Boomerconservatism, «our» worst enemy

«Boomerconservatism» is the theatrical and dominant pseudo-right consciousness of managed democracy: Liberal Conservatism rationalized as individualistic, self respecting obedience; consummately convenient to a degenerative political system that requires its opposition to remain tame while its own elastic ideology sustains its administered expansion. Conservatism presents as meaningful opposition while preserving the sanctioned vocabulary of subjugation. It falsely presents itself as the custodian of the right while remaining loyal to the residue of the postwar settlement, whose civic ambition was to hollow the right of rational order through a self-policing psychology where historical debility is dignified as prudence and conceptual disarmament sanctified as tolerant moderation. Its inherited obedience to superincumbent universalist liberal assumptions is cast as civilization itself, although its promise of political restoration remains intellectually inverted right from the beginning. The same «humane» machinery of the diseased inconsistencies are preserved as the approved instrument of cure and modern final solution.

Liberal in its institutions and market sentimental in its economics, the «conservative» position proceeds as sanctioned resentment with a flag and bumper stickers, a politics where permitted institutional irritation is esteemed as opposition and accessory morality is passed off and onto its oblivious followers as some sort of historical intelligence. Its subject enjoys quoting the dead, invokes «freedom»: i.e low taxes for the rich, mutters something against «Marxism», genuflects before the «West», and approaches political reality only at the level of the symptom, that is right after immediate consequence has become indecent enough to short circuit his brief memory and embarrass their inherited self image. This is the initiation of the politically inflated and conceptually debilitated man who believes order can be restored by simply returning to the assorted liberal assumptions that made society incapable of intellectually defending itself in the first place. He does not perceive the transformation in its premises, procedures, permissions, incentives, cowardices, institutional drift, market theology, or even his own virtuous grammar. But once the «left» stops pretending to share his sanctified «common sense», he will finally sense some significant decline, albeit way after his own liberal conservatism has become sufficiently ordinary to actually manifest for the masses in its final form.

Cause and effect in contradiction

Not merely an eccentric generational deformity, the obviously related, late term «Boomercon» also essentially named the social substance beneath the respectable abstraction. «Conservatism» is the bland paper label; Boomerconservatism is the demand miniature of a dominant pseudo-right formation that screams about the symptoms of its failed society and wants these sanctioned while demanding that the structural causes remain preserved wholesale at all costs besides their own. It prosecutes the spectacle and acquits the system without causal comprehension, denouncing «diversity» and disorder only at the surface while preserving the liberal assumptions that indeed multiply the fallacy of both sides, thus the predominant political dysfunction.

Conservatism assumes and predominantly perceives politics through moral annoyances and other immediate, convenient affects, making itself as unconsciously available to manipulation at scale as in any entrenched or overt «leftist» hatchery. Conservatives witness the gender activist, the «non-legal» immigrant, the campus hysteric, the degenerate journalist, the bought bureaucrat, the «radical left» rioter, the anti-white professor, the corporate diversity priest, and then concludes that the system has been captured by ‘lunatics’ and outright «evil». The conclusion is obviously too convenient, as lunatics do not govern civilizations for decades without a permeable, conceptually inconsistent grand architecture and fundamental socially liberal permissions. Meanwhile, superimposed and superficial conservatism wears its inherited beliefs as cheap cultural perfume while the markets and blindfolded, «colour blind» civic religion liquefy the nation the conservative allegedly yearns to defend. The extant core beliefs of the politically conservative remain purely cosmetically functional precisely at the point where they would need to become truly punitive.

Related: The power play of ‘Geometric politics’

The conservatives practical, headlong common sense is usually also animated by a fossilized consensus from some previous administrative stage, most commonly the rebuked Reagan era, where market sentiment and anti-communist nostalgia were rationalized as a enduring political philosophy. Related, conservative prudence is really just customary obedience with nicer etiquette than its more «humane» friends on the communal «left», while its realism is yesterday’s liberalism wearing dim, unassuming glasses. Its suspicion of contrary theory is also a defense mechanism against critical understanding, and its «anti-radicalism» remains all too convenient for the ‘system’, since no genuine enemy of the «right» needs to fear an adversary that’s always prepared to categorically denounce the cure as much more dangerous than the disease.

