Technically, Ms. Ann Coulter being an original conservative, she’s logically correct in her arguments saying that she wants to elect a true evolutionary American nationalist, might be a Protestant with 200+ years of legacy, & not an Indian, in this case Vivek, in the elections. And indeed, she’s verily following the principles of what defines true conservatism. And had the Liberals followed the true principles of liberalism alike her around World, then things would’ve been different for globalization as well, and I wouldn’t have been writing this blog today. And ethically & logically, I’ve also agreed with the contentions given by the original Japanese, Indian, Chinese, Russian, South Korean, Zionists ‘conservatives’ as well (despite me being a proponent of one world one law one government one currency order). As, Japan lost its aesthetics post WW2, India lost that in 800 years of invasion-proselytism & loot, Zionists are still fighting for their promised land even after thousands of years, Russians too saw fall of tsars, Chinese witnessed colonial rule & poverty that led to rise in communism, & so goes for South Koreans as well; and many more.
But herein a caveat is involved in being conservative in the modern World. And I’m covering the same way I’ve covered modern liberal-leftists. When you’re more inclined towards being conservative, then the idea of global rule or dominance by that specific territory is implicitly struck-off from the wish-list at least. Take herein some examples:
· Q. Would the American conservatives genuinely & wholeheartedly accept de-dollarization, accepting that why conservatives of other nations witness their economies revolving around one currency?
· Q. When conservative China says from Ladakh to Arunachal to Seas in the south belongs to it or followed debt-diplomacy, aren’t they too following principles of modern globalism, against which China itself revolted & remained vernacular & nationalist?
· Q. Would the conservatives everywhere dismiss effects of powerful butterfly effects, as if one part of the World is affected, then no matter how much iron-walled any nation is, the evolutionary traits would reach to it too? And if action being taken beyond borders, then wouldn’t that make them implicitly globalist & not conservative; and if not taken, then for sure, it would reach! Dilemma!
· Q. If paganism, spirituality, multi-culturalism vanishes; then wouldn’t the era of crusaders, kafir, women are witches, proselytism etc. would return?
Being conservative means Being Territorial, and just alike a family wants to protect its own house, original conservatives want to protect their own territories. Nothing wrong! Aren’t liberals protecting their own family members, wealth and descendants too? Then what’s wrong when original conservatives seek the same for their territory or culture? At least they aren’t restricted to a specific family or families!
I’m again saying nth time that even if you’re fighting for your own race or colour or religion; yet, there’re embedded levels of evolutionary traits involved within in it too. In this mix-n-match globalization, indeed, there were objections that weren’t being addressed. And all the three: liberals, conservatives & globalists, didn’t understand the iota of this topic.
Hence the discord! 😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi 2024