreshing alternative!

    Liked by 1 person

    • It really is the party of indulging every infantilizing vice. “You’re fine just the way you are and doing whatever you do, as long as you think like us and support us politically.”

      I agree that the Democrats don’t offer a compelling voice for the poor. They _use_ the poor for political purposes, and there does seem to be an alliance of the top and the bottom against the middle. Working-class Democrats with traditional values really only have the Trumpian Right (viably), or (as you mention) Congressbabe Gabbard.

      But the best for everyone—rich, middle, poor—is social conservatism, IMHO. Live soberly, within your means, and with a sense of obligation to your community and fellowman, and you’ll avoid a multitude of problems.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s