The Crisis Of Conservatism

One of the subplots to the ongoing crisis in America is how various voices within official conservatism are struggling to come to terms with it. In the last years of the Obama administration, they were sure they had a good read on things. Their turn to run the system was coming up and they were busy getting their resumes ready for jobs within the next Republican administration. Then their plans took a direct hit from their own voters in 2016 and their thing has been taking on water ever since.

The neoconservatives, with their vermin-like rapacity, continue to focus on their project, regardless of what is happening. That means infiltrating the Biden administration through the foreign policy establishment and promoting the old-time religion through proxies like Liz Cheney and Lindsey Graham. It also means rooting out populists from the Republican ranks. From their perspective, the chaos is just another opportunity to warp the political process to their advantage.

The other side of official conservatism, the civic nationalist wing, finds itself a stranger in its own movement. The people they were sure they represented turned on them in the 2016 primary and remain hostile. The big stars of “right-wing” media now sound like Pat Buchanan, rather than Bill Buckley. Tucker Carlson is the biggest voice in official conservatism and he sounds like the people Conservative Inc ran out of their thing back in the 1980’s. Conservatism has an identity crisis.

Part of that identity crisis is the collapse of intellectual capital. The best minds on the Right are either in the grave or outside of official conservatism. Look around the organs of official conservatism and it is mostly kids repeating the old clichés. The rest are time servers who made their career by avoiding anything difficult. Part of the crisis is that there is no one around with the courage to question the orthodoxy or the grounding in political history to contextualize the current crisis.

The result is weird analysis like this from guys like David Brooks, arguing that the solution is to attack the people now abandoning conservatism. “Republicans and conservatives who believe in the liberal project need to organize and draw a bright line between themselves and the illiberals on their own side.” Those “illiberals” he claims, will “eventually turn to the strong man to salve the darkness and chaos inside themselves.” That’s paranoid madness, not analysis..

A less deranged analysis comes from fellow Times man, Ross Douthat, who seems to have spent some time listening to the swelling ranks to his Right. He points out that conservatives don’t conserve anything. This is an old observation of dissidents, going back to before Trump ran for president. Douthat repeats many familiar claims by dissidents about how liberal democracy destroys family, tradition and community, before it then consumes the ancient liberties it is supposed to defend.

Then Douthat inadvertently reveals the nature of the crisis within conservatism by framing what he thinks is the list of currents tearing through the Right. “What are we actually conserving anymore? is the question, and the answers range from the antiquarian (the Electoral College!) to the toxic (a white-identitarian conception of America) to the crudely partisan (the right to gerrymander) to the most basic and satisfying: Whatever the libs are against, we’re for.”

You cannot help but note that the one item on the list with any intellectual and popular vigor is identified as immoral. He uses the language of the Left to describe demographic realism as off limits. Maybe it is the need to signal his obedience to the Left or a genuine embrace of progressive morality, but the default position of the modern conservative is to treat demographics as automatically immoral. They rule out the problem when discussing the solution to the crisis.

The specter haunting conservatism is the specter of demographic reality, the same specter that is haunting America and the West. So-called conservatives like Douthat refuse to acknowledge it. In fact, they say it is “toxic” to point out that America will soon be a majority nonwhite country. The reason this bit of observable reality is toxic to professional conservatives is that the Progressives say it is toxic. They have anathematized any discussion of demographics.

The conservative political theorist Russel Kirk wrote, “A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers.” The only way there can be a “people’s historic continuity of experience” is if the people actually exist. At its core, conservativism has always been about preserving the people, not their stuff. Once you stop conserving the people, conservatism is just an ornament in the liberal democratic garden.

Modern conservatives, rather than defending the historic American nation, defend the liberal democratic process. No matter the ends that result from that process, conservatives believe they must defend the process. The result has been a couple of generations of politics where one side defends the process while the other side works to subvert it for short term gain. Conservatives end up defending those subversions and the perversions they create become conservative principles.

