In response to my latest podcast, a listener asked why I was hostile to the “constitutional conservatives” given that I would prefer to live in a society that abides by something close to the old American constitution. After all, the tricorn hat crowd just wants to return to the old order as defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That’s a fair question and it is certainly true that most people in dissident politics came from some form of official conservatism or libertarianism. As such, most everyone here prefers ordered liberty.
The first problem with self-identifying as “conservative” in any way is that the label has been thoroughly corrupted. When someone like Jonah Goldberg is considered the face of conservatism, the label no longer has meaning. Goldberg started out on the far Left working for Ben Wattenberg at PBS. His “journey” to the Right got him only as far neo-conservatism, which has always been a Progressive heresy. The fact these people are allowed to call themselves conservative says conservatism is a meaningless label.
Even if you want to tease out the neocons on the grounds that they are fifth columnists with loyalties that transcend American politics, what’s left is nothing more than 1960’s left-libertarianism and some ostentatious Bible waving. The self-styled “Bible believing Christians” are about as Christian as Hinduism. Their bespoke brand of religion is a product of the therapeutic culture, not Western civilization. Of course, Left-libertarianism has always been little more than the accounting department of Progressivism.
The point is that like the word “fascism” the word conservative carries with it baggage I have no interest in totting around. Any effort to “reclaim conservatism” is either a waste of time or doomed to subversion and corruption. Dissident politics is as much about rejecting the people who man the barricades of the prevailing orthodoxy as it is rejecting the orthodoxy. The problem with Buckley conservatism was never just about ideology. It was the sort of people who saw it as a useful vehicle that was always the problem.
As far as the argument in favor of “returning to our constitutional principles” is concerned, it is important to understand that one reason why we are where we are now is those constitutional principles. The men who wrote the document and assembled the political order at the founding, did so to lock in their positions in the elite. Winners not only write the history books, they write the constitutions. What those men of the 18th century did not contemplate and maybe could not contemplate, is the rise of American Progressivism.
A small child alive at the time of the Constitutional Convention, if he lived a long life, could have seen the birth and death of the American Republic. Within one generation, it was clear that the constitutional order created in 1789 was not going to hold together. The Hartford convention was in 1815. Of course, not long after the issue of slavery and the irreconcilable difference between the American South and Yankee New England made clear that the constitutional order was untenable. That order ended at Gettysburg.
The point here is while those “constitutional principles” sound appealing to our modern ears, the people who actually lived them did not like them very much. Interestingly, the romantics for the 18th century politics have the same problem as fascist romantics, in that they never wonder why their ideal was a complete failure. The fascist ideal can sound pretty good, until you look at the actual results. The same holds for the constitutional republic, as designed by the Founders. Whatever its merits, it collapsed in a lifetime.
Even if you can argue that with some modifications, the old order can be made to work, accounting for Progressive efforts to undermine order, the problem is the same one faced by libertarians. That is, short of a violent revolution followed by a good bit of genocide, there is no going back to the old system. The people in charge will never permit it. That’s why they are tolerant of constitutional conservatives. They merely function as the court jesters of the neoliberal state, keeping the people busy with pointless political activism.
Putting all of that aside, ask a constitutional conservative if he would like to bring back slavery. Ask him if he would like a return of freedom of association, where citizens are free to discriminate. The best you will ever get from these people is a willingness to limit the vote to tax payers or property holders. They can’t even talk honestly about the role of women. Most of what the Founders believed is now considered disqualifying racism, sexism and ethnocentrism and the conservatives would agree with the Left on it.
The simple truth is that conservatism has been utterly worthless in stopping the march of Progressivism through the institutions of America. If the Founders came alive today and gained power, the first people they would hang would be the conservatives on the grounds they collaborated with the enemy. For as long as I’ve been alive, the Left’s greatest weapon in the culture war has been the so-called constitutional conservatives. In every fight, it has been these people who have counseled surrender and accommodation.
Just as mobsters wrap a victim of a hit in a carpet and toss him in the nearest dumpster, the goal for us it to wrap the so-called conservatives in their constitution and dump them into the dustbin of history. If there is to be a society in North America where white parents can raise white children, white people have to stop thinking there is an orderly solution to a lawless society. The people in charge have no respect for the spirit of the laws, much less the letter of the laws. When enough white people figure this out, real change is possible.
Kind of a shame, folks thinking about themselves as white rather than American.
What if I said, white people have figured it out. It’s called Gilman. It’s called the Elkridge Club. It’s called Ruxton and Catonsville.
I call it the conservative litmus test: what have they actually conserved? I got someone angry when I applied it to Ronald Reagan, who did little or nothing to stop progressivism. He gave a lot of tax breaks to his buddies and signed off on amnesty but actual conservatism? Nope.
As far as I can tell, conservatism just means “liberalism from 20 years ago.”
I can’t do this job alone. Or, perhaps, I could? There is only seven billion of them. I AM a conservative.
