"Change" as what the wingnuts say
"The conservative defence of tradition 'admits' of change, that suggest 'growth' and 'renovation' than 'construction' and 'innovation'."
These are the words the book "Ideals and Ideologues of modern politics" by Mark N. Hagopian said regarding the conservative's stance on change. These words, typically speaking, spoke of favoring it within limits, but not all as conservatives, or other words, wingnuts insist on tradition and pessimistically think much of progression-even opposing it as contrary to their belief in order as "harmonious" and "peaceful." Worse is that they insist much in policies that, benefit much in their "ideals" but contrary to the aspirations of the people, and yet advocating "change" as what the book said?
Well...
To a progressive, I really think much of the wingnuts, especially those who banner words like "freedom" and "democracy" as stupid and hollow, meaningless except countering the left in every hallway. They took time bannering it, condemning the left as enemy of reason and whatsoever, but then, as we look closer, they are simply doing so while in fact seriously doubting the idea of freedom and democracy as they preferred the age old conservative ideas of "law," "order," "tradition," and worse "religion." Like those in Spain during the Franco era and in Croatia during WW2.
And so is the hollow phrase called "change," as what the wingnuts banner it. AS they, spending much time defending the rotten social order and utilizing a smattering of populist rhetoric, reading both Mussolini, the Bible and Ayn Rand only to create meaningless measures guised as "reforms" to do so, while maintaining the ideals of "aristocracy," the reactionary motion of "authority," "tradition," "pessimism," and even "clericalism," as concept of their order.
At the same time, as I expected, I read the words lord Falkland said:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."
Wingnuts, especially those who insist much on tradition and even those who banner "freedom" and "democracy" accepted it as they insist much on "order," and yet how come they do "change" and bannering, if not advocating it? I even read the vision of a right-wing "pro democracy movement" that spoke of "an advocate for the realization of progressive, responsible and organized democracy," and yet the ones behind are those of wingnuts spreading less of "innovation" and more of "renovation?" What is democracy anyway? To a wingnut, it is a hollowed phrase to be bannered. And as what the great Lenin said about their democracy, of freedom?
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."
And if that's the case, then freedom and democracy for the wingnut is the same as the slave owners, the aristocrats wanted, contenting in their past than paving way to the future!
True, as I may expect of them as their stances, especially advocating change, of liberty seemed contradicting to their ideals as I may say, that they insist in "change" while preserving the rotten social order? And even speaking it with "renovation" and "growth" for the nation like those of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and Spencer? Bah! Too stupid as they, in fact utilizing their desperate populist rhetoric to gain supporters and venting off illusions like those of Martov to counter the left. Their brand of change, progression is meaningless for their foundations rooted through the years curbed them, especially as what Lord Falkland, or the Ultramontanes, Carlistas, shunned things like those and even pushing to stop all in the name of preserving the "order of things" and even willing to foster growth of their meaningless renaissance like Chiang Kai Shek just to counter Mao Zedong!
And as I spoke of that old Chiang, he was an example of a conservative who bannered "change through renovation" while in fact "using" to counter Mao Zedong. His predecessor, Sun Yat-Sen really advocated change in whole China, speaking of freedom, democracy, and social justice to all courtesy of his "three people's principles" and encouraging people to fight against the Manchurians who ruled the entire country centuries ago.
Most students, especially radicals comprising the majority of the revolution simply joined the struggle also for other reasons like dismantling the age-old rotten system, pushing through renovation and innovation, and rebuilding China using science and technology like those of the May 4th movement and of the works of Lu Xun. They are also against unfair portions of traditions, like those of Confucius, foot binding, queue, kowtowing, caning and the like.
But Chiang Kai-Shek, like those of the conservatives who "hijacked" the revolution and of the Guomindang itself "museumified" change while step-by-step reviving the age-old, neo-Confucian, ideals what the majority of Sun Yat-Sen's followers shunned, from the faction led by Chiang Soong Ching-ling to Mao Zedong, who, also a soldier of the 1912 revolt and a communist who joined the Guomindang after the Sun-Joffe manifesto before becoming a leader of the communist party and the whole China itself-and opposing Chiang's measures that seemed contrary to the ideals of "freedom, democracy and social justice" as the late Sun envisioned, and according to him, referring to the Guomindang and Chiang:
"There are many stubborn element, graduates in the specialty schools of stubbornness. They are stubborn today, they will be stubborn tomorrow, and they will be stubborn the day after tomorrow. What is stubbornness (huan'gu)? Gu is to be stiff. Huan is to not progress: not today, nor tomorrow, nor they day after tomorrow. People like that are called the stubborn elements. It is not an easy thing to make the stubborn elements listen to our words."
And thus,
It also shows how wingnuts are, as what Mao said, "stubborn" and yet bannering the words like "change," "innovation," "freedom," "democracy," and the like, using it for cosmetic purposes while in fact disagreeing it, stubbornly disagreeing it to the core as what they do so with the cause of defending their concept of "tradition" and "order."
