If you were to bring forward to our age the cultural and political sensibilities of the founding generation and create a political movement around them, you would find yourself in very serious trouble. The reason is you would be so radical in your aims that even the most enthusiastic of constitutional conservatives would denounce you. The reason for this, is that everything about current year America is at odds with what the men, who drafted the Constitution, intended for the country they created.
Despite this rather obvious truth, modern day conservatives have been calling themselves champions of originalism for generations. In fact, they regularly claim they favor a return to the constitutional principles. It is, of course, just a form of signaling or dog whistling as the Left is fond of saying. The so-called conservatives have no interest in returning to the original political order. In fact, any effort to return to the old order is probably the only thing they would actually fight to prevent.
This is because the Buckley-style conservatism that has come to define the American Right was never about ends. When they talk of originalism, they don’t mean the original intent of the Founders or even the original intent of the law. Instead, they mean and original process. Buckley-style conservatism is a means justifies the ends political ideology, a reaction to the Left’s ends justifies the means approach. For Buckley conservatives, getting the process right is all that matters.
This is how something ridiculous like homosexual marriage can quickly moves from an absurd Progressive troll to a timeless conservative principle in a decade. All it requires was a journey through the courts, where an emotionally unstable judge and four lunatics could make it the law of the land. As long as it went through the proper legal process, Buckley conservatives could hail it as a founding principle. For the Buckleyites, originalism is about obedience to process, not original intent.
This article from a legal journal is a good primer on how this obedience to process plays out in conservative jurisprudence. By any measure, the Federalist Society types have been the most successful tribe of modern conservatism. They get judges appointed to the bench and they get law students interested in their ideas. Given the atmosphere on the college campus, that last bit is no small thing. Yet, despite their operational success, conservative jurisprudence has nothing to show for itself.
This is the story of conservatism in general. Politically, the movement started by Bill Buckley has been a smashing success. It reshaped the Republican Party, put three presidents in the White House and turned the GOP into the majority party from the 1990’s forward. Despite this, the country is further to the Left than anyone imagined possible forty years ago. The epitaph for Buckley conservatism, as it heads to the dustbin of history, is that it conserved nothing.
There is no shortage of reasons for why conservatism failed to provide any resistance to the Left, despite having the better grip on reality and popular support. Radicalism always attracts fanatics and a small group of fanatics can do a lot of damage. The Right is always playing defense, which means their margin for error is smaller. The Left is willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to gain victory. These and many others are all true statements, but there is one main reason the Buckleyites were a total failure.
As you see with originalism, the Buckleyites were never willing to state what it is they sought to achieve as an end goal. The hyper-focus on process allowed them to avoid making clear what they wanted. The homosexual marriage issue is always a great example and it is so here. Instead of saying homosexual marriage is irrational and at odds with civil society, which is certainly true, the so-called conservatives wrapped themselves in legal arguments about contract theory and downstream legal issues.
The Right could never bring themselves to state the obvious. The intent of marriage laws and customs is to encourage baby making. The language of marriage makes that abundantly clear. The only purpose of marriage is reproduction. The additional benefits created by society through laws and rituals is to encourage reproduction. Homosexual marriage is therefore an absurd contradiction. The Right never bothered with these arguments and instead fell into Jesuitical legalism.
All of this traces back to the Civil Right era. Buckley and his fellow founders of modern conservatism started out on the other side of the race issue. They opposed desegregation and they opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960’s. Once it became clear the Left was going to gain the moral high ground on the race issue, the Buckleyites were faced with a choice. They could attack Progressive morality and risk ostracism or they could adapt and fit within that new morality.
They adapted by switching from an ideology with a clear set of ends in mind to an ideology that makes a fetish over process. It has become so ingrained in conservative thinking they can chant slogans like “we have to return to the founding principles” without noticing modern conservatism opposes those principles. They can champion unlimited immigration, as long as it is legal, but they are incapable of opposing immigration in general. After all, that’s not who we are.
What conservatism under Buckley became is a shaming mechanism to prevent whites, and let’s not kid ourselves about the conservative audience, from stating publicly what they want for their community and their country. Thanks to Buckley, it is no longer possible to say, “I don’t want a bunch of foreigners moving into my town, because we live here and that’s how we want it.” Stating preferences is no longer permitted. Instead, what you want has to have some outside justification.
If there is to be a new Right, it will have to be an ends justifies the means ideology with its own internal morality. Conservatism will have to start with “This is who we are and this is how we seek to live.” The goal of the ideology is to achieve a clear set of ends, not a set of processes that may or may not achieve those ends. The process and principles are means to an end. Put another way, a new Right will oppose Progressive ends for non-Progressive reasons. There can be no compromise.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
An author friend of mine loved this article. He asked me to pass that on. He and his co-writer a have been working for years on a new philosophical foundation for a new right. The core of the model is a neo-populist rejection of the government’s tradition of language use called “rationalism” in favor of the people’s traditions of language, common sense, and religion. Their latest book is Dancing on Rationalism’s Grave, by Dahlberg and Kaardal, available on Amazon.
Neopopulism is not about process, but about the people’s freedom to live as they want to by their own lights, not as serfs of government/elite traditions of language. To realize it the people must own “the means of cultural production,” esp. the schools.
Dahlberg is a philosopher of language and a bear hunter. Kaardal is the lawyer behind Republican Party of Minn. v. White, which allowed candidates to address the issues when running for judicial office. The neo-populist principle: elections means elections, not “elections as modified by elite manipulation” in the form of rules by a non-elected judicial council to prevent open debate to protect the “neutrality” of judges.
Re: ” The Right could never bring themselves to state the obvious. The intent of marriage laws and customs is to encourage baby making. The language of marriage makes that abundantly clear. The only purpose of marriage is reproduction. The additional benefits created by society through laws and rituals is to encourage reproduction. Homosexual marriage is therefore an absurd contradiction ”
I remember making pretty much that exact same argument when the gay marriage thing was something that was still a goal to obtained in the future.
What I recall is getting the impression I was talking to a brick wall whenever I brought up the topic – and made that argument.
Pretty much NOBODY wanted to listen to any reality or reason on the subject.
You are confusing Buckley with Lowry.
That’s like conflating Reagan with Bush.
Its inaccurate well past sloppiness and untruthful.
They were done in 1989 when the wall went down. They conserved America to fight on another day. This is that day. That every generation of men must struggle is not the fault of their ancestors. With the possible exceptions of parents.
Yes, every generation must struggle. But when many generations have made the same mistake while knowing better, that is a different problem.
Buckley and Reagan knew a significant source of our problems but capitulated to them for fear of being called “racist.” That is what can be criticized and must change.
The last two posts have been absolutely perfect.
The entire discussion boils down to the “Overton Window” and how ‘conservatives WILL continue to trend more and more to communism just to stay relevant and in power…all because the largest voting demographic, women desire such to be so.
Now do you understand why women’s rights MUST be taken away and ALL welfare must end..in that order.
So, are you ready to do just that to save Western Civilization?
Northgunner said: “So, are you ready to do just that to save Western Civilization?” First off. Define Western Civilization. What exactly do you think Western Civilization consists of ? Then show me where some of that remains, if at all. Then tell me, in detail, what your plan is to save it. So, have your people call my people, and we’ll have lunch.
Do you seriously not know what “Western Civilization” means? Do you know what “Chinese Civilization” means? Why feign ignorance?
LineInTheSand said: “Do you know what “Chinese Civilization” means? Look friend. If you’ve spent the last 40 years in intensive, single minded study of Chinese history. Then fine, you know somthing about it. Same thing with Western Civilization. That’s an enormous 1000 year old thing. And I guarantee you nobody on this blog has a deep understanding of it. What people mean by Western Civilisation is the bits and pieces their familiar with. The fact is that, whatever Western Civilization may have been, it’s not that anymore and never will be again. What you want to save is the White American way of life, however YOU define it. So lets say that from now on. We want to save the WAWL.
It’s Western peoples that need saving, not Western civilization. Western civilization is the global default civilization, the one everybody else copies. Or attempt to copy, at any rate.
Its hilarious, but the most powerful argument in the Boomer Conservative toolbox today is…..”its bad for black people”. That’s where WFB has led us.
” The Right never bothered with these arguments and instead fell into Jesuitical legalism.”
” The Right never bothered with these arguments and instead fell into Talmudic legalism.”
There, fixed that for ya.
You saw what happened to Heartiste’s blog, right? Have you made contingency plans for when WordPress bans you?
He’s not on WordPress, he merely uses their software solution.
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=126040#more-126040
From the beginning of our history it was Jefferson’s vision vs Hamilton’s … Hamilton won, and won big. Bill Buckley was very simply a protege of Federalist fanboy Alexander Hamilton and “conservative” in the same meddling fashion as the likes of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Herbert Hoover. The proteges of Jeffersonian anti-Federalists lost all power after the Civil War.
Agree
Heartiste is back!
http://heartiste.org
Rejoice! The silver tongued devil with the insights that kill “pretty lies” is back.
I would love to see a 3-way debate between Zman, Vox Day, and Heartiste.
Live debates are so last century. Debating within the blog format gives you hours or days to ponder each question before you reply. This means it’s harder to “win” a debate with glib casuistry, ad hominem, ridicule and dodgy rhetoric. Watching any live debate is an intellectual clusterfuck at best, even when the debaters are top range.
Take this exchange. Now that I’ve put my reply out there, explaining why I disagree with your proposed debate, you cannot just cut me off mid-post, raise your voice and change the subject. You have to engage with what I actually wrote.
Another feature of a textual debate is that you can discuss actual statistics and facts in a meaningful way. In a live debate you can’t say “hold on, give me ten minutes to study those statistics you referred to, and I’ll come back to you”.
First we have to advance an argument that we gotta right to say “this is who we are and how we seek to live.”
My Three Peoples theory is designed to do that.
People of the Subordinate Self, workers and peasants, want to live in the shelter of some lord, feudal or neo-feudal such as an lefty politician. OK, you gotta right
People of the Creative Self, artists and writers, LGBTs, activists and startup business guys, want to break the mold. OK, but you chaps out on a limb are risking life and limb. Don’t come to us when your creative endeavor, whether artistic or sexual, crashes and burns. That’s what Nietzsche is all about. Creativity is hard, and it probably ends in disaster. But, OK, you wanna live creatively, go ahead.
We People of the Responsible Self demand the right to live our lives sensibly and responsibly, wiving and thriving according to the sensible and practical notions of the Founders and the Axial Age religions. So when your creative types demand that your creative agenda should define our society, we say that is unjust.
It is unjust to us, the People of the Responsible Self, who want to live responsibly, and it is unjust to the People of the Subordinate Self whose culture has been demolished by the creative ideas of the progressives.
The point is that the overwhelming majority of humans do not want to live a no-holds-barred creative life, and we gotta right to say “this is who we are and how we week to live,” and here are the reasons.
re: your “People of the Creative Self “..
although I’m alternately bemused or disgusted by their output of “art”, I wouldn’t prohibit them from following their Bliss.