Both Brooks and Douthat wonder if conservatism can exist within liberal democracy, but neither is willing to consider both answers to that question. They just assume the answer is it can, so the project is to figure out how. That blindness shows that conservatism cannot exist within liberal democracy. It must yield to the morality of liberal democracy, which will always be controlled by those who are able to muster fifty percent plus one in favor of the morality they favor.

The crisis of modern conservatism is that conservatism must begin and end with the conservation of the people. What conservatism has become is a conservation of a system that is literally destroying the people who created it. Worse yet, it has become a defense of a moral framework that is the enemy of the fundamental conservative tenet that there is an enduring moral order. Conservatism is either the opponent of liberal democracy as practiced, or it is the tool of it.

The death of modern conservatism, and its morally ambiguous traveling partner libertarianism, is a necessary step toward a genuine alternative. It is only when the fight steps out from the prevailing moral framework of egalitarianism and the blank slate that politics can return to a debate about what is in the best interest of the people. At that point, liberal democracy recedes, and the role of leaders is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

A new year brings new changes. The same is true for this site as we adjust to the reality of managerial authoritarianism. That means embracing crypto for when the inevitable happens and the traditional outlets are closed. Now more than ever it is important to support the voices that support you. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you prefer other ways of donating, look at the donate page. Thank you.

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.

The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link.   If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

229 thoughts on “The Crisis Of Conservatism

  1. I had a thought today: The purpose of BLM is to exterminate black people.

    No one will hire a black. Liability.
    No one wants to be around them. Dangerous.
    No one will support paying them to breed. Resentment.
    This might end the welfare state. I might send money to BLM! Not really, but it’s funny!
    The welfare state was the first iteration of BLM. Destroy their pride, destroy their soul.
    BLM destroys their moral claim. Woo hoo!
    Make them re-discover personal responsibility, or die. That is true for every one of us.
    I always thought Alistair Sim’s speech at the beginning of Scrooge to the men seeking money for “the poor” was right on, even when I was a little kid. They told me I was a heartless bastard. Turns out I am the only one with heart in my family. Only help those who help themselves. Let the rest die. The deserve it, and good riddance.
    BLM types have proclaimed that they are worthless. Let them die by their own doing.

    • You’re missing the brilliance of Zman’s repeated “spelling mistake.”

      “Duothat” it will be hereafter. He was a very promising guy (as was Brooks), but like his fellows, he proved a yuge disappointment.

      Zman, this essay is one of your strongest ever. Too late in the thread to say more, but I’m sure the subject will come up again.

      • For some reason, spellcheck changed the spelling. I was going to fix it but then I realized I did not care enough to bother.

        • I see you corrected it. But the earlier version is too good not to own. Lay a claim before Mr. Spellcheck does.

  2. From France, letter from retired soldiers, including 20 Generals.

    Mister President,
    Ladies and Gentlemen of the Government,
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The hour is serious, France is in danger, several mortal dangers threaten it. We who, even in retirement, remain soldiers of France, cannot, in the current circumstances, remain indifferent to the fate of our beautiful country.

    Our tricolor flags are not just a piece of cloth, they symbolize the tradition, through the ages, of those who, whatever their skin color or their faith, have served France and given their lives for it. On these flags, we find in gold letters the words “Honor and Fatherland”. However, our honor today lies in the denunciation of the disintegration which strikes our homeland.

    – Discrimination which, through a certain anti-racism, is displayed with a single goal: to create on our soil a malaise, even hatred between the communities. Today some speak of racialism, indigenism and decolonial theories, but, through these terms, it is the racial war that these hateful and fanatic partisans want. They despise our country, its traditions, its culture, and want to see it dissolve by taking away its past and its history. Thus they attack, through statues, ancient military and civilian glories by analyzing words that are centuries old.

    – Discrimination which, with Islamism and the suburban hordes, leads to the detachment of multiple plots of the nation to transform them into territories subject to dogmas contrary to our constitution. But each Frenchman, whatever his belief or his non-belief, is everywhere at home in France; there cannot and must not exist any city, any district where the laws of the Republic do not apply.