So what is change anyway? Like democracy and freedom, a hollowed meaningless phrase bannered by those hostile of progression and aligned with reaction.
These are the words the book "Ideals and Ideologues of modern politics" by Mark N. Hagopian said regarding the conservative's stance on change. These words, typically speaking, spoke of favoring it within limits, but not all as conservatives, or other words, wingnuts insist on tradition and pessimistically think much of progression-even opposing it as contrary to their belief in order as "harmonious" and "peaceful." Worse is that they insist much in policies that, benefit much in their "ideals" but contrary to the aspirations of the people, and yet advocating "change" as what the book said?
Well...
To a progressive, I really think much of the wingnuts, especially those who banner words like "freedom" and "democracy" as stupid and hollow, meaningless except countering the left in every hallway. They took time bannering it, condemning the left as enemy of reason and whatsoever, but then, as we look closer, they are simply doing so while in fact seriously doubting the idea of freedom and democracy as they preferred the age old conservative ideas of "law," "order," "tradition," and worse "religion." Like those in Spain during the Franco era and in Croatia during WW2.
And so is the hollow phrase called "change," as what the wingnuts banner it. AS they, spending much time defending the rotten social order and utilizing a smattering of populist rhetoric, reading both Mussolini, the Bible and Ayn Rand only to create meaningless measures guised as "reforms" to do so, while maintaining the ideals of "aristocracy," the reactionary motion of "authority," "tradition," "pessimism," and even "clericalism," as concept of their order.
At the same time, as I expected, I read the words lord Falkland said:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."
Wingnuts, especially those who insist much on tradition and even those who banner "freedom" and "democracy" accepted it as they insist much on "order," and yet how come they do "change" and bannering, if not advocating it? I even read the vision of a right-wing "pro democracy movement" that spoke of "an advocate for the realization of progressive, responsible and organized democracy," and yet the ones behind are those of wingnuts spreading less of "innovation" and more of "renovation?" What is democracy anyway? To a wingnut, it is a hollowed phrase to be bannered. And as what the great Lenin said about their democracy, of freedom?
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."
And if that's the case, then freedom and democracy for the wingnut is the same as the slave owners, the aristocrats wanted, contenting in their past than paving way to the future!
True, as I may expect of them as their stances, especially advocating change, of liberty seemed contradicting to their ideals as I may say, that they insist in "change" while preserving the rotten social order? And even speaking it with "renovation" and "growth" for the nation like those of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and Spencer? Bah! Too stupid as they, in fact utilizing their desperate populist rhetoric to gain supporters and venting off illusions like those of Martov to counter the left. Their brand of change, progression is meaningless for their foundations rooted through the years curbed them, especially as what Lord Falkland, or the Ultramontanes, Carlistas, shunned things like those and even pushing to stop all in the name of preserving the "order of things" and even willing to foster growth of their meaningless renaissance like Chiang Kai Shek just to counter Mao Zedong!
And as I spoke of that old Chiang, he was an example of a conservative who bannered "change through renovation" while in fact "using" to counter Mao Zedong. His predecessor, Sun Yat-Sen really advocated change in whole China, speaking of freedom, democracy, and social justice to all courtesy of his "three people's principles" and encouraging people to fight against the Manchurians who ruled the entire country centuries ago.
Most students, especially radicals comprising the majority of the revolution simply joined the struggle also for other reasons like dismantling the age-old rotten system, pushing through renovation and innovation, and rebuilding China using science and technology like those of the May 4th movement and of the works of Lu Xun. They are also against unfair portions of traditions, like those of Confucius, foot binding, queue, kowtowing, caning and the like.
But Chiang Kai-Shek, like those of the conservatives who "hijacked" the revolution and of the Guomindang itself "museumified" change while step-by-step reviving the age-old, neo-Confucian, ideals what the majority of Sun Yat-Sen's followers shunned, from the faction led by Chiang Soong Ching-ling to Mao Zedong, who, also a soldier of the 1912 revolt and a communist who joined the Guomindang after the Sun-Joffe manifesto before becoming a leader of the communist party and the whole China itself-and opposing Chiang's measures that seemed contrary to the ideals of "freedom, democracy and social justice" as the late Sun envisioned, and according to him, referring to the Guomindang and Chiang:
"There are many stubborn element, graduates in the specialty schools of stubbornness. They are stubborn today, they will be stubborn tomorrow, and they will be stubborn the day after tomorrow. What is stubbornness (huan'gu)? Gu is to be stiff. Huan is to not progress: not today, nor tomorrow, nor they day after tomorrow. People like that are called the stubborn elements. It is not an easy thing to make the stubborn elements listen to our words."
And thus,
It also shows how wingnuts are, as what Mao said, "stubborn" and yet bannering the words like "change," "innovation," "freedom," "democracy," and the like, using it for cosmetic purposes while in fact disagreeing it, stubbornly disagreeing it to the core as what they do so with the cause of defending their concept of "tradition" and "order."
So what is change anyway? Like democracy and freedom, a hollowed meaningless phrase bannered by those hostile of progression and aligned with reaction.