Just don’t ask me to subsidize it through taxes, or require me to bow down to it in reverence. There’s room for everyone.. not necessarily anywhere near me though.
“There’s room for everyone”
“Just don’t ask me to subsidize it through taxes”
You’re poised to remake all the mistakes that conservatives made all over again.
race > (economics and individualisim)
Your 3 peoples theory is compelling and if you invented it yourself, I salute you.
Most people would want to live with the responsible selves with a few creative selves who aren’t charity cases for stimulation.
This is what the USA was at it’s founding, yet here we are. If you realized your society, we would replay the past 200 years with some of the particulars changed.
Your theory doesn’t fit our world because it overlooks the basic tribalism of non-whites and J3ws, who mostly want their groups to dominate the larger group.
My probably over simplistic take on the current age vs. the age of the founders is this:
These days everybody wants their free shit. Whether it’s lefties with the welfare state and having the ability to browbeat the non-compliant without suffering consequences – or the right wingers seemingly endless quest for more wars and a bigger military machine and so forth……….. everybody wants free shit of some form or fashion.
Nobody believes that there are limits on anything any more.
Tell a leftie that no a man can’t be a woman and they freak out.
Tell a rightie that he can’t burn endless donuts with his diesel pickup truck and it’s in infringement on his rights.
The Republic as founded had an awful lot of “can’t haves”
Women can’t have the vote – because history proves they can’t be trusted
The Federal government can’t have a standing army – because history proves it is ALWAYS used for nefarious and nation destroying purposes
The Federal government can’t have ultimate power – for the same reason it can’t have a standing army.
Religion can’t rule the country – for the same reason the Feds can’t have ultimate power
No welfare or other forms of free shit – because giving away free things has been proven to be destructive to morals and character
etc. and so on – and so forth.
So we went from a ” no you can’t have that ” world – to one where we are allegedly able to have ANYTHING we want , no matter how expensive, stupid – or insane.
Nancy Pelosi on what happens after Obamacare is implemented:
“Everybody can go become an artist”
That comment stands out to me as indicative of the insanity and stupidity and greed of the current age.
I’m sort of the opposite of a process conservative. I’m a process liberal. I’m more of an advocate of “one man one vote” and an 18 year limit on federal judges – but if that results in a conservative outcome – then so be it. Obviously banning gerrymandering wouldn’t really change a state like Wyoming for instance as they would still have a heavily republican legislature.
As far as your up tick in traffic for me it’s your daily content. While not always in agreement, the fact you take the time to post thoughtful content daily AND produce a podcast every week plus attract a civil and intelligent audience keeps me coming back and must entice new readers as well .
Although bit of mud slinging today . . . .
Use to see Buckley on PBS and reminded me of someone in a “Grey Poupon ” commercial. What the hell was that accent all about ?
Years later it was Rush, then Beck. Now enough is enough . We have to get serious. Find myself outnumbered by the brown horde in a city that was predominantly white not that long ago .
See Christian Neopopulism as the new right.
The book is entitled “Dancing on Rationalism’s Graves: The Victory of Populism in the Postmodern Age” It is available on Amazon.com.
“Once it became clear the Left was going to gain the moral high ground on the race issue, the Buckleyites were faced with a choice. They could attack Progressive morality and risk ostracism or they could adapt and fit within that new morality.
“They adapted by switching from an ideology with a clear set of ends in mind to an ideology that makes a fetish over process.”
In my opinion, the historical process that Fukuyama and Kojeve wrote about, that the “far” Right* long warned about, consumed the old American “Right”.
“If there is to be a new Right, it will have to be an ends justifies the means ideology with its own internal morality. Conservatism will have to start with “This is who we are and this is how we seek to live.”… a new Right will oppose Progressive ends for non-Progressive reasons. There can be no compromise.”
In my opinion, others have tried that, from both a far Left and far Right perspective, and they have all been, 1 by 1, defeated, via collapsing internally by the spread (infection) of the liberal idea-virus, or by Western force of arms, or a combination. This would be a position outside the liberal paradigm, either from the past, or from a Fourth Political Theory position following Alexander Dugin, the man “murrcuh!” has put sanctions on, whose books are banned from Amazon (more sellers to follow I’m sure), and who’s ideas Putin is partly putting to use, who is liberalism’s new “Nazism” to defeat.
* “My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”
Julius Evola
The onward march of Progress, of “economic opportunity”, of “government by and for the people”, of the Rights of Man (Human Rights), of “freedom”, shall not be blocked by the Evil forces of hate and reaction. They shall be left on the ash heap of history!
https://progressivepupil.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/cultural-imperialism.jpg
George Will is pretty low-hanging fruit, but The American Conservative, which seems to be staggering unevenly in /our/ direction (perhaps tugging against the donors’ leash), rightly whacks Will for just the sort of means-over-ends, conserve-nothing conservatism critiqued by the Zman today.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/george-will-strikes-out-by-attacking-national-conservatism/
thazman said: “This article from a legal journal is a good primer on how this obedience to process plays out in conservative jurisprudence. By any measure, the Federalist Society types have been the most successful tribe of modern conservatism. They get judges appointed to the bench and they get law students interested in their ideas. Given the atmosphere on the college campus, that last bit is no small thing. Yet, despite their operational success, conservative jurisprudence has nothing to show for itself. ” Conservatism has never had what it takes to hold the line against the dark side, and never will.
Here once again is a quote from southern paster Robert Lewis Dabney dated 1897.
“This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. …Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth”
Here’s an artical intitled: ” Why Conservatism Failed.” by Luis Miguel. Jan 14, 2019
http://luisantoniomiguel.com/why-conservatism-failed/
In my view, the American Right was always corrupted in its principles. It was there from the beginning, in the person of Thomas Jefferson, for example, who wrote the ‘Declaration of Independence’, helped write the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen’, stated:
“…Bacon, Locke and Newton, whose pictures I will trouble you to have copied for me: and as I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception…”
and yet, also wrote the ‘Notes on the State of Virginia’. The Civil War was about deciding which of these poles the country would move toward, Lincoln or Alexander Stephens. The North had the population and industrial might to emerge victorious, and the issue was decided. It’s the same basic story.
Liberalism is like Islam, it hatched in a propitious time and place and spread like wild-fire, either attracting converts, or being capable of amassing the power to overcome determined opponents via force. Islam and liberalism also have the same fundamental truth to them (thin air contrivance, in my opinion, although liberalism is far more dangerous, and has ultimately rendered its populations, on average, far more demented and disgusting). The question is how far will this thing spread, were Fukuyama and Kojeve correct, or, if wrong, will the tide be stopped in time to allow some semblance of the West to emerge at the other end.
The “conservatives” have always had their system corrupted by infection of “the thing” (as in the Kurt Russell movie), “the thing” being the ideas (virus, false religion) of liberalism. With determined effort, a few can remove the infection from their system, but most cannot. Those who have attempted to stand firm and fight “the thing” have lost and been consumed. The dissident Right, what remains of the West, are similar to Kurt Russell and his remaining friends/co-workers at the end of the movie “…maybe we’ll just warm things up around here.” Of course, the only way to “warm things up around here” is through ideas, everything else just makes “the thing” stronger, guaranteed. Also, we’re looking at slow decline, not mass murder, lol.
Opening the borders and pushing anti-white rhetoric and forces is analogous to “the thing” blowing the generator in the movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzS9hBwaqg
A thought…
While listening to a Sovereign Nations podcast the left was described as a pagan religion. That seems like a powerful tool to motivate and grow our base.
If you haven’t discovered Sovereign Nations check it out.
A few great podcasts worth your time:
https://sovereignnations.com/2019/01/30/social-justice-and-the-gospel-the-statement-framers-panel/
https://sovereignnations.com/2019/08/09/grievance-scholars-trojan-horse-social-justice-faith-academics/
I manage projects and programs for a living. If in the early stages of a project you cannot articulate your vision for an end-state, I guarantee you’ll never get there. I often spend the first few weeks of a project “selling” it to the team.
Likewise, I am a stickler for metrics. How do you define and measure results. Most of the worse expenditures of resources are towards fixing problems with no definable metric of success, therefore no ability to judge the project. This is so common as to be accepted as the norm for most every endeavor in the social sciences (as vs “hard” sciences).
That’s because sometimes the wrong thing is being measured.
But now we’re talking Political Finance, something taught in schools, but not in business schools, who adhere to the GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices).
OT: Do you think that the adoption of SD strategies such as Agile or Rational Rose have delivered what they promised?
It’s a better fit for stuff like software development – people seem to thing it works well there and delivers value faster than tradition project management. Agile really assumes your team’s time is 100% dedicated to the project. I’m lucky if I get 10% of my team members’ time – so it makes no sense for my projects.
We should stop referring to process conservatives as “conservatives “. Since what they’re actually doing also ends up in the miasmatic swamp of progressivism. They should be labelled as such.
RP ~ Republican Party ~ Retard Progressives ~ Rearguard Progressives…
“Cuckservative” rattled their cage because it even struck them in some deep seated inner recess as true. We should find a simple and direct term that defines them as progressivism’s rearguard.
“Conservatives” also focus on process because it gives them something to DO. Nothing is more boring to a person who fancies xzhyrself an intellectual than conservatism. Look at Thomas Hobbes — much as I love him (and it’s a deep and profound love, no homo), he only got into political philosophy because he was bored with the Schoolmen, who (in his view) had spent the previous 500 years just adding footnotes to Aristotle. If there’d been another philosophy chair at some university (or if he’d been a better mathematician), he would’ve lived his life as an obscure professor. It appears (n.b. appears that if you want to work with ideas, literature, the arts, some flavor of radicalism is the only way to go… so dressing up your radicalism as a jesuitical “process” defense of “conservatism” is just filling a niche intellectual market.
Blah, blah, blah!
Yawn, yawn, yawn!
Snore, snore, snore!
You’re so cucking far behind the curve boomer.
Die, dry up, blow away, you irrelevant echo chamber cunt.
@dmv gringo. Hahahaha! Does your mommy know your playing with her computer?
Fedposter spotted!
Or Internet spam unspecific to any known topic.
Gringo? Last time I checked the colors on the flag weren’t red, white, and burrito.
If I were to summarize this piece, “to the Buckley Right, the means justify the ends.”
The problem with making a god of process, is it becomes a one way ratchet for progressivism. If elections only produced process conservatives, the process would align with the ends. But since the left only follows process when it benefits them, they always move the ball down the field. When the process conservatives get back in power, they never repeal any progress the left has made, but merely slow it down for awhile.
You can also see the process worship with never-Trumpers. He justifiably gets mixed reviews from real conservatives on this site, but he has given the civnats three of the biggest things they have been yapping about for the last 50 years: tax cuts, conservative judges, and despite pretty good efforts against, even more immigration. But he violates the correct process with theatrics and angry tweets. Better to wait for someone more polished. If he had the style of Jeb or Mitt, but with the same results, they would be tongue bathing him more than they do Reagan.