SONNET 54
O how much more doth beauty beauteous seem,
By that sweet ornament which truth doth give!
The rose looks fair, but fairer we it deem
For that sweet odour which doth in it live.
The canker-blooms have full as deep a dye
As the perfumed tincture of the roses,
Hang on such thorns and play as wantonly
When summer’s breath their masked buds discloses:
But, for their virtue only is their show,
They live unwoo’d and unrespected fade,
Die to themselves. Sweet roses do not so;
Of their sweet deaths are sweetest odours made:
And so of you, beauteous and lovely youth,
When that shall fade, my verse distills your truth
Billy, has to be, as to be or not to be, conserved, has well ammo, as well to be suffering from slings and arrows it is to e=be. Better a lamppost and a noose and besides it is more entertaining, isn’t IT? The original intent of the US Constitution was a business plan and nothing more, a pretty good one I might add, the Bill of Rights is what sold it to the masses, as they were at the time, I believe a minority. Do the side shuffle on 1 A and 2 A and every thing is moot. Problem is, as was then, control issues, mainly because of psychopaths and a not so mild need to make fun of the little people for sport and of course take their money and whatever else they may have, such as a family farm, or the Crown Jewels, I suppose.
I believe, early on it became apparent that government requires funding. This is the fun part with funding, they figure out how to vote themselves a pay raise. Clue here, the liberal, socialist, communist pinko rat ick progressive DEMO RATS ARE the CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!
It did take a bit over one hundred years, the plan was there at the beginning to require a really big bank for the spoils of war, mostly on the UN-informed. Or poorly informed, as we have today, all five columns, a bit of truth here and there, for which I call the St Paul Pioneer Depressed the record of paper, pulp addiction fiction and failing subscription. The Federalist Papers they are nit wits block truth in advertising, all is a sales pitch. And this little piggy went to market, the other went wee, wee, wee all the way home where the roast beef was none we we? However, there was bacon to be had and I like mine slightly crispy on the edges tender meat the treat.
Things that need to be conserved, air, water and energy and the natural laws that control them. CON serv-ative, which is the con Job that is government for profit of those that control it. I submit to you changes to the CON JOB, or Amendments to the Constitution are the Bill of Rights so enumerated making senators’ free agents, the FED bank well, the Income Tax and even worse the with holding of income by the Corporation for said Social Insurance that they provide for vote employment! DE MOCK CRAZY.
Communism and Capitalism was not even invented yet, yet payment for protection has always been, which of course is an issue of honesty, which we have none of now. But, anyhow I would propose a two-state solution, which of course is dead or alive for later entertainment and the noose and lamp post kind-a thing for the evening entertainment, perhaps some stakes burning? Bring your lawn chair and a case of cold ones, it will be fun for all, provided not being grilled or chosen for the neck tie.
See you at the Bar B Q.
Joe X
PS, I have not told any body yet, except for the Depressed Record of Paper, that no body reads in St. Paul, I AM running for, which is not entirely accurate, it more of a low crawl for GOV IGNORE of the Great MISTAKE of Mini Soda, vote for JOE X, just make your mark if you can’t read, X, no need to print ballots in spang-lish, skinny-ish jus make an “X”! I have submitted my resume stating, I AM no body and I know know things and have the government documents to prove it. Vote for Joe X!
And I might add, in preparations for future festivities a couple of squadrons of A-10 Warthogs fully complemented with of course refills and whatever maintenance items that may be requires, like pilots and tires. Perhaps a spare engine? Or, two.
Z –
I agree with these arguments. I too know in my soul that the Constitution is dead. Call it sentimentalism but when I stop and think about that, I admit it, I feel tears come to my eyes.
You and I and most everyone here value the cold, unvarnished truth. It is why we are here. But I think we need to approach this issue with care. Yes, some “constitutional conservatives” deserve to be mocked. But I know so many who are good people. They are busy working and raising their families and taking care of their parents. They are the people you want to work with and live next to. They know things are not right and my guess is that they think about it a lot. But they don’t have time to read opinion pieces and essays to help them get to where we are.
Many of these people revere the Constitution. To them, it is one step below the Bible. They are not Bible waving Christians. They are quiet people trying to live an ordered life in a society that has gone off the rails.
We should not disparage these people or mock them because they value a document that espouses ideas that many people believe are worth dying for.
Instead, we need to point out that we no longer have a population that shares those same values. When we discuss this topic, we need to hit hard on the concepts you, Z, discussed in your podcast this past week so we can start making these people realize how far we are from the concepts in the Constitution/Amendments. We have to make them see that all of these people we now share this country with do not, nor will they ever, aspire to what the Constitution once meant to so many Americans.
At any rate, I thank you for writing this piece. It’s an important component of our argument. I just think we need to be careful with how we talk about this.
What those men of the 18th century did not contemplate and maybe could not contemplate, is the rise of American Progressivism.
