The failures of conservatism are a popular topic on this side of the great divide, mostly because most on this side passed through conservatism. While it is true that an understanding of human nature leads to a traditionalist political outlook, it is also true that having a conservative inclination leads one to dissident politics. Russell Kirk was right that conservative politics is the end result that begins with a certain attitude, a perspective on society that naturally leads to right-wing politics.
This attitude begins with the understanding that all human societies have an identity, an instinctive answer to the question, “Who are you?” That is closely tied with the understanding that someone is always in charge. This is where modern conservatism goes off the rails. Modern conservatives are terrified to even think about identity, because they are terrified of being accused of having one. Identities are exclusive and that is the opposite of inclusive, the greatest thing ever.
This peaks through in this American Conservative post about the lack of diversity at the US State Department. The post is in response to this post in the far-left DC scandal sheet called Politico. The claim is that State has a systemic racism problem. The conservative response to that is always some form of the old internet meme, “Democrats are the Real Racists.” In this case, it is those well-bred white people popping out of elite colleges, who then go into the State Department.
The post is interesting in that it gives some insight into how the American foreign service operates, but it amplifies left-wing morality, because the writer comes at the topic from something other than a conservative attitude. A genuine man of the Right would say that the State Department is a vital ruling class institution. It represents to the world the interests of the American ruling class. The reason it is full of Jews and Protestants is that is who runs the country.
This attitudinal deficiency also leads to errors in tactics. When a left-wing site like Politico starts bellowing about the lack of diversity in the ruling class, it is intended to distract, not spawn a dialogue. Since thinking about who is really in charge of the country is anathema to the modern conservative mind, they are more than happy to chase the diversity stick tossed by the people in charge. The result is more mewing about the lack of diversity, as if anyone cares.
This is something that modern conservatives have never grasped about their role in this relationship with their alleged opponents. Their primary duty is to keep anyone from talking about who is in charge. This is a key part of the managerial state. From the outside it always looks like a committee composed of faceless bureaucrats. In a world where it is never clear who is in charge, it is near impossible for the people to pin the blame on the people who are actually responsible.
Further, when the question “who are we?” is only asked in secret, the answer is only uttered in secret. That AmCon post gently touches on this fact, but it should have been the focus of the post. Instead, it is only hinted at, while the writer does the old DR3 and championing diversity. It never seems to occur to him that the people running the State Department have an interest in running the system as they do. That maybe the people in charge know who they are and intend to remain in charge.
Note also the reliance on the fantasy of the meritocracy. There is the belief among conventional conservatives that the alternative to Progressive domination of the institutions is meritocracy. Like the market place, a meritocracy is a man made thing, which serves the interests of those who make it. It is not some magically occurring bit of nature that grows in the wild. A meritocracy is always a tool of the ruling class used to perpetuate their position at the top of the social hierarchy.
The elephant in the room, of course, is the question of diversity. Right after “who we are?” and “who is in charge?” comes the question, “What are the rules?” Those rules are inevitably aimed at maintaining the answer to the first two questions. The reason the ruling class is happy to see unlimited diversity outside their ranks, but no diversity inside their ranks, is they have to intention of stepping aside. The people outside the walls only matter when they cause a ruckus or make threatening noises.
In other words, the opportunity here was to point out that diversity is poison and serious people avoid it at all cost. The people running important institutions like the State Department, Wall Street or the media get this. The reason these institutions look the way they do at the top is the people in charge are serious. They know diversity of any kind, especially diversity of opinion, is bad for them, so they make sure to root out any diversity in their ranks. There is a lesson there for all of us.
20th century conservatism was a failure in large part because it either refused or was temperamentally unable to tackle the basic questions of human organization. That starts with understand who we are and what are our interests. Then it quickly moves to deciding what sort of people need to be in charge and what sort of rules must be in place in order to maintain the resulting society. Conservatism was always happy to leave the questions unasked, so they were always a leaf in the wind.
This is why any alternative to the current regime must first start with a sense of identity, a point around which people can rally. This is why communists focused so much attention of class identity. It is also why bourgeoise intellectuals were so enamored with communism, despite not being working class. The draw of identity is natural. People with no natural sense of identity envy those that have one. That is the power of group identity and why it must be the core of any political movement.
A new year brings new changes. The same is true for this site as we adjust to the reality of managerial authoritarianism. That means embracing crypto for when the inevitable happens and the traditional outlets are closed. Now more than ever it is important to support the voices that support you. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you prefer other ways of donating, look at the donate page. Thank you.
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
Bravo. When we see writing of this clarity appear in a mainstream organ (or else sites like this become mainstream), we’ll know the tide has turned.