But as Zman points out, even packing the courts with conservatives does us no good. This is because one flaming judge in San Francisco or Hawaii can thwart the actions of the entire Executive branch, and only Justice Thomas has shown any desire to do anything about it.
Besides the Civil Rights sellout by Conservatism, Inc, there was another factor involved – the Buckley Rights’ uncritical embrace of libertarian Capitalism. Any discussion of ends had to be modified by the dictum that “Whatever the ‘Free Market” spits out = Good”. Never mind that the Free Markets were somewhat questionably free, and that market capitalism will supply snuff porn and gay sex toys just as efficiently as anything else. Gotta keep that donor money flowing! I mean, I am second to no one in my hatred of Communism, and my disdain for socialism, but nothing is good in unlimited doses, capitalism included.
Together with the sellout on Free Association, this was fatal.
“By any measure, the Federalist Society types have been the most successful tribe of modern conservatism. ”
Yep, despite constant attacks from the left, the 1st and 2nd amendments remain largely intact. A big assist from the NRA on the latter.
The problem is when one side decides to quit playing by the rules, what is the best response if you are the other team? CivNats would say, “continue to play by the rules, we will win over the public.” Guess what, that strategy has failed miserably. Ending that failed strategy within the court battles would involve some type of conservative judicial activism, not deference to ridiculous liberal precedents.
The FS has been effective at preserving some liberties not yet destroyed by the left, but hasn’t been effective at all overall. The Constitution, for the most part, is still in exile, if not Epstein’d.
But it is still there, waiting to be picked up as a cultural symbol. Let us not throw away any of the few tools we have.
Several of the Democrat candidates are already discussing “court packing” of the Supreme Court. Unless I’m missing something, once demographics close off the White House to our Con., Inc. in the near future, the Federalist Society will either shift hard to the left (even by the standards of American “conservatism”), or be rendered marginal to non-existent.
The still influential if fading Protestant faith is key here. I’ll reiterate that the “open source” nature of Protestantism left it more vulnerable to subversion than “b/c the Church says so” Catholicism was***. In line with Z’s theme today, Protestantism was a “process” religion where DIY scriptural lawyering could make every man his own Aquinas and voting set policy for many sects. There are pros and cons to democracy vs. dictatorship in Church policy, but the main points to follow here are that:
1) Protestant Christianity has historically set the moral standards for both ends and means in America;
2) Heritage American Christians still feel bound by the Protestant tradition to make political judgments based on morality (including “deciding the right democratic Protestant way”) rather than outcomes;
3) NuMerican heathens, Voodeo-Christians and SaintEria “Catholics” whose votes count just as much make their political judgments based on agression and gibs, with a little (((prodding))) from (((influencers))) in the media.
If Christianity P or C is to be a net plus in Our Struggle, it has to resolve a nasty Gordian knot of moral values and priorities. If your people and your nation are secondary to your faith, and your faith demands that anyone who nominally claims Jesus as their savior is more your “brother” than your actual atheist or Odinist brother, your great grandchildren will live like serfs in urban favelas in servitude to alien races and cultures – but they’ll be nominal Christians! Cue “at least I still have my Bible” meme here.
Your history and heritage show a way out. Medieval Christians paid lip service to universalism and lived like Germanic conquerors. Are they not in Heaven today?
If they weren’t “real Christians” according to your newly-historicized “Judeo-Christian values,” then Christianity is a three-generation suicide or serfdom pact.
But if Whites are the race historically best-proven to be able to live by the demanding values preached by a guy who was so not-Jewish that he died making that point, there might be a White Christian future for those great-grandkids here, and for theirs in the stars.
Time for choosing.
—-
*** InB4 angry Prot replies – yes, Pope Guevara & the Lavender Marxists have Converged Catholicism, but it took longer b/c reasons above.
“The conservative doubts that the present can be bettered, and he tries to shape the future in the image of the present.
He goes to the past for reassurance about the present.”
–Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
I’m actually kind of ambivalent about The True Believer. It seems to be an anti-fanatic polemic. But it reveals on every page the incredible energy of fanaticism.
The Zman and others on our side point out that the left is like a cult, like a religion. But that may be why we’re on the defensive–the left is “religious” and the right isn’t–or isn’t enough.
A related issue is comfort. The truly religious can endure asceticism. But the thought leaders (LOL!) of Conservatism Inc. seem genuinely unwilling to surrender their access to TV and cushy think-tank jobs.
But more than that, they seem to need the social approval of the Shitlibs. But why would you want the approval of scumbags who are trying to humiliate and erase you? The fact that the cuckservatives really seem to crave this approval shows how contemptible they are.
Dissident rightists are not now nor have they ever been confused about Buckley’s brand of conservatism. Conservative schmervative. Synthesized down to the ugly fundamentals of serfdom in the United Socialist States starts with punitive taxation. An honest cost accounting reveals the gargantuan waste that goes hand in hand with the modern tyranny we are blessed with. It is the basis of all control here. These posts go a long way in our understanding of why and what has always stuck in our collective craws. If thine eye offend thee pluck it out. I lean towards insulating myself from the progressive parasitic mindset as much as possible. Total irradication is what we need if we want to leave a proper legacy for those that come after us. Peaceful separation is preferred. Ticks do not go away willingly.
JMDGT: “Total irradication is what we need if we want to leave a proper legacy for those that come after us. Peaceful separation is preferred. Ticks do not go away willingly.” Plenty here still shy away from this, but I have repeatedly asserted that even if the population genetics are corrected, and even if women are properly kept out of politics and the public square, the usual economic and cultural heresies will arise. Just as the White progressives of the 19th century did untold damage, any future ethnostate will need to remain eternally vigilant for new pushes for old ideas and crush out those thoughts and exile those people. There’s no way to soft pedal that, and it must be dealt with.
Well, I very much like the idea of stating desired ends with clarity. Here is mine. In the event that Progressives win the initial battle and secure a tyranny here in the Good Old USA, then I think we should aspire to survive anyway and ultimately prevail via our strength, intelligence, courage, and dedication to a cause greater than ourselves. If your way of persuasion can prevent the advent of tyranny, then so much the better. But if not, then other means may be required.
What remaining things have to be stripped away to call it a tyranny? The constitution is a dead letter. You are constantly monitored by the secret police and political commissars. A hereditary aristocracy was present here (as in all countries) from the get go, but they have been shorn of all noblesse oblige and act as callous colonial viceroys. The only places where gun rights remain are largely out of the way places where confiscation could never ve enforced anyways. The government is no longer accountable but is ruled by a permanent bureaucracy which constitutes a sovereign power in and of itself, which neither the people nor the aristocracy can readily check. The media, too, acts with impunity, seeking not only your obedience but your very souls. The only thing all these power centers can agree on is the goodness of oppressing Joe Shmoe. Welcome to the managerial state.
Is tyranny a mere matter of material goods? Of men starving and endless breadlines?
Well, Tyranny is being told what you can do, what you can’t do (even if They are doing it), what you must do.. whatever is not prohibited is mandatory.
Tyranny is the complete absence of self actualization, self direction, total loss of personal sovereignty.
Starvation & breadlines are irrelevant to whether you live as a sovereign brother or as a serf.
Tyranny quickly turns you into a slave.
Mmmm, soylent.
The counter argument will be how do you propose to do that when the population votes for redistribution to themselves.
ReturnOfBestGuest said: ” The counter argument will be how do you propose to do that when the population votes for redistribution to themselves.” Hahaha! That ship sailed a long time ago. The question now is, who’s going to be smart enough to slip through cracks and find a comfortable, reasonably happy life? No matter what the situation, you still make most of your own luck.
Ends justifying means is an exceedingly dangerous process because while the ends are uncertain and indeterminate, the means are concrete and entirely feasible. Thus, one can justify and enact any ensemble of atrocities–that is how the USSR was built–in the name of Utopia, but, of course, that Utopia never arrives. In consequence, you’ve slaughtered tens of millions of people and achieved sweet Fatty Arbuckle.
Now I agree 100 percent with Z that process conservatism exists, that it has failed completely, and that a new approach is necessary. I doubt, however, that ends justifying means is the path we want to take.
Ostei: Disagree 100%. The only end that matters to me is the preservation of Western Civilization and those who built it and the only ones capable of furthering it, not merely copying it – European Whites, most of them at least nominally Christian. I am fully aware of just what it’s going to take to assure that, and my attitude is bring it on – please – before I am too old to take part.
We agree entirely on the goal, but I’m unwilling to immediately jump to the nuclear option to attain it. We must discriminate in how we go about saving the West. We begin with the most reasonable and least radical means and only escalate to more drastic measures if the previous ones fail. Ergo, there’s no reason to set off suitcase nukes in ghettos–or indiscriminately shoot up a WalMart in El Paso–when you could have reached your goal by forming political organizations, parallel institutions and raising one hell of a lot of money for your cause.
In the end, the Ends are all that matter. Pound that into your head. “Who, Whom?”
We tried Rule of Law and it was perverted and undermined. I am not Charlie Effing Brown. Once the ball is swiped a few times, the rules changed, or double-standards erected by our opponents, I no longer feel constrained by defunct rules or moral schema.
One big difference between Our Thing and the USSR is that our objectives are not utopian. Our Thing is very concrete, measurable, practical and limited.
Question: How many tens of millions of Legacy Americans have not been born due to the insertion of ~120million immigrants of all sorts into the USA since 1890?
Or if the 1890 date is too early for you, the ~75million since 1965?
And don’t forget the children of immigrants and their effects.(1)
How many places, jobs, opportunities, tax dollars, etc. have they consumed that would have been consumed by children who ere never born due to the crush of others into America? .
My point being, there are tens of millions of Our Sort who never were, due to the actions of our opponents’ campaign of replacement-genocide. I don’t and won’t go out of my way to inflict harm, but doing the math and understanding the effects makes me a smidge less worried at the prospect as we achieve our Ends.
.
.
.
(1) _They’ll_ never let us forget!
“Our Thing” doesn’t sound very concrete and measurable! What exactly do you mean by Our Thing?
Do not confuse means with ends.
A.B Prosper: “I’m a bit long in the tooth for a gas station fort and comely slave girls for me and my raider buddies.
Maybe we ought to try and prevent this.”
Conservatism is about thinking of creative ways to rationalize losing.
“Well, at least we played by the rules!” is the template excuse, the ur-excuse. Others, such as Originalism, are a customization of that.
But take away that excuse, and they’ll see that they are just plain losing, and the only way forward is to win. They would have to embrace reality, and as our reality is a difficult one, they might not be man enough to do it.
The Romneys and McCains were most proud of their concession speeches.
I honestly believe that most white conservatives would willingly be carted off to the gulag if it was ordered by democratically elected officials and approved by a non-white Supreme Court.
Again ZMan focuses on symptoms not causes.
Conservatives did a pretty good job conserving things & keeping America recognizable for almost 200 years, until the mid-1960’s.
What changed around 1965 is that our intellectual & cultural institutions were captured by a tribe that hates white people & they turned those institutions against us.