I submit that those men were American Progressives. Men who instigate rebellions against legitimate authorities could hardly be called conservative! Undermining order was exactly what they were about.
That’s one of the many problems with American conservatism. What constitutes being a conservative in an intrinsically progressive society?
I’m afraid that’s a point that needs to be conceded to the progressives. They are indeed the legitimate heirs to the founders and the constitution. If anyone has a claim to being Real Americans™, at least philosophically if not ethnically, it’s the progressives. A constitutional conservative is someone who is pledging his fealty to his natural enemy.
Many (most?) of the commentators here seem ready to pick up guns (pitchforks?) and correct the variance from the Constitution, when the Constitution provides a perfectly good remedy by convention of the states. Much less messy than civil war. Even the 10 commandments need work, they failed to address slavery, although the old testament gave advice for treating your slaves. “Thou shalt not coerce others to do thy will”, wasn’t added, because Moses ran out of stationary.
The whole purpose of the Constitution, and the Magna Carta before, was to codify the behavior of the rulers, and reduce the arbitrary decisions, otherwise known as the “Rule of Law”. It is designed to thwart the capriciousness of people like King John and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
You’re late to the party…………
Why Conservatives Can’t Win
William Pierce
This essay was first published in Attack! issue number 4, in 1971
https://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/why-conservatives-cant-win/
Z’s not late to the party he is the party. By the way Z was about 5 in ’71.
“What those men of the 18th century did not contemplate and maybe could not contemplate, is the rise of American Progressivism.”
What they did not contemplate was a massive working class that is 90-95% of the populace. In their day the viewpoint was farming, small mercantile and even smaller govt class. But like all things the impulse to ‘do good’ with other peoples money eventually turns into ‘doing havoc’ with as much money as the state can steal.
Asked w/o prejudice but do you (Z but also others) think the right side won the civil war?
I think the South would have won if they were supposed too…Whos to say we would even be around if they would have and not ruled by another country…We can’t change history but we can learn from it…I do think the Right is more like the South in the respect of logistics, a plan, and resources if that tells anything…
I personally believe that historic tragedies can happen, ie that the wrong side might have won (WW1 might actually be a possible case there, not b/c Kaiser Germany was ‘nice’ but b/c a German victory any time from 1914 to 1920 could not conceivably have been worse than what did historically happen. And a conservative, victorious Germany would probably not have been okay w a Bolshevik Russia).
But in the case of the civil war I cant say I believe this is the case. The war was about slavery more than anything and I am simply not a fan of that ‘institution’. But one of the side effects of becoming ‘woke’ is that you are willing to question almost anything ‘conventional’.
Z Man;
An excellent provocation. You are right that most so-called conservatives effectively conserved nothing, particularly the social and economic conservatives. National security conservatives, OTOH, to name the last leg of the previous so-called ‘conservative tripod’, have managed to conserve the military-industrial complex, so far. But even they are being undermined by peoples’ growing dissatisfaction with endless war.
To me, the attraction of the constitution even now is that it provides the last shred of a higher authority that the politically weak individual (that’s almost all of us) can appeal to for protection from the strong. This function is essential for any society. So the constitution’s role will have to be replaced by *something* even if it is obsolete and OTE (overtaken by events).
Every political system, even commies, nazi’s and other common criminals have a pretend higher authority that they appealed to for justification.**
Western Civilization in the past used Christianity based on the higher authority of the Bible,* What you say about ‘Bible believing Christians’ having little credibility is certainly true of current mainline denominations today. But they are not Bible believing but rather ‘Smorgasbord Christians’ who pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible. That’s one big reason why they caved so readily to the gaystapo: Everything was open to question.
Like it or not, even when it was written, the constitution was *already* an example of the use of ‘the Bible as a smorgasbord’. Thomas Jefferson, who was famous for creating his own Bible (by cutting out the parts he didn’t like), is one prime example of this from the period of the founding: They just took much more of the Bible rather than less.
It would be a dangerous folly for any right-of-center group to discard the constitution without having *some* credible replacement***. Particularly since the other only obvious offer on the horizon is Islam _!
____________________________________
* Also Roman Law – plus Germanic tribal traditions – both as modified for then current conditions.
** For commies it was ‘the forces of history’. For nazi’s it was ‘the will of the people/nation’. For the mafia it was ‘omertà’, etc.
*** Progs. of course have progress towards some hazy (but explicitly non-white) utopia as their authority.
The fundamental problem is how to check corruption long term, even when the population gets comfortable (Tytler cycle). Those in power always want to avoid limits, as Zman discussed. Maybe we’re doomed to go around the loop every few hundred years.
http://commonsensegovernment.com/the-tytler-cycle/
There is a way to keep it in check but would never be implemented because those who could don’t want limits…So the other option is have enough power that their decisions don’t affect you or that you have enough to overcome them…That’s the way it’s always been and will always be…
You mean, the Military-Industrial Complex that Roosevelt created and Eisenhower warned about? To what degree is this unchained beast beneficial to actual right wingers who aren’t Trotskyite Neocons?