    – Discrimination because hatred takes precedence over brotherhood during demonstrations where the power uses the police as a proxy and scapegoat in the face of French people in yellow vests expressing their despair. This while infiltrated and hooded individuals ransack businesses and threaten these same police forces. Yet the latter only apply the directives, sometimes contradictory, given by you, the rulers.

    Perils are mounting, violence is increasing day by day. Who would have predicted ten years ago that a professor would one day be beheaded when he left college? However, we, servants of the Nation, who have always been ready to put our skin at the end of our engagement – as our military state demanded, cannot be passive spectators in the face of such actions.

    So those who lead our country must imperatively find the courage necessary to eradicate these dangers. To do this, it is often sufficient to apply existing laws without weakness. Do not forget that, like us, a large majority of our fellow citizens are overwhelmed by your dabbling and guilty silences.

    As Cardinal Mercier, Primate of Belgium, said: “When prudence is everywhere, courage is nowhere. So, Ladies and Gentlemen, enough procrastination, the hour is serious, the work is colossal; do not waste time and know that we are ready to support policies which will take into consideration the safeguard of the nation.

    On the other hand, if nothing is done, laxity will continue to spread inexorably in society, ultimately causing an explosion and the intervention of our active comrades in a perilous mission of protecting our civilizational values ​​and safeguarding of our compatriots on the national territory.

    As we can see, there is no longer time to procrastinate otherwise, tomorrow the civil war will put an end to this growing chaos, and the deaths, for which you will bear the responsibility, will number in the thousands.

    Editor :
    Captain Jean-Pierre FABRE – BERNADAC

    In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

    (Former officer of the Army and Gendarmerie, author of 9 books)

    In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

    In addition to this, you need to know more about it.


    See all signatures


    Legal Notice

  3. Douthat “points out that conservatives don’t conserve anything”, but this claim strikes me as weak. Surely we can find something which conservatives, in the USA’s sense of the word, are good at conserving. Consider as an example the legacy of the rebellion (1775-1783) against crown and altar. It swept away the nobility in favor of populist egalitarianism led, at first, by planters and bourgeois go-getters. Still to this day we don’t have a king or queen and nobility. There was no restoration as in Great Britain after the Cromwells, though we did in time get a central bank with powers similar to the Bank of England (est. 1694). Conservatives do play a role in conserving that central bank, just as the Conservative and Union Party plays a role in conserving the BoE while, at the same time, participating in the long war of anihilation against the old population of Britain.

    Here in the USA was have another prominent example of something conserved by conservatives. Just four years after the Treaty of Paris was signed, an extraordinary new lie in “Western” politics was published and distributed among the states of the Confederation. Within a few years, all thirteen former colonies had submitted to the lie. I’m referring to the preamble’s claim that “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution”. In truth, fewer than 1/2 of “the People” did any ordaining and establishing, and, as I’ve noted before, the opening phrase implies that absolutely everyone has authority to rule, to establish a great powerful government, and to declare the basic law of that government. Conservatives, contrary to what Douthat believes, have played a role in conserving faith in this abomination, albeit with much help from secularists, humanists, and egalitarians*. You see, so-called conservatives, in the sense common among Christians here, excel at conserving what brings about their own destruction.

    So-called conservatives are conserving also the corporation and the several extensions made to its features since it appeared on the scene at least 420 years ago, iirc. They are fervent conservers also of the ways and means of Semitic Supremacism. Just look at how they salivate every time someone suggests another war for the benefit of the sons and daughters of Israel and the usual big business interests. Conservatives also like slavery and involuntary servitude, sames as internationalist commies. We don’t have those here in a formal sense, but conservatives have been full throated defenders of military conscription and the means to impose it.

    * These people comprise the established political power. Those of you who are in love with the idea of calling yourselves “DR”, right wing, and so on need to get with the program if you aren’t a member of the ruling clique or their faithful subjects. You are aren’t right wing at all, just as a beard is no longer a beard after plucking out enough of its hairs. We cannot easily identify when a plucked beard ceases to be a beard, but a face with few or no hairs has no beard at all.