The homosexual narcissist grifter alcoholic Buckley’s innovation was to concoct a conservatism that conformed to the morality & status codes cooked up by Jews in Ivy League colleges & enforced by jewish Press & entertainment. That allowed his brand of toothless process conservatism to appear on TV & be merely sneered at by the Jewish & jew-adjacent morality & status arbiters.
The alternative —- and many true conservatives took it —- was to be viciously mocked, attacked & unpersoned as stupid, evil, racist, antisemitic, bigoted, repressed, fascist, mouth-breathing, old-fashioned, knuckle-dragging, friendless, ugly, losers by all those same Jewish & jew-adjacent morality & status arbiters, including Buckley himself.
Instead of complaining about the crappy people who create crappy solutions, we should focus on the reason why those crappy people & solutions are the best we are allowed to have.
I’m a sucker for data. Could you document that percentage of Jewish professors in, say, Ivy League, University of California (especially Berkeley and UCLA), Stanford and maybe UChicago, Duke and/or other leading universities went up between 1900, 1920, 1940 and 1960, or something like that.
It would also be good to see proof of who sponsored or promoted the 1965 immigration act.
Maybe Kevin MacDonald has already done this but documentation for the claim that the JQ is not mere one, but THE, central issue, would augment your credibility.
In your heart you know I’m right.
Hehe, that’s the kinda salesman talk that might sell me a cup of coffee or a book, but not a car or a house. Ideologically, ‘buying’ the JQ is the equivalent of taking out a mortgage. I like to see numbers then. But nice try 🙂
“I want very specific numbers & information that I could easily look up myself, and if you don’t provide them to me I will not believe you.”
Sorry. You’ll forgive me for not jumping to go do directed research at the request of a simpering little pussy who can’t bring himself to acknowledge badthink reality without spoonfeeding.
I notice that you didn’t order up stats to prove Jewish control of media to your standards. I guess you were able to figure that one out on your own. Congratulations for that.
Are you saying that you don’t believe that today’s Ivy League universities are disproportionally influenced by Jews, who are 2% of the US population?
Do you believe that a student or professor who expressed opinions that Jews find objectionable would be able to survive and progress in academia?
Do you believe that those opinions would then get picked up and amplified by the media and entertainment in the same way that today’s anti-white anti-normal opinions do?
That’s where we are now. Originally, those same universities were churning out Christian preachers. When did that change happen?
My timeline is that Jews kvetched their way into Ivy League schools in the 1920’s, and long-marched their way into professorial & administrative prominence by the 1960s. That also coincided with the triumph of the (((Counterculture))) that promoted Jewish thought in the broader culture, so the seizing of our intellectual and status-allocating culture was complete.
Obviously this is a fuzzy dividing line, and some universities were ahead or or behind it.
Stop hiding behind a desire for exactly the right data. Just admit that you won’t “buy” the JQ because you are afraid that it will lower your status and make you like the bad, crazy, hateful losers who do buy it. Then ask yourself where you got that fear from.
simpering little pussy
It’s not ‘fear’, it’s that you come across as a bitter loser, and pretty dumb I might add. The JQ is evidently your explanation for why your life didn’t turn out as you had wanted. I was genuinely asking for documentation of why you were so sure that the JQ is the key. Instead of providing it, you went straight to angry, rejected loser mode. That tells me you don’t yourself believe you can sell it. And you still wonder why no one buys your dirty juice??
Moran:
Less whining. If you work for it, it will stick better.
Shorter Moran: I have an open mind on this issue, honestly. But you need to really sell it to me. You can start by providing me specific statistics I request. Also you need to account for counter examples from around the world. And I don’t like your tone. And you only believe that because you are a dumb bitter loser with a bad life. But I’m open-minded on this topic, really!
Hold on, Obs, Moran’s on to something here. Another huge red pill for me were the lists of names.
Somebody compiled list after list, for a time. Horowitz’s ‘Discover the Network’ is a deeply underused and underappreciated model.
And stop with the insulting. You’re overdoing things.
Moran, I don’t know that I have the energy or interest to dig the #s up for you now (I’m supposed to be cleaning the oven while hubby is out of town) but they are there – even if one doesn’t agree with Observer 100%. The Jews were complaining about discrimination in admissions when they were already 25% of students and perhaps 1.5% of the population. The # of professors went up more slowly and really took off after WWII and the GI bill, but they had their acolytes – all the followers of the Frankfurt School – before then. Please do some reading about that on your own before you challenge anyone mentioning Jewish malfeasance.
Ron Unz has covered this in some detail in his own pieces re: the Ivys. The post-50’s march through the institutions was in large part “Revenge of the Jews” for the WASP social exclusion they felt prior to WWII – even Sailer knocks the Jews for this crusade. (((Celler))) of the Hart-Celler act was the Senator in question.
That said, I’m all for Noticing, but I don’t get why making Z “name the Jew” is such a priority recently. There are enough of us here keeping that gate open for those who’re ready. Those who seem hell-bent on overspicing our chicken-swinging stew are starting to make my Noticing antennae quiver.
The weird thing about the JQ is how often it becomes ‘all or nothing’ to people who take the JQ plunge. Most people, I imagine, start from the same place I do, by thinking that if something is overwhelmingly and obviously true, documenting it cannot be that hard. Everyone here understands that blacks are disproportionately violent and criminal, that Asians do very well in academia and that Jews do the same in addition to Hollywood, the media and finance. And every reader here would probably also agree that there are a lot of very bad, liberal Jews.
What is not clear is that this Jewie factor is THE key. How many Jews are there in Sweden, Britain, Germany, France, Australia? Did Jews also make these countries open the floodgates to 3rd world immigration? Did they perhaps do this through the US? Did the US tell it’s myriad white-majority side-kick allies to import all of Arabia and Africa? Doesn’t that strain Occam’s razor just a little bit?
The real issue seems to be that Western, Christian culture is collapsing. And this call into question the proper understanding of cause and effect. Is Western culture collapsing because Jews are allowed into top positions of influence? Or are Jews, and other ‘outsiders’ allowed into high status positions because the culture is collapsing?
But I’ll definitely have a look at Unz. And I do think the JQ is legitimate to bring up. The collapse of the West is too important to have taboo topics off-limits.
Moran, this is where the power of the internet can be harnessed.
Powerpoint, org charts, and wikis work, for a reason.
Add: aha, hadn’t read Bob’s post yet.
I sort of share Exile’s take on the JQ: too much focus “overspices” the stew by excluding rational discussion of equally valid causes for cultural collapse, e.g. Moran’s recognition of the declining influence of Christianity or Zman and others’ observation that economics (particularly consumerism) has migrated upstream of culture and subsumed it almost totally as a causal agent. But one counterargument to Moran’s proposition that blaming the browning of Europe on Jews strains Occam’s razor is Japan: few Jews, less filth. Tempered, of course, with the cautionary provisos that correlation is not causation and arguing from the specific to the general is contrary to good logic. Whatever (((their))) influence, the primary focus must be on spreading the gospel that it’s OK to be white. Ut bene sit albus.
Jews, did massively immigrate into Australia post WW2.
No Jews in Japan, no multiculti madness. Valid point I think. Other possible explanations, Traditional East Asian ethnocentricism, come to mind but the correlation is certainly there.
More generally about the JQ, Im thinking that there may be something there and it may be that Jews do feel like outsiders in Western, Christianity-based society. They are very smart and hard-working and so tend to rise to the top like corks when not actively kept out of the top. And b/c they still feel like outsiders you get attitudes and later, as their influence grows, policies that are eventually seen as treacherous by the ‘common people’. Multiculturalism is one strong example of this.
They cannot do this on their own, so they are not the only ones guilty. And you do not need a lot of deliberate conspirations for this. Simply an elite that feels alien to the ‘the people’ and hence does not trust the horse it is riding, so to speak. That’s what I imagine right now.
This doesn’t break it down by decade, but
“An article by Lipset and Ladd (1971),[1] using survey data of 60,000 academics from 1969, shows that the 1960s were a critical period for the rise of a Jewish academic culture well to the left of non-Jewish professors. Jews represented around 12% of faculty in general, but around 25% of the younger faculty (less than age 50) at Ivy League universities—percentages that were much higher than in previous decades. Jews were heavily represented on the faculties of other elite public and private universities as well, particularly in the politically relevant fields of the law and the social sciences.”
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/06/03/an-update-to-why-are-professors-liberals-jewish-influence-firmly-ensconced-in-academia-by-the-1960s/
There’s no date when this was written, but
“There are in this country also Jewish academicians. These are college professors and researchers who constitute ten percent of the 700,000 faculty in our academic institutions.
Since we are only 1.8 percent of the American population we are evidently over-represented in the Academy. This is particularly true of medicine, but also anthropology, sociology and other social sciences.
In addition, during the past ten years several Jews have become presidents of universities.
This success is fairly recent. Prior to the Second World War, there were hardly any Jews on the faculties of our colleges and universities because there had always been a ‘quota’ system in place which allowed only a minimal percentage of Jews to enter each school as freshmen.”
http://www.jbuff.com/c010407.htm
“…the National Origins Formula increasingly came under attack for being racially discriminatory. With the support of the Johnson administration, Senator Philip Hart and Congressman Emanuel Celler introduced a bill to repeal the formula. The bill received wide support from both northern Democratic and Republican members of Congress, but strong opposition from Southern Democrats who viewed it as a threat to white-majority demographics in the United States. Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Act into law on October 3, 1965.”
The Hart-Cellar Act was sponsored by Philip Hart, whose middle name is Aloysius, attended Catholic schools, married in a Catholic church, and is buried in a Catholic cemetery (so I guess he’s Catholic) and Emanuel Cellar, whose parents practiced Reform Judaism and whose grandparents were 3 Jewish and 1 Catholic (so I guess that makes him Jewish). “Also, Emanuel Cellar was an advisory editor of Who’s who in American Jewry 1926 and listed himself.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hart
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36247/were-emanuel-cellers-paternal-grandparents-and-maternal-grandmother-jewish
Thanks, will have a look at this.
Given the current situation, I’d say that the burden of proof is on you, not Observer.
I get not wanting to overly focus on the role of Jews to make it easier for normies to make the journey, but denying fairly obvious truths isn’t a good strategy either.
I’m interested in ONE thing here, why the West is being swamped w 3rd worlders. Observer, and others, claim they know ‘the answer’. Any rational process puts the onus on the one claiming to have the answer, to prove he is right.
The JQ woke think Im stalling. But I think the JQ woke are less than entirely convincing.
The Enlightenment + WWI + WWII caused a crisis of confidence in the West. Jews – being the ultimate confidence men – took advantage of it, to the point that we signed over everything to them and they now control what used to be our assets.
We brought some this on ourselves, but Jews absolutely accelerated the process and now are trying to make it irreversible.
Z is right about one thing. If we regain our confidence, Jews become a minor problem. However, Jews are the biggest impediment to getting back our confidence, so not acknowledging the role of Jews in getting where we are isn’t possible.
