“We must all obey the great law of change,” wrote Edmund Burke to Sir Hercules Langrishe in 1792. “It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation.” And within the conservation of civil society and culture lies the most important bridge between reality with fantasia. Left-wing ideologues press for a diverse society and, in the process, construct a foundation based on presumptive universal outrage at “reactionaries” who are non-conformists, classified by a dichotomy (that is, a choice of two possible conclusions) visible through the faux lens of neutrality. Derived from the Old French word diversité meaning “difference, diversity, unique feature, oddness” are synonyms that include “wickedness, perversity” in conjunction with the Latin diversitatem, (“contrariety, contradiction, disagreement”). First politically mainstreamed during the 1790’s, its contemporary modifier creates class warfare (ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, etc.) through the clever mind of George Orwell’s term Doublespeak.
There then is the other derivative, variety, meaning “turned different ways,” from the Late Latin term “various” that initially referred to a “change of fortunes.” The Middle French variété and more directly the Latin varietatem (nominative varietas) translates to “difference, diversity; a kind, variety, species, sort” in exploiting diversity’s prefix “di-” (applied to loanwords for “two,” “twice,” “double”) describing the absence of monotony. It ultimately evolved into a “collection of different things,” describing art and music as “something different from others.”
History and semantics teach valuable lessons whenever pressed with an agenda for progress. A cost-benefit analysis into best conserving one is critical to assessing what once worked, is tried and true, what is broken, and how one might fix this broken clock so it will not strike twice. Thus conservatism, over all other “-isms”, appreciates that natural law alone maintains a fair equilibrium through standards beyond mankind’s control. The son-in-law to Thomas Jefferson, John Randolph, believed that to “Change is not reform” given “Early and provident fear,” according to Burke, “is the mother of safety.” Governments under “men of intemperate minds cannot be free” if “Their passions forge their fetters… when they act from feeling.” Such individuals are on record having legally negated “the influence of imagination” for fear of encouraging political dissidence.
Russell Kirk contended that “Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity,” preferring “the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.” In order for liberty to be possessed, Lord Acton explained that a non-aggression axiom must alone enforce the rule of law insomuch that it is “the prevention of control by others” including one’s own government. Consequently, without “The cold neutrality of an impartial judge” balancing “a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society,… and not to be subject to the… Arbitrary Will of another Man,” liberty cannot survive if the “Freedom of Nature... under no other restraint but the Law of Nature,” is obstructed by the disturbance manifesting an unnatural imbalance. True liberty “requires self-control” given it is “a question of morals more than of politics.” If “there is no place for industry,” wrote Sir Thomas Hobbes, where “the fruit thereof is uncertain,” that government will kill a free, civil society by assuring that “no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society” can exist without a culture of “continual fear and danger of violent death.”
Civil governments must promote a nation’s tribal instincts characterized by its unique social and cultural heritage. One can never radically reconstruct a nation based on an idea if it was not founded on the basis of one. These elements must also embody the “religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being” conducive to learning how to make their nation lovely by finding reason to love it. Should no law exist to protect the individual from the rising collectivism as the individual being “absolute lord of his own person and possessions… and subject to no body,” its population will collectively, morally and physically “part with […] freedom… to the dominion and control” of shadowy enclaves where unscrupulous men exploit their lawlessness through a social contract granting it total revolutionary legitimacy. Therefore, “Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins,” and wherever tyranny is sovereign, “there is no freedom.” But a people at liberty to possess a “sound mind in a sound body” is at least guaranteed a chance to live “a short but full… happy state in this world”.