The Constitution died long before I was born. The fact that the Social Security Act was judged to be Constitutional is all you need to know.
Without an ideal there is no focus. Without focus there is no following. Without a following there is no movement. This is how the Marxist toppled civilizations by selling utopia and delivering a totalitarian state. If you want to derail what is coming you better form up behind something. The constitutionalist are forming up behind the bill of rights as a check on the dictatorship of the majority.
Dang, Zman, your insightful and cutting evaluation of what conservatives are is like the cold bucket of water on the t-shirt. Now that you have eviscerated the Right, what, indeed will you propose to do with the body? A little Frankenstein magic? Drive the survivors into the sea? Or do you crave some sort of rehabilitation and rebuilding that will redirect them into useful lives of liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on their own terms? Just for fun, I will relate to you, that lambasting potential allies, no matter how honest and sincere, rarely has the desired effect of winning them to your “side”, whatever that is. Or is it your point that it’s all scheiBe anyway, and doomed to ultimate disaster, no matter what course is taken? Or do you HAVE a point, or direction? I do like what you say, but do you have even a crumb to throw in the direction of all those conservatives?
Conservatives aren’t allies of the Right. They’re not actual allies and they’re not potential allies. In a Spectrum-of-Allies analysis, they’re neutral at best and easily veer toward active opposition when the alternative is admitting some unpleasant truth about HBD or “enlightenment values”.
The Dissident Right is a pretty big tent, but it’s not infinite. Its intellectual foundation is made up of right-libertarians, reactionaries, and the true alt-right branches (not the globalist pretenders). Some paleocons and nativists can also fit in.
But conservatives? Most are just a hair’s breadth to the right of progressives. They’re so far left of anything on the DR, it’s virtually impossible to have an intelligent conversation on political philosophy.
Yeah, man. Don’t shoot your own soldiers.
When people are in it for themselves, and screw the others, it really doesn’t matter what system of governance is employed. A brilliance of the Constitution was that it, somewhat, encouraged people to support each other in a non-coercive way. Those “win-win” outcomes, generally economic in nature, but also that encouraged local social self-help and looking out for each other.
I venture to guess, without a lot of empirical support, that the atomization of society, and the baiting of people to simply find ways of stealing from each other through demonstrations of “need” and “discrimination”, have gone a long way towards destroying the fundamental foundations of our culture. And who engineered such a thing?
The next problem is that getting back to some semblance of “we are all in this together, so let’s make the best of it” probably requires a huge bloodletting.
This is what reactionaries argue. That the system is intrinsically irredeemable and has to be changed, but not be revolution but by restoration.
Are people reticent to comment because of new commenting format?
I’ve returned to the stock comment system. It seems that the one I was using will not allow people to post unless they log in. I tried a new one called Thrive and people started bitching about it. So fuck it. I have better things to do than screw around with comment systems.
I liked being able to look at the scores. It was a bit like cheating, but it allowed me to scroll through and pick out the ones others had decided were best and were attracting the most conversation while ignoring boring, trite, or repetitive posts. With a large number of postings that was a real time saver.
One minor point I’d disagree with you on: the American founders were themselves progressives. They also happened to be highly competent statesmen, which is why the early Republic overperformed. But psychologically and ideologically, if not intellectually, they’re the same as today’s progressives, squabbling for power and status and using both liberal and revolutionary democracy to advance their aims.
Other than that, spot on. Sometimes I don’t know how you and your blogging/podcasting peers deal with the monotony of Constitutional Conservatives; they’re a political and philosophical Eternal September. A never-ending stream of new faces demanding answers to questions we answered 20 years ago.
The label “Progressive” is just a euphemism for human parasite. They evolved because civilization, modernity, and technology have rendered an abundance of sustenance well beyond the needs of the productive element in society. This excess became available as a food source for these parasites via the politics of overt bribery and covert extortion. Conservatives anticipate a Progressive victory and hope to be spared or genocided last.
“Any effort to “reclaim conservatism” is either a waste of time or doomed to subversion and corruption.” – damn right! All the old institutions need to die and we need to start fresh there is next to nothing left untainted and trying to resurect or “take back” anything is as you say a waste of time – time we do not have.
“..white people have to stop thinking there is an orderly solution to a lawless society.” – absolutely, there is NO peaceful way to expel +100million people from our White homelands!
Many invaders would leave voluntarily if they were paid off, and were assured of comfortable living standards back in their homelands. Any talk of massive population transfers is premature, when it is a controversial position to stop illegals from entering, let alone deport those here illegally. Trump won’t use shutdown pressure to get the wall or E-Verify. Even in states where E-Verify was passed, they don’t enforce the laws.