Your JQ obsession is f-cking extremely tiresome and if you are going to ramrod it down Z’s throat on every single post he makes now I would guess your life expectancy here is going to be observably short. Listen closely as I don’t like to repeat myself. This is not some normie infested cuck board like American Conservative.
The people here are RedPilled AF and are Eyes Wide Open. All that being said, there is no need (or want) to turn this place into Stormfront/VNN/whatever. If you want that environment, it exists and you need to go there.
We are aware of (((who))) are the arbiters of the moral code and have been for quite a while, but they are not the -only- party that is guilty here. Gullible goy ate that poisoned fruit up and for more than a generation have been taking the mind virus and spreading it independently.
When you conveniently dismiss these other moving parts of the machine you narrow yourself to an obsessive tunnel vision that is not helpful. You are, in fact, so aggressive about this that you come across as a disinformation agent who may not have the best interest of this website in mind whatsoever. How’s the weather in Quantico today, agent? See? That doesn’t feel good does it? So dial it back a little Adolf or find a new place to hang out, we are QUITE in the know about everything you are raging about here.
Jim Goad wrote a great article about you a few years back, you may want to check it out as it is written in the classic Goad style that I have come to love:
https://www.takimag.com/article/the_men_who_taste_jews_in_their_sandwiches_jim_goad/
It’s gotten boomerwaffen fedposty here lately.
And name calling isn’t going to cut it here AFAIAC. It’s really boring and unoriginal.
‘Boomerwaffen fedposty’!
Yup, notices have been plastered on twitter about a “fedposting” campaign ramping up.
A discreditation campaign, killing our ideas in the crib.
This has happened before, thus my years of gnashing my teeth at conservatives.
The original dissidents- guys who were warning us decades ago about where this was headed- have had their very concepts replaced and relabeled.
Their third Party- qualified in all 50 states- died with G.H. Browne and the Fair Tax, and a shabbos goy front- ‘Reason’- replaced Tenth Amendment solutions with globalist absurdities.
Now they are cursed by all right-thinking people, for things never said. All in the service of growing government.
Grabbing the gun has become the highest prize- it always was, of course- but ffs, we can be smarter than this. We’re wasting the new conditions available.
PS: I get that Zman hates dreary bores who lack the shark-toothed nuance of the east coast. Dreamy simps who think common decency is a selling point, and maybe the only viable option in an increasingly crowded world.
A friend out of prison told me, “you’ve got to treat everybody like they’re out to get something from you.” Wise words, but no way to run a country.
This ‘my way or the highway’ isn’t how the Left came to power. That’s what the right keeps missing, and why they’ll keep losing.
Please see today’s Z-article.
That was a good comment.
All I am hearing is “Yes, we are super redpilled badass badthinkers who know the truth. But we don’t want to say it because, um, reasons. Also optics. Also, we have a super double secret method for redpilling normies by not talking about things. Also you’re a dumbdumb Nazi doodoohead fedposter!”
All on an anonymous messsage board on a dissident right website.
I am disappoint.
But we don’t want to say it because, um, reasons.
It’s being said all the time in here, and Z-man has put his cards on the table on numerous occasions. You’re pissing up the wrong tree.
All the time? Really? You know a good time to mention it would be in an essay about how shitty Bill Buckley was. Because one of Buckley’s many shitty tendencies was to defenestrate & unpersoned anyone who touched on the JQ from Conservatism, starting with the Birchers & continuing to Joe Sobran & many others.
But I don’t even see a throwaway mention of that.
All the time? Really?
Don’t be obtuse.
I don’t know much about Buckley – I’m from Europe – but nobody is being called a Nazi for talking JQ. You get flak because people are worried that this site is being invaded by agents provocateur, flooding the comments with boilerplate Jewbaiting, something that has ruined several dis-right fora.
Krull, his ‘won’t shut up’ is becoming ‘let’s talk about me’. Obs, you’re a troll.
This my jew post from 8/10/19. It got 4 up votes that day. Let’s see if it still has a little juice in it.
Moran ya Simba said: ” But, I also think it is easy to overestimate the JQ. And to some ppl it becomes everything. Which I dont think it is.” If an infintesimel fraction of the worlds population can wrap the whole freaking planet around their little fingers. And the vast majority simply let it happen. Then 7 billion people deserve every ass whoopin their going to get. I mean seriously folks, what the hell. Think about it.
Sorry, mate, you’ve brought your pigs to the wrong market. This is the “Everything wrong in the world is the fault of the Baby Boomers!” blog. The “Everything wrong in the world is the fault of the Jews!” blog is one street over.
I thought this was the “Everything wrong in the world is the fault of women” blog. I must be in the wrong place.
That’s Whiskey.
One way of discrediting an influential blog is blowing up the comments section. It doesn’t have to be feds, as I’m sure there are organized groups of left, Antifa types out there doing just that.
Really? Prior to the welfare state, when immigrants were still people that pulled their own weight, an argument could be made (and probably was) that [insert group here] isn’t bothering anyone, so they should be allowed to go their own way. And thus were the various ethnic conclaves, mafias and political machines born. Some positive, some not.
Most conservative publications ban anti-Semitic talk because if you allow it anti-Semites won’t shut up about it. You could have a conversation about model rockets, or the advantages of mixed-breed dogs over pure-breed, and someone will jump in and say WHAT ABOUT THE JEWS?
It’s like tourette syndrome, but instead of swearing they scream about Jews.
Exactly. I’ll just note that I used to throttle this stuff until recently and like moths to a light they start appearing in the comments. For some of these people, the JQ becomes an all-consuming cult.
In concentrating on “the process,” they completely ignored the culture. “The process” is just the codification into law that happens at the end of a long hard cultural journey.
The left managed to turn the degeneracy of homosexuals into sympathy through AIDS. It always stunned me how much money and effort goes into AIDS given what a small section of the population is actually susceptible to getting it and that it is entirely based on behavior.
I always found it odd that gay marriage was even such a main political goal given how few gays want to get gay married anyway. Marriage, if taken seriously, is the one thing that could but the brakes on homosexual promiscuity and the gay lifestyle.
Ignoring the culture is how we got spineless cucks like David French. It is how we end up with Amy Coney Barrett, a woman who cucked her own children by adopting Haitian children, one 86yo heartbeat away from being a SCOTUS judge. It is why RBG has to be replaced by a woman and Thomas replaced by a black. It is why Trump is always clucking about black unemployment and letting a bunch black Democrat voters out of jail early.
If we don’t start fighting and winning the culture war, these end-stage process victories are going to just keep piling up.
True story: In the early 1990s I worked as a front desk clerk in a hotel in Aspen. One fellow checked in and I asked what he was in town for. He was a medical researcher and there’s a conference in town and one of the topics is how to raise money for funding (we get a lot of science conferences in Aspen). He said his funding is being cut and needs to figure something out.
What is your area of research?
I’m working on ways to extend the lives of prematurely-born infants.
SHOCK. That sounds like a great cause. Why did they cut your funding?
He replied: AIDs research.
To be fair, there’s a lot of hindsight in your essay. The fact is we are not the same people our founding fathers were because we don’t live in the same world. We are not even the same people we were back in the 90’s.
The left made a great presentation when they came out with civil rights for blacks, for example. The mass media was filled with images of black scholars, devoutly black Christians, and worthy blacks that only wanted a fair shake. How could Buckley say no?
Same thing happened with the queers. The liberal turd polishing machine went into overdrive and presented images of Adam and Steve who were just great guys that just happened to be gay. “How dare you discriminate against them and call them names! Conservatives have the high ground! We do not treat people unfairly!!!!”
What’s changed is that the gate keepers have been killed, and the barbarians can now see the liberal utopia for what it is. In my own family, the young progs and elderly cucks clapped their hands with delight and tried to shush me into silence when my daughter came out of the closet as a militant lesbian SJW. When she started tearing the family apart I knew what she was doing, and how she would do it because so many other families had gone through the same thing. Like most dissidents, I knew that queers were emotionally unstable and dykes in particular are spiteful and mean. My daughter and I rejected each other, and the family was dumbfounded when the queers started giving them the gears too. It’s odd – the Red Pills are falling from the sky, they cover the floor and pile up everywhere… and they have no idea what to do with them. When the gate keepers tell them to hit the road, there is nothing to see here… they go shambling onward and try to ignore the conflict between reality and narrative.
How about you throw some ideas out there, Z? And then consider the ramifications of them 20 years from now? It might make for a good post in the future.
Nice White People believe that their niceness is going to save them in the end, and it’s very hard to persuade them that it’s not.
And they’ll go straight to heaven, too. So why should they care about what they’re leaving behind? Once they get to Paradise, they can relax.
Epaminondas, perhaps true for some believers, but not all—perhaps not the majority. As a born and raised Catholic, it was hammered home repeatedly that we were stewards of the earth and intimately involved in society. Getting to heaven was the goal, but a “fuck everything else” attitude was a grievous sin. Of course, that teaching can lead to other pernicious attitudes, but that’s another thread.
I live in MA , and grew up in a heavily Irish/Italian Catholic town. I’m also old enough to remember what the sides of the highway looked like before all the anti-littering campaigns came along.
I say this as a non-Catholic: I never saw much evidence in this heavily Catholic area – that there was very much of anything BUT “fuck everything else” going on.
That whole stewards of the Earth thing must be a new development.
Nice etymology. Some people would say the meeting has changed. I say they’re wrong
Middle English (in the sense ‘stupid’): from Old French, from Latin nescius ‘ignorant’, from nescire ‘not know’.
I’m reading this as “you couldn’t do any better, it’s not our fault, where’s your solution?” If that’s not your intent, my apologies – text devoid of verbal tone, expression etc.. will always be an imperfect inferior way to speak.
If I’m correct:
The future of our people and nation is more important than anyone’s hurt feelings. The obvious implication of Z’s post is that we have to harden ourselves as a movement and put our people’s future above our present feelings.
“How could Buckley say no?” Because our race is more important than Buckley, and Buckley chose to carry our flag. Soldiers who run from enemy fire are called cowards even when they risked their lives. Profiteering intellectuals with no real skin in the game who run from enemy criticism are ten times lesser men than battle-cowards.
From what you’ve said, you did the tough thing, the right thing, to protect the rest of your family from one rogue daughter. I can admire that – it’s a sacrifice for a greater good. But it doesn’t give you any grounds to criticize anyone here for daring to question the judgment of past generations or demand that we have to “show we could do better” before having a say. Learning from past mistakes is how we get better. The group is more important than the individuals who might feel they’re being second-guessed.
“Learning from past mistakes is how we get better.”
Stupid people do not learn from past mistakes, average people learn from their past mistakes, and smart people learn from other people’s past mistakes.
Far as I’m concerned this is all just a casual conversation. I say what follows with the premise that I could be full of beans. I don’t mean to chit on anyone or make anyone mad.
That wasn’t my intent, actually, but now that you bring it up… in those times? No. None of us would have done any better. It has nothing to do with us, and everything to do with the gate keepers and the times. By the 70’s and 80’s the first generation leftists had completed their long march through the institutions. They owned the press, the schools, the courts, the entertainment industry, the publishing and media – and guys like us flat out were not allowed to speak in any public forum or venue.
