Surely you see that conservatism as it exists in the world will morph to such an extent that in a few decades you will be the "a cultural conservative". Indeed I bet on many issues you already are. Can I expect you to change your stance then?

Been thinking about that. It might be embarrassing to admit, but, although I'd like to declare my conservatism, to fly my pride in the Left tradition and suspicion towards "the future" as an ideological banner... there's all them goddamn right-wingers in the way! :P

It'd take a whole lot to explain to people that I'm not a "moderate" conservative, that I want nothing to do with the "conservative Right" (present company excluded), that I'm pretty Right-phobic in general and that it largely follows from my socialist convictions. I'm afraid there's not much of a future for socialism (human socialism, anyway) - so I often look to the past, the mythic and half-forgotten Age of Modernity, whose ruins and artifacts can sometimes be found in the least fashionable parts of our cities; if history does turn the way I fear, I'll at least be glad for having stood athwart it!

But do you realize this feeling you seek, this "shame" is the very heart of farmer socially morality

Shit, thanks for mentioning it! Of course I meant shame in the colloquial sense, but Guilt within the "Guilt-based culture"/"Shame-based culture" dichotomy. Which can be roughly correlated with "Western culture" vs "Traditional culture" in pop anthropology or "Universalism" vs "Localist-reactionary social hierarchy" in my take on moldbuggery.

To oversimplify, Guilt has a large positive utility to me (Christian mindset, etc), Shame has a large negative utility ("patriarchy" in the feminist sense, etc). And yes, I understand that they might be strongly related and hard to separate - but, well, it's like passion vs rape.

EDIT:

But are you sure you are using this image for hope rather than anaesthetic? Not only personally, but what if our society is using this image as an anaesthetic. Remove the anaesthetic and maybe someone will wake up and scream.

True; the modern socialists I've been reading talk about it a good deal. It's another of them dialectic things; an "authentic" utopia can be an organizing, driving and useful image, like a direction on the compass, but the modern consumer culture can all too easily grab it, pull it into near-mode, cut it up into anaesthetic images and sell it.

Actually, that's literally what Marx said in his famous quote (and how Orwell explained it). Let me post that bit from Orwell once again:

Marx's famous saying that ‘religion is the opium of the people’ is habitually wrenched out of its context and given a meaning subtly but appreciably different from the one he gave it. Marx did not say, at any rate in that place, that religion is merely a dope handed out from above; he said that it is something the people create for themselves to supply a need that he recognized to be a real one. ‘Religion is the sigh of the soul in a soulless world. Religion is the opium of the people.’ What is he saying except that man does not live by bread alone, that hatred is not enough, that a world worth living in cannot be founded on ‘realism’ and machine-guns? If he had foreseen how great his intellectual influence would be, perhaps he would have said it more often and more loudly.

In other words, the Universalist utopia itself might be pretty cool, but we have to tear ourselves from its image before we can walk in its actual direction. It's good and sane to desire actually "immanentizing the Eschaton", but it's a trap if you don't actually carry out any change and just fantasize about doing so.