Constitutional Conservatives

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.

78 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Monty James
2 years ago

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.

Member
Reply to  Monty James
2 years ago

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.

Matt
Matt
2 years ago

What label should we use?

Mark
Mark
Reply to  Matt
2 years ago

“Hinkle Finkle Dinkle Do”, at this rate.

guest
guest
Reply to  Matt
2 years ago

Keep it simple, use pro-White!

Member
Reply to  Matt
2 years ago

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… Read more »

expatriot
expatriot
Reply to  Frip
2 years ago

“Cosa nostra”. Yeah, it fits. And we need the omertà that goes with it.

calsdad
calsdad
Reply to  Matt
2 years ago

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… Read more »

James Higham
Reply to  calsdad
2 years ago

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.

Darrencardinal
Darrencardinal
Reply to  Matt
2 years ago

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.

Frip
Member
Reply to  Darrencardinal
2 years ago

“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.

De Beers Diamonds
De Beers Diamonds
Reply to  Frip
2 years ago

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”.

Apex Predator
Apex Predator
Reply to  Matt
2 years ago

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)

Frip
Member
Reply to  Apex Predator
2 years ago

So when someone asks you what you are in casual conversation you’re really going to say “Heritage American”?

Epaminondas
Member
Reply to  Apex Predator
2 years ago

“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.

AntiDem
Member
2 years ago

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.

oughtsix
oughtsix
Reply to  AntiDem
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Dirk Williams
Reply to  oughtsix
2 years ago

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

lineman
lineman
Reply to  Dirk Williams
2 years ago

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…

Glen Filthie
Glen Filthie
Member
Reply to  oughtsix
2 years ago

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… Read more »

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
Reply to  Glen Filthie
2 years ago

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.

Member
Reply to  pyrrhus
2 years ago

That’s true, the AoC was a far superior form of government to what we have under the constitution.

Glenfilthie
Glenfilthie
Member
Reply to  pyrrhus
2 years ago

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.

AntiDem
Member
Reply to  oughtsix
2 years ago

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,… Read more »

Lance_E
Member
Reply to  oughtsix
2 years ago

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.

calsdad
calsdad
Reply to  AntiDem
2 years ago

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… Read more »

David Wright
Member
2 years ago

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.

lineman
lineman
Reply to  David Wright
2 years ago

Oh I can fathom a solution, problem would be implementing it…

Rod1963
Rod1963
Reply to  David Wright
2 years ago

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… Read more »

calsdad
calsdad
Reply to  Rod1963
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Rod1963
Rod1963
Reply to  calsdad
2 years ago

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… Read more »

DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
Reply to  Rod1963
2 years ago

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.

Swrichmond
Swrichmond
Reply to  DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Ghost Who Walks
Ghost Who Walks
2 years ago

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.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
Reply to  Ghost Who Walks
2 years ago

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.

calsdad
calsdad
Reply to  pyrrhus
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Teapartydoc
Member
2 years ago

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.

Morphine1
Morphine1
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Monty James
Reply to  Morphine1
2 years ago

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

Ben Wagner
Ben Wagner
2 years ago

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?

lineman
lineman
Reply to  Ben Wagner
2 years ago

Question even if he laid it out step by step you wouldn’t follow it because of the bloodletting it would require…

Ben Wagner
Ben Wagner
Reply to  lineman
2 years ago

I mean after the fighting is done, assuming the people who actually work, pay taxes and have all the guns win in the end.

lineman
lineman
Reply to  Ben Wagner
2 years ago

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…

A.B. Prosper
A.B. Prosper
2 years ago

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.

lineman
lineman
Reply to  A.B. Prosper
2 years ago

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…

A.B. Prosper
A.B. Prosper
Reply to  lineman
2 years ago

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… Read more »

lineman
lineman
Reply to  A.B. Prosper
2 years ago

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…

Othmar
Othmar
2 years ago

“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!

De Beers Diamonds
De Beers Diamonds
Reply to  Othmar
2 years ago

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.

TomA
TomA
2 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.

Lance_E
Member
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Member
2 years ago

Are people reticent to comment because of new commenting format?

Teapartydoc
Member
Reply to  thezman
2 years ago

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.

Member
2 years ago

This is what reactionaries argue. That the system is intrinsically irredeemable and has to be changed, but not be revolution but by restoration.

Dutch
Dutch
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Sean
Sean
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Lance_E
Member
Reply to  Sean
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Din C. Nuffin
Din C. Nuffin
Reply to  Sean
2 years ago

Yeah, man. Don’t shoot your own soldiers.

Darrell Cloud
Darrell Cloud
2 years ago

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.

Spud Boy
Spud Boy
2 years ago

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.

Al from da Nort
Al from da Nort
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Ben Wagner
Ben Wagner
Reply to  Al from da Nort
2 years ago

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/

lineman
lineman
Reply to  Ben Wagner
2 years ago

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…

Lance_E
Member
Reply to  Al from da Nort
2 years ago

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?

Moran ya Simba
Moran ya Simba
2 years ago

Asked w/o prejudice but do you (Z but also others) think the right side won the civil war?

lineman
lineman
Reply to  Moran ya Simba
2 years ago

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…

Moran ya Simba
Moran ya Simba
Reply to  lineman
2 years ago

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… Read more »

JohnMc
JohnMc
2 years ago

“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.

Fred Seymour, Jr.
Fred Seymour, Jr.
2 years ago

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/

Frip
Member
Reply to  Fred Seymour, Jr.
2 years ago

Z’s not late to the party he is the party. By the way Z was about 5 in ’71.

Din C. Nuffin
Din C. Nuffin
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Bruno the Arrogant
Bruno the Arrogant
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Deana
Deana
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Joe X
Joe X
2 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… Read more »

Random Dude on the Internet
Random Dude on the Internet
2 years ago

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.”

lars hemmers
lars hemmers
2 years ago

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.

Member
2 years ago

Kind of a shame, folks thinking about themselves as white rather than American.