Burke’s role in intellectual history is as a subversive who developed an intellectual concept of tradition which placed it as an unthinking do-nothingism which acts as a dead end into which all embryonic rejections of divided governance structure head into. This is the only possible form “conservatism” and the “right” may take in an unsecured system, because anything other than this is a rejection of the system.
Worse than this, this concept is clearly a concept which rejects the role of human judgement and intellectual advancement. Instead, tradition just works spontaneously as the result of the happy coincidence of “wisdom without reflection.”
The alternative is that tradition does not “just work”, but requires guiding hands (men with judgement) and institutions maintaining the internal logic and conistency of the tradition, which is what we see in even that most ridiculous diseased tradition of liberalism.
Burkeanism then, gives up any control, any management and any possible escape.
The pratical effect is that conservatives believe the lie of private society, whilst progressives run amok (the failure of Pinochet in this regard is devastating.)
The conservative also believes in uncontrolled distribution of secondary property (wrongly believed as prior to society) as of paramount importance, which makes their ethics irrelevent.
So the conservative believes that 1) society should be allowed complete freedom in all circumstances and 2) uncontrolled economic activity is primary yet… 3)claims we should follow “tradition.”
1 and 2 are not compatible with 3. Either the tradition and the institutions that manage it precede property distribution and is dominent over the property distribution, or it is at the mercy of the property distribution. Burke skipped this by claiming tradition was the result of spontarous order, nonsense to which you only have to look at the conservative movement to confirm.
Luckily this mechanism is playing out again, with Hestia led intellectually by Land replaying Burke’s role. Instead of Moldbug’s devastating attack on liberalism using De Jouvenel’s insights which demand a reorganising of society, we have a parasitism that involves taking the surface of the criticisms, but backfilling with them not with De Jouvenel, but instead with do-nothing anarchism, capitalism and various other varients of the same thing aka Burkeanism. This would be understandable as an unrealized mistake, but once pointed out, it no longer remains understandable.
If De Jouvenel is correct, divided power is the cause of leftism and is the driver of culture in this system. If this is so, the only way to regain control is to undivide power. To undivide power requires a reorganisation of property in line with the state’s goals, ethics and security. This makes property formaly post societal, therefore it is antithetical to capitalism.
Further maintainance of this structure requires further reorganisation of property, and the primacy of the state’s ethical framework. The tradition maintained by this state must also be primary and actively managed.
This rejects the current system root and branch.