Watch an old run of Phil Donahue: when he brought crime thinkers onto his show, they were usually elderly, or slow, and verbally speaking, they were not that fast on their feet. Phil would interrupt them, talk over them, and eviscerate them to the merriment of the audience – which were the usual collection of leftie barking seals. Even as a very young adult I couldn’t watch it any more than I could watch The View today. So it is that I only ever saw Phil silenced by wit and intellect once – by Milton Friedman. He is another bogey man of the Alt Right and neoreactionaries, but he was certainly smarter than any of the lefties of the day and most of his detractors today. They were essentially controlled opposition. Guys like us and our esteemed blog host weren’t allowed on a level playing field with Leftie because he knew we would eat him alive.
As far as the lecture on cowardice goes – look in the mirror. Are you posting under your real name? Is our esteemed blog host? No – because if we did, Leftie would tear us to shreds with sensitivity mobs, doxing, misrepresenting us and our arguments and all the other dirty tricks he’s always pulled. He won’t necessarily do it himself; he’ll send the normies to crucify you… and they will probably still do it too. The way you’re talking, his spot on the nice warm couch in front of the TV is in danger. You’re scarey.
Be patient. Leftie may well be able to take over the institutions, but he can’t run them. There will be all to much time enough for courage in the days ahead
John Smith: No, we are not the same people the founding fathers were, but it’s not merely a question of the times. First, “we” are literally not the same people – how many – even here – are 100% Anglo-Saxon English? The mass immigration of the 19th century – prior to and including Ellis Island (which didn’t even open until 1892 for those who don’t know) utterly changed the founders’ America. All the purportedly “good” (or at least not as bad) German Jews, and then all the Catholic Irish. Then the “nice” unto death Scandinavians. Hell, my husband’s maternal Italian ancestors got here in the 1880s. I look through the old census records, and even allowing for the fact New York was never majority Anglo-Saxon, in the “place of birth” column I see thousands of Ireland, Russia, Poland, Italy, and more than a few Lebanon and China.
Correct. And that is why the idea of multiculturalism got off the ground and gained traction. If Italians and Irish people could get along, and Germans and Englishmen could get along – and they could, after a fashion… then why not negroes, moslems, and other exotic weirdos from over the rainbow? Living amicably and equally with marginal races and cultures had literally never been tried before in human history.
There may have been a few race realists back in the day but there weren’t enough vibrants around to worry about. Whites still controlled the nation and nothing could possibly go wrong at that point.
Or so they thought.
In addition to not discounting the degree of genetic change, and the way that purported “assimilation” (I hate the vague, overused term) really meant a mass miscegenation and birth of new, hybrid people, one must also consider the shift from a primarily rural people to city-born and bred. One must also look keenly at mass public education, and just what its fathers Horace Mann and John Dewey hoped it would (and did) accomplish. Add in the deliberate creation of a phony ‘Murrican creed to mask the effects of civil war, southern occupation, and mass immigration, as well as the Jews’ public campaign against Christianity. With a nod to both Observer and his critics, look up the 1906/1907 New York Jewish riots against public observance/teaching of Christmas, and read what papers of the time, from Seattle to South Carolina, had to say about it, as well as what all the Jews in those locations added. In short, to reduce where we are as merely a question of time, rather than the consequences of quite a few deliberate actions plus lots of intended consequences, is blinkered at best.
For those who like to hear straight from the horse’s mouth, the Jewish Virtual Library is full of history of jews pushing their agenda in the U.S. For you philo-semites, peruse the site and get to know the sources of jewish pride. (Also check out the Talmud and compare to New Testament teachings. Completely foreign to each other.) Following is a proud accounting from the Jewish Virtual Library of tikkun olam in the U.S. as told by jews; getting rid of that icky Christianity.
Jews in America: The Brownsville Public School Boycott
(1905)
Just before the 1905 Christmas school recess at Public School 144 in Brownsville, Brooklyn, principal Fred. F. Harding told an assembly of children words very much like the following: “Now, boys and girls, at this time of the year especially, I want you all to have the feeling of Christ in you. Have more pleasure in giving than in taking; be like Christ.” Augusta Herman, a 13-year-old student otherwise lost to history, boldly requested permission to speak. She asked Harding whether he “did not think such teaching more appropriate in a Sunday school or a church?” Harding replied, “Christ loves all but the hypocrites and the hypocrites are those who do not believe in him.” There is no record of the young Ms. Herman’s response, but there is one of the Jewish community protest that Harding’s remarks precipitated.
Historian Leonard Bloom notes that, “by the turn of the twentieth century, the separation of church and state in the [public] school setting was well established in law.” This did not stop Harding and other evangelical Christians from testing the limits that the doctrine imposes. By 1905, Brownsville was a densely populated neighborhood of small shops and factories whose population was at least 80% Jewish. Its mix of impoverished Orthodox and militantly socialist Jews made it in many ways indistinguishable from its more fabled neighbor, Manhattan’s Lower East Side.
When news reached the Jewish leadership of Brownsville of principal Harding’s exhortation and Augusta Herman’s firm response, it touched a sensitive nerve. Almost 95% of the Jewish children of Brownsville attended public school. While the community supported a handful of cheders, the overwhelming majority of Jewish parents wanted their children to be Americanized through the public schools. Historian Arthur Goren argues that, for Jewish immigrants of this era, the public schools were “the great democratic institution, the bridge to the new society and the key to self-improvement.” Brownsville’s Jewish parents entrusted the public schools to make their children bicultural Americans – Jewish Americans – not American Christians.
A broad based alliance of Jewish activists insisted that Brownsville’s – and New York’s — Jewish public school children not be proselytized during any season. Although not all spoke or read English, the Jewish parents of P.S. 144 took the lead. More than 100 of them petitioned the local board of education to protest Harding’s lecture. To their disappointment, the local board upheld Harding. The American Hebrew, a voice for Reform Judaism, called the local board’s action at the least “a technical violation of the school law.” The paper described the local board’s failure to “assert the supremacy of the law over lawful practice” a far more serious offense than the original one committed by Harding.
The Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations, led by its director, Albert Lucas, appealed the local ruling to the New York City Board of Education. The Board referred the petition to its Committee on Elementary Education, which took almost 6 months to review the local ruling. Principal Harding decline to appear personally, sending the committee his home telephone number should they wish to reach him. To what must have been Harding’s surprise, the Committee overturned the local board’s decision and described Harding’s behavior as, “to say the least, indiscrete.” The Committee noted, “We cannot impress too strongly upon principals and teachers the fact that unusual care and discretion be used on all occasions in their school work not to do aught that may be liable to the construction of teaching sectarian doctrines.” In simpler English, the Committee told the principals to make sure that they were not teaching their students Christianity.
As Leonard Bloom notes, “Though the highest school authorities sustained the complaint against Harding, the case was still not over.” In the fall of 1906, the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations called upon the Board of Education to ban all future Christmas observance of any kind in the New York public schools. Once again, they referred this request to the Committee on Elementary Education. Its chair, Mr. A. Stern, wrote in response that modified Christmas observances would be allowed – Santa Clauses and Christmas trees would still be permitted – so long as “sectarian views” were not introduced. Mr. Stern expressed the opinion that “the more intelligent Jews of this city” echoed his position.
Displeased by Stern’s response, on the weekend of December 22-23, 1906, the Yiddishes Tageblatt newspaper called for a Jewish student boycott of Brownsville’s public schools on Monday, December 24th, a day devoted strictly to closing exercises before the Christmas vacation. The Tageblatt called the proposed boycott a “battle for civil rights.” The New York Times reported that between 20,000 and 25,000 children, one third of the school population of Brownsville, missed school that Monday. The Tageblatt’s headline triumphantly proclaimed, “Empty Schools: Tens of Thousands of Jewish Children Shun the Christmas Tree.” The boycott succeeded.
Two weeks later, the citywide Elementary School Committee issued a report recommending that the schools ban the singing of hymns and the assignment of essays on sectarian themes during Christmas. They did not, however, exclude Christmas trees or Santa images from the schools. The battle over a more secularized, folklore representation of Christmas festivities, like the debate over crèches and Chanukkah lights on the village green, continues to vex communities across America.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-brownsville-public-school-boycott-of-1905
Wow! Thanks, Ursula. Always good to learn new things.
Can you recommend an English translation of the Talmud that is accurate?
Unz had some of that in his J-woke stuff from the last year or so under his own byline, had a translation done when he couldn’t find a good one, or some such. Also Shamir on his site or Guyenot there have footnoted some insightful and reliable stuff including source material.
When Horace Mann pushed government schooling, his demand was Protestant curricula only, an attack to push out the hated Papists.
So the Catholics built their own schools.
And hospitals.
But the chiselers? Oh no, they put their money and effort into agitation.
Fraternal benefit societies showed that whites can live beside, but still work together, to take care of their own.
We don’t need govern-ment, ‘ordered liberty’ arises spontaneously with us.
Tenth Amendment is our way.
Leave imposition of tikkun olam to the quarreling duskies.
The problem with this analysis is that it is racist and white supremacist
No one wants it and will fight against it
People of Color are the future
You can clear mine-fields when the show starts.
You are responding to our favorite internet troll.
Yup, it’s “Tiny Duck”.
not much of troll.
try harder next time, Jessie Kevin.
To hell with your future
Is that you Tiny Duck?
Z’s noticed he’s getting more traffic lately. More traffic = more trolling
Tell me, Jess another Cohen, if no one wants “it,” why are you afraid of people hearing about “it?”
LOL.
Which country was it again where 60 people died recently after a fuel truck turned over? Was it Denmark? , no I don’t think that was it. Was it Finland? hmmm – pretty sure it wasn’t there either. Maybe it was Canada? – nope, nothing in the news. Hmmm – maybe it was Singapore … no again.
Hey wait a minute – maybe I’m looking on the wrong continent…. Ok , there it is: Tanzania. People burned up siphoning fuel from overturned fuel tanker.
It’s not like that has ever happened before……………..
Tell me again who’s going to own the future – the dopes who think smoking cigarettes and siphoning fuel from overturned fuel tankers is a good idea – or would it be somebody else?
“No one wants it and will fight against it. People of Color are the future”.
Then you’ve got absolutely nothing to worry about.
No Founder ever intended that a 60%er be eligible to vote, let alone fetishized into a numinous being, or that Federal power and jurisdiction would so utterly supplant State rights. They might have swallowed the 13th Amendment, but never the 14th and the 15th. It was the Reconstruction era rather than the Civil Rights era which ushered in the true death of originalism; and Jim Crow was the rearguard action of those clinging to the right of free association. In the words of a great man who sacrificed for his principles: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
Yep. It would be fun to bring back the Founders for a few years. The 2.79 million federal “civil servants” would drop to something like a couple thousand for starters.
Conservatism will have to start with “This is who we are and this is how we seek to live.”
What would I like?