    • We have nobility, they literally call our citizen rulers by their highest government office title obtained for the rest of their lives.

    • The Restoration did not hand back the Royal Prerogatives to Charles II, Parliament was now the executive. It’s called “the Restoration” but it was more a settlement. Parliament was and is now the dominant institution.
      The uS did not revolt against George III, it revolted against Parliament.

  4. Assuming that the last presidential election was indeed stolen, the ‘democratic process’ no longer exists. So working to preserve it is like welcoming the burglar into your home.

    The ‘anti-racist’s’ great victory was in convincing conservatives that demographic realism is racist. They can only do this by deliberately obscuring/denying the crucial distinction between racism and race realism.

    It’s my hope that the stolen election has removed the blinders from the eyes of many fence-sitters who hadn’t imagined that such a thing could happen.

    LDS conspiracy-affirmer Joel Skousen— he emphasizes the distinction between ‘conspiracy theories’ and ‘conspiracy facts’— believes it’s too late: that the stolen election shows that the Progs have taken over for good; that working within the system to correct wrongs is no longer possible.

    I’m not LDS myself, but I’ve been subscribing to his weekly World Affairs Brief since 2011 and have found him to be right almost all the time. And he’s one of the few commentators who admit when they’re wrong and publish a correction.

    • Skousen is right again. America is hardly a democracy; it’s a Power Structure. And those in the Power Structure are our mortal enemies.

      • As I suggested just above, the established ruling class and its institutions deserve to be called the right wing, the place where one finds the conservers of the status quo, even if those people seek modifications or extensions of their system, as do the Democrats. Everyone who is not part of that ruling class and its institutions, or their loyal subjects, is not right wing but something else. Moreover, if someone wants to smash the establishment to pieces, surely such a dissident does not qualify as a member of that establishment, i.e. as part of the right wing. That person is a revolutionary, yes, but only crazy folk would believe that he’s right wing.

        The right wing is the establishment, hence the so-called “Dissdent Right” is not right wing at all. Consistent with this truth, as everyone can see, the so-called DR in the USA has almost no political power, much less significant representation in the ruling class and institutions of the USA. Most people who claim to be right wing in the USA do, I suppose, have a smidgen of political representation, but remember the membership and structure of the Bipartisan Party. It’s comprised of the Democrats (the varsity team) and the Republicans (the JV team which rarely sends any of its players to the varsity team…LOL).

        Let’s get used to describing ourselves as something other than right wing, e.g. as leftists, but commensurate with being dissidents, let’s reject the totalitarian collectivism of Marxism, Fascism, Leninism, etc. Those experiements have been run too many times not to learn that they lead to bad outcomes and, besides, anyone who wants to be a totalitarian collectivist can join the establishment, tweaking it to personal tastes from within.

        • “let’s reject the totalitarian collectivism”

          While I reject totalitarianism, the opposite of collectivism is individualism, and individualists get picked off by organized groups.

          If there are any “experiments that have been run too many times not to learn that they lead to bad outcomes” in our country, they are that individualists get crushed.

      • Yes indeed. It played a big part in my ending up where I’m now living, on Colorado’s western slope.

  5. “No matter the ends that result from that process, conservatives believe they must defend the process.“

    Perfectly said. Same with women with a public voice, or a right to choose, or “courts have spoken.” They have bad philosophies, which lead to destruction, but the principle is so precious to them, they will go to hell with the principle, equality, the democratic process, Liberty…

    It reminds me of alchemy, or witchcraft. They believe that things just work out if you say the right spell, capitalism, same thing.

    • “It reminds me of alchemy, or witchcraft. They believe that things just work out if you say the right spell, capitalism, same thing.”

      Just gotta say- oho, that’s good.
      That’s very good.

    • I compared true-cons dislike of Trump to magical belief.

      They’re hatred wasn’t driven by what he did, which was conservative or his intentions – which were also conservative.