This is not a new problem
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
Unless we can as our host noted use force to create such a people we cannot have the old system. And note to any Civ Nats reading this, maybe 60% of whites, 15% of Blacks and 25% of Hispanics and Asians can live like this and that is a generous estimate ,
That is a whole lot of forcible social change.
Unless we can as our host noted use force to create such a people we cannot have the old system…
I would say use force to get rid of those who can’t abide by it but like you said no one has the balls for that…YET…
Very few people who aren’t from West of the Hajinal line can live that way. That is a lot of relocation and repatriation and worse.
Start with all illegals, anyone who doesn’t speak English and any immigrant with a significant criminal record to start and this only if the Left is essentially powerless politically
Throw in a ban on new migration , dual citizenship a wall and an end to birth right citizenship and you may be able to get a slightly less Whiter USA to work
I’s also recommend payouts in silver/gold/assayed diamonds other values or dollars of anyone will take them for people to leave and renounce US citizenship.
Such a society also means we have to basically enforce against peoples desires a religious code of some kind. Abortion is the big bugaboo of course and in a takeover its gone but this means a lot more social controls on public behavior and maybe things like porn
You may also want to simply eliminate rival power bases
It will certainly require an interregnum at least twenty years of authoritarian rule
last unless you want you population to just drink itself to death or huff gasoline to oblivion, the new party will need to be able to understand how to rule cities and how to make sure there is ample employment and the basics of life
This will mean regulation especially against larger multinational corporations who now have an incentive to overthrow you as well
This means polices for cheap housing and lots of smaller businesses an heaps of policy choices that are the antithesis of economic liberalism.
This is all doable with the caveat that once you get started and if you win, no running away, no backing down. No Monticello 2.0. no Cinncinatus You sacrifice at least two decades ruling with an iron hand maybe more
If the New Party is willing or able to do this they can have a Conservative society otherwise no,
That’s why I say start small and work up from there…Eating the elephant one bite at a time…To many though focus on the size of the elephant and give up…Ahh who knows are all just sticks caught up in a raging river and I just don’t see us coming together enough to dam up said river enough to slow it down…
I would like to see you lay out what you think we should set up as a replacement for the Constitution. If/when the current system breaks down, what would you build from the ashes?
Question even if he laid it out step by step you wouldn’t follow it because of the bloodletting it would require…
I mean after the fighting is done, assuming the people who actually work, pay taxes and have all the guns win in the end.
The fighting will never end unless an outside power comes in with enough force to end it and then it won’t really matter what we want…Thats why it hasn’t kicked off yet…If we on the right can’t come up with a plan before it goes to war then we are shit out of luck on having one after…
Correct. Time to stop saying the word “conservative”. It’s ridiculous on its face. Conservatives have conserved nothing and, unlike the radical left, don’t even have the courage and honesty to say what they really believe and want.
The progs and cons both have the same goal. A military/industrial corporatocracy that wages endless war abroad and imposes total control at home. They only differ in the methods and speeds in which they get there.
And now my question. I read and hear constantly among us red pill deplorables about the coming civil war. The national divorce. A cull. A reset. Right wing death squads and free helicopter rides for commies. And on and on. You get the idea.
How would any of this happen? How would it start? I don’t own a helicopter and have no idea which death squad to join. My priority in case of prolonged unrest would be to hunker down in my fortress with my family, defend me and mine, and wait it out. I cannot see myself venturing out in search of liberals to kill. I sincerely doubt most of us would. It’s easy for spittle-flecked keyboard warriors (I’m looking at you, Aesop) to endlessly blather about firebombing the enemy camp (where on the map, exactly, are these camps?) but the reality would be quite different.
I don’t know where this all ends. Fall of Rome? I’m trying not to be defeatist.
But a sudden and definitive cleansing of our nation of every socialist, communist, liberal, progressive, Democrat, university professor, diversity compliance officer, radical feminist, body-positive blue-haired fatty, genderfluid tranny agitator and perpetually enraged neck-tattooed Antifa faggot just ain’t gonna happen.
Thoughts?
Those are useful questions for us to ask, Morphine1. I don’t have answers, but I am going to suggest that these are a couple of pieces worth reading to come up with some:
Days Of Rage
Skull Stomping Sacred Cows
People will eventually self segregate according to some preferences and economic necessities. After enough of this has occurred, the political institutions necessary to govern those new structures will come into being. I think we may see the return of city-state types of polities, and/or confederations thereof. As long as large ones that continually run deficits are not able to arbitrarily annex smaller, more productive ones in order to increase their tax base, things may shake out advantageously.
The federal constitution is merely an outline for a fairly workable government, IF, those taking part are honest and good. There is no guarantee of that, AND thus the people in the states refused to ratify it until the Bill Of Rights was added to guarantee rights that existed long before the first colonist set foot on this continent. Since the constitutional system has been used to limit and destroy those rights, maybe a better system can be found. OR, we might just purge (((the ones))) who have been behind the destruction.