1) Only married males of means can vote or hold office
2) Term limits
3) Immigration, family planning, other policies that ensure a 90+% white majority
4) Limited welfare for citizens only
5) 1st amendment like free speech
6) Civilians must be allowed to own any small arms that the military and/or police use (I’m not sure about hand grenades, RPGs but that’s detail; it’s a heck of a lot better than fighting off terrorists or tyrants w double barrel shotguns or slingshots)
7) Freedom of religion “within civilized creeds” (I don’t know where that line is except that Islam is NOT inside it. Judaism….I dont currently know; Im in a state of still finding the ups and downs of the JQ. I would be inclined to think it should be allowed but rain check for now there)
8) NO dual citizenship
9) No “perverse” marriages (that’s anything but one man, one woman).
10) All university departments must follow ‘good academic practice/the scientific method’ in their work
11) Homosexuality must be kept out of the public eye
12) Flogging and the stock should be brought back as punishments for small to medium felonies (these are actually FAR less cruel than locking people up for a long time)
13) Death penalty retained and outlawing brought back for particularly heinous crimes.
14) Militia service for all able-bodied men; they bring their own weapons, w a few heavier arms stored by the state
15) Courts may not make laws and as a safety against this, some mechanism of overriding ‘outrageous or grievous rulings’ must be erected
Something like this I guess. A lot of you will find it too soft. Maybe, it could only ever work, if at all, in a culturally healthy society in any case.
“Much of what you say you’ll give us, we already have.” From Jody Wales movie.
Moran, about half or more of what you list above is the current law, simply unenforced. Not sure where this observation goes, but it is frustrating to see example after example of such lawlessness accepted as normal.
I agree but then again, back when the wheels hadn’t come off American culture (for me that would be childhood in the 1980s and college in early 1990s) I thought it was a pretty awesome place. A lot better than Europe back then. America has become extremely Europeanized since 2000. Same sullen ‘know your place, little peasant’ culture. It used to be ‘knock yourself out, tiger’ land.
I was in Europe in the 90s and it felt fairly open, almost like the elite were disinterested in the population and the world in general.
They had their closed system and the plebs had theirs and never the twain would meet. Both sides seemed satisfied with the situation.
Elites seem much more interested in everyone nowadays.
Oh yes the 1990s, was a pleasant holiday from history all over the West I think. The difference, as I experienced it, was that in Europe there was more ‘peer to peer’ social control of the ‘don’t grow too big for your boots’ kind. Who said that in the US in the 80s or 90s? Now you have to ‘check your privilege’ everywhere.
You forgot helicopter rides for all those individuals who fund pro-immigration policies or work for immigrant/refugee placement in the U.S. We could kick off the helicopter rides with a televised dropping of Chamber of Commerce executives. Also, all individuals aiding Africa with food, money and vaccines that have created a population explosion of low-IQ, unproductive, violence-prone people should get helicopter rides if they are not permanently deported to Africa.
In all seriousness, I like your ideas. The U.S. should declare itself a Christian nation and declare English our official language. If Jews or other non-Christians or non-Europeans are permitted to live in our Christian nation, first of all, there must be good reason for them to be here, and it should be with understanding that their religion and culture are subordinate to our Christian ways. Ahh, nice dream…
We re gonna need helicopters yeah lol
Sounds great. How do we get there when we are systematically excluded from the Public Square, and likely will be disarmed and imprisoned soon?
Learn from Mao and Lind.
I’ve been in the CA hinterlands most of the summer, doesn’t feel like that up here. Get out of the cities and unplug from the net more. Being “extemely online” can distort your sense of threat and urgency. If you’re really feeling the pinch, look at moving to a decent rural white community, like Lineman’s been suggesting. I still have to jump between nice rural California and Hell-A/the other coastal favelas here for work but having a “safe space” in the hills has been a huge white pill for me lately.
Exactly my experience, Exile. Getting “up the hill” is the highlight of my week and has done wonders for my health and outlook. Get out of the damn blue cities, folks.
I love the CA hinterlands…every little town is a SWPL version of pre-‘65 America. Phenomenal wine-tasting in Murphys, and Truckee is an absolute delight.
Z’s last two paragraphs are spot on. But some of this other stuff is just, oh, can we please just stop it aleady…
“where an emotionally unstable judge and four lunatics could make it the law of the land…”
Obviously you meant to say, “Where a blackmailed homosexual and four Jews (the Wise Latina is obviously a crypto) could declare as law whatever the Jews decide.” Think of it: we are de facto ruled by a sacred temple of nine mysterious wizards in magic robes, plus their Harvard-trained, which is to say Jewish, clerk-acolytes, chanting over the Secret Scrolls and divining whatever the hell they want to see in the mystic runes… and four of the nine wizards have absolutely nothing to do with this country, and in fact actively seek its destruction. Yeah, that sounds like a plan.
Then we get this…
“the Right never bothered with these arguments and instead fell into Jesuitical legalism.”
Yup, it’s those damn Jesuits again, with their dastardly Jesuitical control over the media, the universities, the finance world, the deep state, the legal and judicial world, and the foreign policy umbilical cord to Our Greatest Ally Ever. I can’t remember the last time the Vatican, or even the Basilica of Saint Ignatius Loyola, started a U.S.-led war, but I can think of at least five wars which were instigated recently by people with rather distinctive Noses. But yeah, fine… “Jesuitical” is an adjective with a legitimate but rather outdated pungency (name me five Jesuit TV pundits; go on, I’m waiting). As it happens, we have a few other adjectives which are, shall we say, closer to hand.
One of them is “Thomistic.” The other is “Talmudic.”
Gee, I wonder which shoe fits better.
“Jesuitical” is an adjective with a legitimate but rather outdated pungency…
So is “pharasaical”, and yet its usage persists, even among the noble Catholics. Try to appreciate the richness of the English language, instead of taking it personally.
“Pharisaical” (whaddaya know, you even spelled it wrong!) has a subtly different meaning than “Jesuitical,” and is thus in a different class. Try to appreciate the nuances of the English language, rather than farcically presuming to correct your betters.
When I want to meet my betters, I will know enough not to ask you for directions.
Juice-us H, already.
Can we get a show of hands for readers who didn’t know there are three 2 percenters on the Court?
As for Sotomoyor being a converso, if so, that apple fell a lot closer to the agave than the burning bush, IYKWIS. First I’ve heard it.
IIRC, Z went to a Catholic school in the 70’s or 80’s, no mystery as to why he’d call Jewy legal arguments “Jesuitical.”
The amount of “name the Jew”-baiting Z’s getting this week is sounding postively fed-posty, fam.
There are plenty of sites where you can J-bomb in every post and comment, get your ya-yas out. As wiser commenters noted yesterday, the J-pill is a tough one to swallow, and not everyone here is pedal-to-the-metal J-woke yet.
I know, “muh optics,” blah blah. I’m comfortable in being absolutely right, no worries.
According to Magic Jew Theory™, the presence of even one Jewish ancestor, no matter how far back, makes you are Jew. This super-special Jewish allele controls everything. The person does not even know they are are acting in furtherance of the conspiracy.
That Cohencidential ancestor will get you every time…
Just keep noticing who has a distant Jewish ancestor and what they are up to and see if, on average, they are helping or hurting efforts to preserve White civilization.
An honest observer will eventually conclude that real Jews are surprisingly good at getting people who have only a small amount of Jewish genetics to adopt Jewish ways of thinking.
While I don’t deny the genetic component of behavior, it’s safe to say that there is more than genetics involved in the Jewish strategy.
There seem to be perverse incentives baked into the Western European high trust society model. When most people go along with this model, it allows society to function at an overall higher level. But as we have seen, it is very, very vulnerable to certain parasitic or “traitor” strategies, where people signal cooperation, but actually defect against the broader society and cooperate only among themselves.
These “traitor niches” are among the most desirable niches. Many humans are POTENTIALLY capable of filling these roles, but most are unable to solve the coordination problem that would be required to claim control over these niches.
IE: They are happy to defect against the surrounding society, but self interest alone is not a sufficient basis for effective cooperation with other traitors. So they are incapable of pulling off the dominant strategy.
Ethnic networking is a natural solution to this coordination problem. Thinking of yourself as Jewish influences your willingness to cooperate with other Jews (or at least, your reluctance to defect against them). And telling people you are Jewish influences the reluctance of other Jews to defect against you.
Jewish ancestry therefore functions as a token of eligibility to join a privileged overclass. While the origins of this overclass strategy may lie in genetic behavioral strategies, it is capable of integrating people with relatively normal, gentile-like personality types, at least in moderate numbers.
TL/DR: It’s more like an international clan of genetic criminals occupying by far the most favorable niche in Western Civilization, rather than a “race” as we normally think of it.
Just keep track of who is and who isn’t, and see how things add up in a few years. Don’t fixate on outliers.
Then I’m applying right now for Master of the Chamberpot!
How about just one single Protestant on the Court to reflect reality? Or for Diversity’s sake?
Calling it Magic Jew Theory is just a species of hand-waving. Okay, I get it, there’s a perfectly good argument for sensibly staying away from various political Third Rails (and the JQ is not the only one) as part of a larger, more practical polemical strategy. Makes sense. But sooner or later one must sort out reality, and it’s unfortunate but true that the JQ looms much larger in reality than anyone would like to comfortably think. I honestly would prefer not to think it myself, I don’t enjoy sounding like a crackpot; but I also would prefer not to have a bad knee, and yet I do, well here we are. Nothing is made better by ignoring the truth.
Waving away the JQ by invoking anti-semitism, or trying to put it in the nutcase box every time, is a bit like dismissing the endless torture-murders of White South African farmers as some sort of unpleasant disagreement about Beatles vs. Stones.
It’s not Anti-Semitism, thought of as a pathology or a zany obsessive tic, if it’s actually Anti-People Who Are Actively Trying To Destroy You, And Who Say So Openly Themselves.
Ehhh, just speaking for myself, I think you’re enjoying sounding like a crackpot at least a little bit…
Words have history, baggage, and weight. Saying “Jesuitical” instead of “Jewish” puts you on the train to Memphis, instead of the train to San Diego. You might say to yourself, “Hey, at least I’m on a train, right?” But the conductor doesn’t see it that way.
“Well it’s a mighty long way down rock and roll,
From the Liverpool docks to the Hollywood Bowl.
And you climb up the mountains, and fall down the holes…
(irresistible piano sting, then)
All the way to Memphis.”
— Aeschylus, “The Eumenides”
In this context, “jesuitical” simply means “sophistic” or “dishonest.”
Exactly. It would never occur to me to consider the term an ethnic slur, and I’m sure Z never intended it as such. Why, you’d think he’d called somebody “Fredo” or something!
99 Year Blues, you are incredibly annoying.
Sincerely,
Chad Hayden
Always happy to oblige.
Thanks to Buckley, it is no longer possible to say, “I don’t want a bunch of foreigners moving into my town, because we live here and that’s how we want it.”