What is the identity around which a true resistance can coalesce? If we assume that at present an expressly white identity won’t be palatable to enough bug people and unwitting victims of the pozz, what common interest can we use as a Trojan horse? What can we co-opt to serve white purposes? I’m not sure there’s a better option right now than the 2A people. As Z-man’s pointed out, they have the existing organizational skills to actually fight back with some success. If we had a fairly manageable end game in mind, the DR could likely infiltrate the gun scene and steer it toward more race-aware purposes.
Or is there another avenue? Suggestions?
I think it has to wait until the last Boomers finally, unwillingly, are dragged off the political stage, as they are so deeply shaped by the racial delusions of their youth.
3
I would tend to agree with this. When I was growing up, we didn’t think in terms of White, black, yellow, red etc. It was more just identifying as American. Whites were the vast majority back then and didn’t really need to think any other way. Has that ever change 50-60 years later – and now it’s near impossible to champion a White identity. Not only were we steeped in multi-culti BS back in the day, now it’s damn near a crime to think in such a way.
1
I’m not sure the gun types are very receptive. A big meme in 2A circles is “Gun control is racist! Bad racists invented gun control to keep guns away from blacks!” Responding with “that sounds like a sensible goal” doesn’t go over very well!
I’ve also noticed in the NRA magazine column where they highlight recent crimes where a gun owner successfully defended themselves, there is NEVER a mention of the physical “characteristics” of the perp. So yeah, they’re just as scared of calling a spade a spade as is everyone else.
How bout white 2A people.
As Z pointed out, there have to be rules. If a white person balks at an organization because it’s not diverse enough, doesn’t that help in the vetting process?
This post dovetails nicely with yesterday’s piece on the rentier state. The prorogation of rootlessness and lack of identity endemic in such a society is the best tool the homogenous group that is our rulers possess, and they wield it mercilessly and effectively. The quest for regaining a sense on self and group identity is one you cannot hammer home enough.
1
Regarding diversity, this is the article I was reading right before I checked out today’s offering from The Zman:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/austin-car-clubs-gentrification/#comments
Of course, the reporter is cartoonishly biased toward the vibrant locals, but the real problem here is diversity — shoving two very different types of people together without regard for the traditions or culture of either. Diversity + Proximity = War.
It’s obvious that diversity is a poison in that, when asked, no one can actually relate WHY diversity “is our strength”.
1
Uhhh helloOo! Don’t you like all those diverse options when restauranting? What in the world would we do without Chinese food, Mexican food etc.?!?!?!?!
1
Same thing I did before: Not go. I guess I could also get a cookbook.
The diverse food argument is literally the only argument I ever hear when asking exactly why diversity is inherently a good thing for a nation. As if a homogeneous nation couldn’t just import these foods, or exist with a much smaller group of foreigners etc.
Indeed. For years, I have always thought this. It became quite clear that if we all had common goals and shared common opinions, there would be no friction. Therefore the greater number of diverse opinions the greater the friction. Such a simple proof, lost on so many.
1
I could not think of why “diversity is our strength”, but your comment got me thinking. The ‘our’ is not everyone, but the elites. They use diversity as a way to fracture the plebs so they are too busy fighting amongst themselves to put up a fight against what the elites are doing. Since they’ve wrecked everything else, it’s one of the few weapons they have left.
3
True. Our diversity is indeed their strength.
3
How can it be a strength when you can’t even say a word without offending someone who is different. When you can’t even organize because someone is going to feel excluded.
So I guess being completely mute and dumb and in a constant state of disarray is a sign of strength?
Because those are the real world results and effects of diversity. That’s how it’s all playing out.
At this point it should be plain as day that there is a very good reason to keep us in such a state of disarray. Doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
So what is to be done with an enemy that refuses to build anything, yet is an expert at infiltrating, co-opting and destroying institutions?
If you build it, the left will destroy it.
Boy Scouts, Catholic Church, every public corporation, every public university…
I have a small group in my leafy, liberal, suburban paradise. But it is SMALL.
The US was a pretty cool place, for a really long time, with cool BIG things: non-diverse McDonald’s (Grimace doesn’t count), space craft, big seminaries, shopping malls, main streets, interstate highways.
Things CAN scale up. But I’ll be darned if I build something just to watch it be co-opted and defiled.
My inclination or maybe my hunch here is that any identity we dissidents have about us should be kept a secret. We look normal on the outside. Everyday people going about their business. Or Tom A could be his gray man.
A secret society in other words. When amongst ourselves we have a clear set of rules and objectives.
But if that is not meant to be given our geographic disparity, we should take on a certain attitude. The quiet disrupters. This way we know, when we read about someone somewhere throwing a wrench into the gears of the system that we know immediately that he is one of us. And the quiet dropouts. When we see the 2022 midterms and no one shows up.
The more me preach the “disrupt and dropout” credo and code, the more we promote it, the wider the message spreads. And we will know it’s effectiveness when the results start coming in. And doesn’t it sound like a lot of fun!