But Government is never composed of honest or good men for very long, so it couldn’t work…That why a confederation of states, like Switzerland, is much more free and has endured 700 years.
People in the US forget that the original document holding the states together was the Articles of Confederation.
There is a viewpoint out there – and it has been there for quite some time, that the Constitution itself was a usurpation. The people sent to Philadelphia were meant to go there and just refine the Articles – not hammer out a completely new document.
Gary North has written about this :
https://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf
As has Kenneth Royce:
https://starvingthemonkeys.com/articles/HologramOfLiberty.html
Civic Belief #1
Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.
Civic Belief #2
The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict constitutional bounds.
If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?
As Lysander Spooner described it over a century ago:
“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”
Think about that. By either the Constitution’s purposeful design, or by its unintentional weakness, we suffer a federal colossus which takes a third of our lives and regulates everything from axles to yarn.
So, why aren’t Americans free? Perhaps we weren’t really meant to be!
For example, the feds “monitor” themselves through the Supreme Court, like students grading their own tests! Where is any “check and balance” in that? There is no constitutional way to repeal Supreme Court rulings, and this was no accident. The Framers could have (as did the swiss) quite easily confined the Federal Government, but they didn’t want to.
The “Founding Lawyers” of 1787 left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that’s why we have an unchallengeable government today. Cleverly designed to be weak, the Constitution is more form than substance, or else Freedom would ring in America.
Kenneth Royce proves that the States and the American people were politically “checkmated” 210 years ago, and discusses his three peaceful solutions prior to the imminent insurrection now brewing. Hologram of Liberty is truly the groundbreaking, vital analysis of the Constitution.
” As Lysander Spooner described it over a century ago”
What’s old is new……………….
What was that accusation by Kamala Harris to Kavanaugh? Something about that little book you are carrying (the Constitution). Yes, the other side doesn’t even recognize it and the NormyCons can’t accept it has been dead for longer than any of us have been alive.
Today on black pilled Sunday I can’t even fathom a solution or path that offers any realistic change in this godless shithole.
Oh I can fathom a solution, problem would be implementing it…
Reset the laws back to pre 1965. Most of evil shit that has come down the pike at whites comes from one branch – the judicial branch and the 9 druids.
Everything from giving illegals free education, welfare and medical coverage to allowing mentally ill men wearing dresses the right to use women’s bathrooms and making homosexual marriage acceptable comes from this branch. The same one that gives terrorists, illegal aliens and pirates the same rights as citizens. The same branch that says we are not allowed to stop Muslim immigration no matter what.
Ever notice how the TPTB always bray about “the rule of law” and “we’re a nation of laws”? The TPTB never promote anything unless it is good for them.
The elites know full well even the puppet congress couldn’t push most of this s**t show agenda of theirs through. So they use the legal system backed up with angry men with guns to enforce their fatwas and diktats.
This is a typical response.
And exactly why I think much of the “dissident right” is populated with a bunch of fallen away lefties who are just pissed off that the darkies are getting in on the action.
We were already well into the shithole in 1965.
You’re absolutely wrong. The evil shit started no later than 1913 when the Republic as it had stood was dis-assembled thru things like the direct election of Senators, restrictions on how many seats can exist in the House – and the Federal income tax. Participation in WW1 followed shortly thereafter ( that’s where the US took a turn towards globalhomoism). Then in 1920 they gave women the vote.
In the 30’s FDR really turned the dial to 11 when he put the New Deal into place. Garet Garrett wrote about this in “The Revolution Was”. You should go look it up and read it.
By 1965 the US was already fully invested in empire. But the pieces of the puzzle that enabled that were put in place MANY decades before.
Even before the country was flooded with illegals – the pieces of the culture and government that supported a high trust white culture were degraded, in favor of power aggregated to the top. Illegal immigration is an effect not a cause.
Not a ex liberal you nit nat. But I do recognize the damage the legal profession has done to our culture and people. Most people with a brain can see that. They are the new nobility with life time seats and accountable to no one.
As Zman says, everything else is downstream from culture. This is why the Left worked so hard to capture the levers of power and influence in our system since the Great Depression and win the war for control of our culture.
Politically the country was a shit show since the Rockefellers, Morgans and Carnegies ran the shop. We started out empire building back during the Spanish-American war and never stopped.
Now none of our empire building was demanded by the people. But by the elite who used their ownership of Congress, the newspapers and radio stations to gin up support for our imperial endeavors. Even Gulf War 2.0 had no real public support and is why the war was launched without Congressional approval.
Illegal immigration is a issue because of the business community whose insatiable desire for cheap, replaceable workers. And their abject hatred of blue collar and middle-class whites has also driven it. Even at the height of the Great Depression, wineries and farms were importing Filipino laborers on the West Coast so they didn’t have to hire white Americans.