These constitutive contradictions deepen as conservatism’s self image becomes more individually opportune than universally convincing and actually applicable. It insists upon itself as mature, prudent, realistic, grown up, anti-utopian, «anti-radical», nobly suspicious of theory, and faithful to common sense, while remaining thoughtless of it where beliefs cease to be mere moral trinkets of thought and become instruments of causal discipline, and only barely survives these uncomfortable contradictions by constantly comparing itself to the ready-made caricature of its own opposition.

This is largely the full feedback mechanism of the managed political ecosystem, and in no small degree the great ideologically settled «deal» itself: leftist obscenity designate conservatism the righteous self image, while its impotence and «injustice» provide the very pretext of leftist victimhood expansion against its harmless and continually prosecuted controlled opposition.

Mistaken moderates

Conservatism cannot possibly reasonably understand the «left wing» by way of metaphysical separation and intellectual interposition because they significantly share a deeper being. Its supposed opposite remains as a despised ideological sibling and source of political nurture. The liberal conservative and the liberal leftist piety quarrel together inside the political paradigm of pellicular liberal democracy with malignant misgivings toward any past, present or future form of sovereignty presumed too essentially explicit and particular.

The controlled opposition superstructural consensus provides its left wing with a whimsical moral vocabulary and the right a disciplinary cage of dogmatic definitions. The left was deceived to speak in terms of «equality» and minorities, while the liberal conservative was conversely extrinsically conditioned to correspond with free markets and «Judeo-Christian» values. The abstract quasi-conscious quarrel became sufficiently politically corporeal to ideally engross the public in emphatic and pretentious proceedings enough to preserve the structure and thusly avert any real reckoning with the underdeveloped, advantageous ideological assumptions of the current liberal capitalist order.

The apparent two party system in America is the most naked exhibition of this deranged arrangement, though the mechanism appears elsewhere under other rationalized «western» parliamentary charades and conceptual permutations. The dynamic remains pretty much the same. One side accelerates the latest moral and administrative consequence while the other campaigns against its most preposterous proposals as a promise of reasonable return to the prior stage, invariably failing to place the shared premises under judgment and thereby preserving the procedural legitimacy of the political scheme along with «conservatism» itself. Institutionalized conservatism provides the popular psychology by which the very conceited cycle is made to appear politically reasonable and palpable to the masses of fools rather than merely meaningless and repetitive, a democratically degenerative discourse that simply expands the divide and conquer power play of the system, leaving «voters» with no other resort.

The conservative believes he is fighting the «left», although he is mostly fencing against the future consequences of his own liberal past on behalf of someone else’s interest. He sees «the left» as an institutional army and fails to recognize the shared supply lines of liberal legitimacy and bourgeois convenience. The financial reflex, buried between the slogans and the fencing, is less the thesis than the tell, because the shared reliance on cheap consumption and the sacred health of the liberal-capitalist asset machine reveals the deeper contradiction of the posture: every tenable «conservative» reclamation must remain compatible with the arrangements that made conservative normality comfortable today with little regard for tomorrow.

MAGA’ism gave boomerconservatism its last resort and final absolution. At the very edge of historical expiry, the puerile liberal conservative boomer prefers regression more than self-discipline and contrary doctrine, one final return to the good ol’ times before the fruits of his own ideological disorder became too vulgar to passively ignore any more.

The obviously failed and deceived «Trumpism» played the only sweet tune left in the exhausted conservative consciousness: heartstrings and wallets, patriotic theatre plus capital «Marketism». Now the old symbols would return, and the enemies of the «West» would be humiliated. The «unfair» wordly economy which was «ripping americans off» would be redeemed by way of tariffs. «The border», its «big beautiful wall» and Christianity would also be inconsistently invoked simultaneously while at it. However, most importantly, as always in «democracy», the voter would be told the lie that his brilliant instincts were innocent because his world had been stolen rather than exposed and materialized as what it always was: The American dream of liberal self-deception.