But there were people saying that. Not the Buckley dirt-bags, but the real right wingers like Sam Francis and many others. But the billionaire owners of the media never allowed it to be reported by their minions. If the Buckleyites had said that, they too would have been banned from any media exposure.
Buckley had his own magazine. If he’d wanted to say it, he could have, and nobody could have banned him from doing so. But he didn’t want to, so it was never said. And he did all he could to ban others from saying it.
Yes, he had his own magazine. And he had a television program on PBS or whatever it was called way back when. Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried and Murray Rothbard never had their own television programs, for some strange reason.
A person with the motto of “Standing Athwart History Yelling Stop” has already lost. They are driving the car. They are the road kill.
Yes, and his magazine was created with money from his Father and The CIA.
Buckely’s charge was to patrol the right and blacken the reputation of those the establishment reviled.
He was an agent of the Messias Deniers
Last week, not this Max but the Boot fellow referred to the National Review as a white supremacist magazine. It’s only a matter of time until Boot has some type of complete public meltdown, like that tentacle porn guy.
Over at AoS, it looks like a meltdown all around for the normie-cons. I can’t even follow the arguments, it simply appears to me as a Twitter all-against-all. Of course, it seems to play out as a Monty Python skit, because real life these days always seems to play out as a Monty Python skit.
AoS?
Ace of Spades. They try to chronicle what is going on with and around Max Boot as everyone tries to flame each other on line, and it is just crazy stuff. At least the Observer-some people and Tiny Duck-everyone fights here are straightforward.
Thanks. I heard of Ace of Spades, but will take a dive into the website.
>>> Boot has some type of complete public meltdown, like that tentacle porn guy.<<<
Hahahahha I forgot all about Kurt Eichenwald…he really did fall off the face of the Earth
I LOVE the idea of stating what we are for. That must be done and to hell with those who hate us.
Quotation of the Week – Robert Dabney on Conservatism
It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.
~~R. L. Dabney. “Women’s Rights Women”
Dabney was one of the most interesting people of his era. He was something of a polymath who opposed public education. His reasoning was sound and he predicted the kind of educational mess we are stuck with today. Modern Presbyterians could learn much from him if they would bother to pull their heads out of their asses.
All of our guys, including me, love this quote. This lifer must have seen it at least 20 times, but I never get tired of it.
After we erase that sentimental poem from the Statue of Liberty, this is what we’re putting in its place.
Process defeated Rights-of-Association beginning in the 1950s. Until that is fixed, there is no stopping the left. None. If we’re going to have to go to war, we may as well fight over who we want to associate with.
Yes. Start w/trannies, then apartheid the gheys. Once everyone sees we’re not looking for a Shoah, just some space, then we implement Johnson’s “slow cleanse.”
This post is clear, concise, and convincing.
American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. ”
19th century Calvinist Casandra, Robert Lewis Dabney “
Quote:
“If there is to be a new Right….”
That’s the question isn’t it.
Evidently, last night on his ultra-boring show, “Constitutional Conservative” Sean Hannity defended Chris Cuomo’s unhinged attack on a heckler’s “Fredo” comment directed at Cuomo. Hannity, who has the Number One opinion show on cable TV, proves that in current year America “Constitutional Conservative” = “Dumb as a post.” And Hannity has the ratings? God help us.
A “New Right?” There has to be. Because the “Old Right” is as dead as a hammer.
It’s funny, but I can’t recall the last time anyone has asked me, “did you watch Hannity last night?” Tucker comes up. The crazy lefty hosts like Maddow will come up now and again. Hannity never comes up in conversation. Glenn beck is another guy who exists for an audience I never experience.
Of course, the actual audience figures for all of these people are probably fake, so who knows.
Zman I see that the Numbers of commenters for your posts are increasing. On one of your podcasts you stated that readership declines in the Summer. Can I infer that readership is up? If so this in a small white pill for us all.
Readership is way up. It’s a bit of a puzzler, as I have not be doing strong posts of late, but I’m not always the best judge of that. Still, the spike in traffic has been significant.
People get tired of lies and subterfuge. The truth appeals no matter how harsh
Don’t sell yourself short Zman your posts of late have been spot on and hard hitting. I have lately seen several linked in the usual spots WRSA and WR, but also AoS as well.
“Don’t sell yourself short Zman your posts of late have been spot on and hard hitting.”
Agreed. This one, for example, was an excellent post. It drives home a very important point in very clear language. These kinds of texts should be force-fed to normies.
Do you get a lot of traffic coming in from Gab? They’ve seen spikes in membership lately.
Since gab relaunched as a federated system, Gab traffic is way up. Interestingly, Twitter traffic is down, but it was not much to begin with. Twitter and Facebook have never been big referrers. Google search remains the number one way people come here.
By the way, Tootie is not bad as an iOS client for Fediverse/gab.
Most of us are doing our part by distributing your articles with links.
You might be underestimating the quality because you’re not doing “new hotness” takes as much. Shoring up the foundations and helping Base the noobs is just as important as having a “unique perspective,” if not more so. Book writing will also likely leave you feeling like you put your best stuff in there and “mailed it in” here once in awhile. Don’t sweat it.
I’m surprised that Hannity doesn’t simply dispense with the trouble of booking guests and interview himself about “bombshells” since he bigfoots every person on his show. It is unwatchable.
Zman, I am pleased about this but you must prepare yourself. As your popularity grows so, inevitably, you will appear as threat on their radar screens. Then they will come for you, any way they can. You must be ready for this.
As a new reader, I can say that the reason I’m here is because it was the best I could find after my previous daily-read wrong-think websites had been censored. My guess is this place is next.
I get asked about Hannity and Glenn Beck all the time by my Boomer in-laws. I suppose they’re die-hard civ-nats like most boomers.
They went to see Beck speak when he came through here on a speechifying tour. I tried telling them he’s some kind of crazy controlled-opposition/disinfo mole, or a fairweather friend at best. As long as he blows smoke the right direction up their posterior they’re thrilled with him but forget they’d ever liked him as soon as he stops to let slip the mask, only to go back to liking him again.
They also refuse to believe even the possibility that the official story of McCain’s death wasn’t 100% true despite the fact my MIL is retired from the healthcare field and admits that McCain didn’t exhibit symptoms of the cancer that supposedly killed him. I even had to point that out to her; my father’s first cousin died of the same cancer just a few years prior and the presentation and decline doesn’t line up with the official story.
Beck probably did more to finally red-pill me than anything else during the Trump campaign in 2016. I’d been a pretty regular listener to Blaze in the years before (so much more “edgy,” than Fox) more for Sexton and other supporting casters than Beck himself, but hearing him pretzel-cuck from his old positions, genuflect to St Martin the Down-Low, goy-grovel and finally NeverTrump in real time was eye-opening.
LOL.
“During the Trump campaign”.
Some of you guys are slow on the uptake.
I liked Glenn Beck when he first appeared on NYC radio in 2008 (I think) against, of all people, Joe Scarborough. Absolutely creamed him. Beck was good at first when meticulously explaining corruption in the government. Also, he called on his listeners to organize “3-13” events in 2009 across the US and hosted big rallies in Washington DC.
Later, he morphed in Rev. Beck, started genuflecting before the image of St. Martin Luther King and finally welcomed illegal invaders at the border with teddy bears. I had quit listening by then.
Beck was on the radio today with another one of his “let’s get along” cucks who not so secretly disapproved of DJT. I listen to him because there was nothing in my range and I could not and would not listen to jock sniffers talking of the NBA or NFL. Beck is still a miserable little anti trumper.
Even when I was more mainstream conservative, I never understood the appeal of Hannity. He’s just not interesting at all, and Beck has always been an obvious loon.
Edit: I’m sure Tommy Boy Murdoch wants to fire Tucker. He’s got to be tired about apologizing for him at the cocktail parties, but he probably knows it may kill the network. Tough choices ahead for him.
Back when I listened to that stuff, I always thought Hannity was pretty shallow and dim. Levin and even Rush had more depth to their thoughts. I haven’t listened to any of them for a long time now.
Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin and most other approved conservative INC spokes mouths basically go along with anything the neocons profess. All civic nationalists all believe in the magic dirt.
As Z-man points out, they do not care how many orcs come to the U.S. as long as they come legally.
Exactly.
I used to be a huge talk radio fan, but for the most part now only listen to various podcasts or music online. It goes without saying that my favorite is Zman.
Sean Hannity is a very nice and likeable man, but, as you wrote, quite shallow in his views. I only listen when he’s discussing the FBI scandal. Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are deeper thinkers, but still within acceptable boundaries. Not interested in staying on the Republican plantation anymore.
Hannity does a service by being as far right as anyone outside of Tucker, but he repeats the same material over and over. And that’s after Tucker has already spent an hour being more insightful on much the same stuff. He has done a good job covering the deep state coup, but every night the same material is presented as breaking news. There is only so many times you can watch it, without seeing anyone going to jail.
Hannity has a most irritating style. He’s totally unaware of how he sounds when he interrupts the hell out of his guests often right in the middle of giving a fascinating response to one of his questions.
Same here. Hannity can’t stand his guests making points that he has not. Hannity is one of the stupidest egoists on the air. Aside from Shapiro, he’s one of the few radio commentators I have to switch off due to his annoying presentations. He truly makes you stupider for listening.
Compsci, exactly! The Moron Cheerleader and the Littlest Chickenhawk are so heavily overpromoted, they’re ruining radio.
Wiping all the alternative and local talent.
Littlest is being treated like he’s the Second Coming. The Enstupidation is upon us!
(John and Ken listeners, I can only say…
“You’re killing me, Larry!!”)
John and ken (see their podcast, fellow Apple nazis). are pretty good. John will have a aneurism one day…. Ken used to be unbearably liberal to me, but when I moved from LA 20 years ago they dropped off my radar. Started listening to their podcast for the entertainment value and I have not been disappointed.
Hannity and Kasich belong together—they could just talk endlessly about prison guard mothers and mailman fathers.
Hannity is the embodiment of “cringe.” My late mother loved him. Like I always say, people want to believe. Hannity allows the old folks to continue to believe. Otherwise the horror of the sacrifice of America’s best in service of the MIC’s endless wars would appear futile and obscene.
Hannity has always been a blowhard. Even my fox news watching 90 year old grandmother thinks that.
Glenn Beck is a twat.
That became obvious during the election cycle when Ron Paul was running.
Whenever Paul would be doing lousy in the polls – Beck would be talking him up. Whenever he did really good in a poll and/or some news story came out about how much money he had raised – Beck would start attacking.
I know a lot of people on the right – who actually paid attention – and noticed this constant flip flop and wrote Beck off as controlled opposition once they saw that shit happening.
Paying attention to the antics of the media is not something that just started recently.
In November 2012, two days after BO beat Romney, Hannity was on his radio show spouting off about the need for comprehensive immigration reform aka amnesty. He was a dumb reliable suck up to George W all those years, supporting his stupid wars blindly but when he became an advocate for open borders he became dangerous.
Doesn’t Hannity’s head look like a rockem sockem head?
Let’s hope this is not interpreted as another call for a Tea Party clone.
That worked well.