The New Deal was a mixed bag. But it probably stopped us from going communist. Which BTW was very popular among the intellectual and academic class. My father, uncles grew up during that time and it was sheer hell for those who were unemployed or reduced to being itinerant laborers like they were.
The New Deal took these men and gave them work and meaning in their lives before a evil version of the Kingfisher came along and got them to kill the well off folk.
Sir: It goes back a many, many more years. When SCOTUS decided Marbury v. Madison, Marshall opined it was the task of SCOTUS to decide what was “constitutional”. If Congress had been awake, Marshall would have been impeached, hanged, and the laws of the land amended to forever forbid 9 druids from implementing a judicial dictatorship which has destroyed this Republic.
Is anyone really surprised that control of systems of power is sought by men of power?
We are simply at the turning point where sufficient men of power have sought and seized sufficient power to absolutely corrupt the system to the point where their corruption is overt and they still get away with it. That’s how much power has been seized by how many men of power: so much by so many that we are powerless to stop them if we stay within the system.
The system put in place 200+ years ago could have been based on Skittles-shitting unicorns and we’d be in the same place. I understand your need to assign blame. Blame human nature.
Practice with your rifle.
There are only two options: Either what we see around us is the Constitution working as intended, in which case the Constitution is evil, or it is not, but happened anyway, in which case the Constitution is useless. No matter which of these is true, the Constitution is no longer worth talking about, because it obviously isn’t going to save us.
We, the people, were supposed to protect and enforce the constitution, as was every officer and official elected or appointed to federal service.
We didn’t. We failed in our duty to do so and, therefore, to OURSELVES… We failed the constitution. As a piece of paper, it was good only for codifying an ideal. It is nonsense to accuse the parchment of failure to do anything.
The ideal, clearly expressed by many of the founders, was that such a formula was fit only for a moral (and homogeneous) people. Where and when were those, in all of history? Evil works its will best against honest men of good will, who cannot recognize it until the rot becomes a stench.
All man made political solutions and systems are doomed to fail as they proceed out of the limited intellect and flawed character of men. Human nature is the problem and it will ever be so.
Ought six, right on. Evil is, as evil does.
Is it not enough To live life as best we can, a moral, ethical, righteous life’s. All the while preparing for the obvious future.
Jon, does politics really impact men like you, like lineman, like me’s life.
Not at the bottom line.
Speaking for myself, politics is a fucking cartoon, I watch it, I don’t live it!.
God bless, Brother.
Dirk Williams
Thing is Dirk if we wait until politics affect us then by that time it will be to late to act effectively…You know the saying as well as I do “When they came for”… Which is why it frustrates the shit out of me when those that are affected by evil politics aren’t even doing anything about it…I hope this finds you and yours as well as ought six’s in good health and God Bless You as well…
Correct.
There is not one thing wrong with that document. The law belongs to We The People, and we’ve let They The Politicians run away with it.
“The men who wrote the document and assembled the political order at the founding, did so to lock in their positions in the elite. Winners not only write the history books, they write the constitutions.”
If those men wanted to secure their positions they would not have written the constitution or enforced it the way they did.
Our host speaks hypothetically of hangings. I see them as inevitable. Public hangings for the big crime families and probably firing squads for their peons. The west’s biggest problem is that we no longer have any codified morals and ethics. Nothing is taboo, anything goes, laws and rules are for the stupid people.
This country needs a cull at all levels.
There was a major flaw in the Constitution–it destroyed the Articles of Confederation, and established a central government that most people distrusted…Which is why it took a good bit of bribery to get the Constitution ratified.
That’s true, the AoC was a far superior form of government to what we have under the constitution.
Power corrupts. No system of govt, or constitution or treaty will change that. Blaming the constitution for the failure of the nation is like blaming McDonalds for the idiot that scalded himself by spilling their coffee in his lap.
Bullshit. First, the idea behind the founding was that we were supposed to have a government that served the people, not the other way around, and that includes the government’s constitution. Saying that we failed it gets things bass ackwards and puts us right on the path that ends in Brecht’s “Die Lösung”. Second, if we can “fail” the Constitution by just ignoring it when we want to, then what’s the fucking use of the thing in the first place? This is the problem with “a nation of laws, not of men”. If you simply ignore what the king says, he can have your head chopped off. If you simply ignore a piece of 18th century paper, then it seems nothing bad happens to you. A nation of laws inevitably becomes a nation of lawyers, who will sit around having casuistic, bad-faith arguments about the meaning of every comma in your laws until they’ve forced abortion, gay “marriage”, assault weapons bans, and bussing of violent minorities into your kids’ schools via courts stacked with friendly judges who buy into their fanatical ideology. So what the fuck have you gotten for overthrowing your kings and aristocrats and trading them for your goddamned piece of useless parchment? Well, you’ve ended up with everything of consequence being decided by unelected, unaccountable people in fancy robes who hold their positions until they croak, which is functionally different from aristocracy…. how, exactly?
Nathan Hale need never have bothered.
Yes, human nature is the problem. That is why hierarchical political systems designed to preserve and exploit the natural order tend to work well, and egalitarian systems designed to overturn the natural order eventually degrade and collapse under their own weight.
Guess which kind of system the American Constitutional Republic is.
The problem with most Constitutionalists that I have run across – is they have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the ideals that were supposed to be supported by that document.
The gun rights crowd is a perfect case in point.
Probably 95% of the time – they’ll just yell and scream about their 2nd amendment rights!!!. Ask them for any logical explanation of WHY they should have those rights – and their minds go into meltdown mode.
If you really want to see people shut down – try telling them that once they give up ALL the other rights contained in the BOR, that the 2nd becomes irrelevant – because there’s nothing left anymore to protect. Therefore the 2nd can just eliminated as irrelevant based on logic alone.
What label should we use?
“Hinkle Finkle Dinkle Do”, at this rate.
Keep it simple, use pro-White!
What label indeed. I think that despite the dents on the image, Alt-Right is best. I was ok with Dissident Right but I noticed that even people who consider themselves Dissident Right hardly ever use the term. Everyone usually says “our thing”. Clever, but it shows that no one really knows what to call ourselves. From now on I’m going with Alt-Right. I don’t care about the history and I’m not in competition with Richard Spencer, so I’m fine with his coinage. No label is perfect or without baggage. You go with what’s recognizable, easiest to type, and easiest to say. I’m a practical man.
“Cosa nostra”. Yeah, it fits. And we need the omertà that goes with it.
I still call it conservatism. In my view letting the language corruptors get away with stealing the term is like having to come up with new word for “woman” just because there’s a bunch of men in dresses running around calling themselves “women” just because they now have a surgically added front hole.
It’s more honest – and it avoids a whole bunch of guessing about what to call yourself – to simply say “you’re NOT a woman”, and to say: “they’re NOT conservatives – they’re lapsed Jewish Marxists or fiscally conservative progressive leftists ”
Sooner or later you have to stop running – and take a stand. If we can’t take a stand on the meaning of a word – I fail to see where else a stand is going to be made.
I keep bringing this up – because I think it matters. The marxists keep corrupting the language. Giving into that is well – giving into that. Reclaim “conservative” – define it clearly in what that word should mean – and the redefine everybody else who has attached themselves to the word for WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.
That’s an offensive move. Which is exactly what we need.
The neocons have been called neocons for as long as I can remember. Nobody on the right side of the aisle ever seemed to get the multiple levels of irony contained in the word. They just bought into it. Which I think really points a big finger towards the root of the problem: “conservatives” don’t know what the hell they even stand for. That’s really the bigger issue than just using the word “conservatism”
I still call it conservatism. In my view letting the language corruptors get away with stealing the term is like having to come up with new word for “woman” just because there’s a bunch of men in dresses running around calling themselves “women” just because they now have a surgically added front hole.
Quite right – you don’t abandon your word just because it’s been corrupted by others – that is allowing them to frame the debate.
I like nationalist.
We are populist nationalists, Trumpian nationalists.
I think nationalist is better than alt right or any of these other things.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were nationalists.
It’s the Spirit of 76.
“Nationalist” is too vague. It’s got the ring of avoidance. With “Alt-Right” you’re letting people know you’re race aware and you’re no dummy Conservative. It’s saying “there’s something new and I am it.” It’s provocative without defining yourself too sharply.
Nationalist is a normally unused word in American political discourse, we typically use patriotic, but liberals often claim to be the “real patriots”. In this case, we use nationalist as meaning that we favor the nation-state over globalist institutions like the UN, WTO, IMF, etc. Nationalism is considered a dirty word in Europe, due to its association with the World Wars, so they use “Eurosceptic”.
Complexity and hand-wringing for the sake of. And then GENIUS ideas like guest’s “pro-white” you will gain -lots- of traction with that one, beleive me. Puh-leez. The ‘label’ already exists. If it ain’t broke…
Heritage America(n)
So when someone asks you what you are in casual conversation you’re really going to say “Heritage American”?
“Heritage Americans” are the descendants of the patriots who fought and won the Revolutionary War. Those who came after (or sheepishly returned) are immigrants. It might be wiser to stick with patriotic Americans of European (or partly European) origin who are vehemently anti-leftist. They have been red pilled. They are allies in the coming struggle. The rest who claim to be patriots must be sorted out.
I’ve taken to telling Consticultists that the only way the Constitution works is if all parties involved act in good faith. This breaks down when Progressives take a hand. The TEA party types act in good faith, pick up after themselves after their rallies, and at this point find themselves twenty years away from being herded into South African style townships.
The constitution only works when the percentage of the population living here is 90% Christian whites.
Because that’s not true today and not likely to become true in the future, the constitution will never work again.