      Nope what made him unacceptable to them was his inarticulateness. The failure to use the right combination of words was all that mattered. Because incantations have to be uttered with perfection to cause the magical result. And Trump just couldn’t pulll it off.

      • MAGA and Trump as its figurehead is perceived as an existential threat to the legacy powers that be and IS an existential threat to the technocracy.

        What we all know now is Trump was the cleanest POTUS ever and the mighty five eyes could find nothing on him. Zero. Think about that!

        TPTB could only objectively criticize his vernacular and, perhaps, calculated spelling deviance. It is important that everyone understand that Soros and his ilk are esperantists, raised by the original esperantists. They fully understand what they are doing to the language and Trump’s normie vernacular is a direct attack on the technocracy.

        With that said, to someone who wants to signal to the status elites that they agree, Trump’s weaponized use of the English language is fair game and a double-edged sword. It reached new people and made other people feel like they were more intelligent than the POTUS.

        So I agree with you that the machine didn’t like Trump’s incantations, but I disagree that he was unable and that it would have been beneficial if he had. Trump’s first responsibility was to undermine all of the technocracy’s passive control systems and he did a damn good job, all things considered.

        This is war and there will be losses.

  6. Two questions: If conservatism cannot exist in any meaningful sense within liberal democracy, what is the optimal form of government in which it may flourish? Second, if conservatism is dead, what replaces it on the right side of the political spectrum?

        • Tough sell here, true. Maybe a return to something like the Articles of Confederation. Call it separate nations if you want.

          • Seems to me that if you’re going to have a monarch, you need a history of a nobility and royal bloodlines. There are, of course, powerful families that have ruled in the US (Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons), but they’re hardly the same thing as the Romanovs, Plantagenets and Carolingians. And I’m not sure you can just conjure royalty ex nihilo.

          • Monarchy isn’t “sold”; it is imposed.

            We’re going to get it anyway. Do you think our new rulers will keep liberal democracy or representative government or constitutions or civil rights around when the facade is no longer necessary? It will be the Oppressive Reign of the DMV Lady, all around. They might even rename it “The People’s Democratic Republic of America”, but a monarchy it will be.

            The problem is that the people change nothing, Every revolution is fought between different factions of the elites, not the mass of people. And we, normal white legacy Americans, have no elites on our side. We lost a long time ago, or rather the elites who claimed to represent our interests did.

          • Yes to a confederation. It would be particularly nice for individual states to opt out of welfare (“entitlement programs”) and Social Security.

          • I don’t see Americans accepting a monarch, even now. Maybe recent arrivals, but not Yankee Doodle, and if we’re throwing democracy out the window, the tolerance of nakedly foreign politics goes with it.

            A strongman, sure. FDR was one imo. But after a while he’d have to go. Hell, it was only 5 years ago the Bush and Clinton dynasties were rejected. Things aren’t that bad yet, but Democracy! so we still have the culture of putting up with ‘the will of the people’ until the next election.

          • Romans had kings before the republic. We had a king as British subjects, but almost as soon as an American identity developed, we threw off monarchy and did our own thing.

            Imo a huge chunk of American history has been about suppressing American identity. We cannot be allowed to have our own country, apparently.

      • But there is no longer ANY divinely ordained authenticating body that can legitimize a monarchy. The current RCC is a joke. The Church of England has been a joke since the coronation of Elizabeth II. The state Lutheran churches of Germany and Scandinavia aren’t even Christian anymore; they are merely wokeism in a cassock.

        If a monarchy is no more than “a rule of one”, then I guess you could have an ersatz king or queen pop up somewhere or other. Insofar as he has any real power and authority, it will be from Below, not from Heaven.

        • “Insofar as he has any real power and authority, it will be from Below, not from Heaven.”

          Queen Latifah?

        • I don’t know why people think a monarchy needs the Church to authenticate it. Rome’s monarchs never had that, neither did the barbarian tribes that took over after the western empire disbanded.

        • I’d say the Catholic church has just returned to form: it’s mostly always been a joke.
          The European countries with superior cultural ambitions turned from it when a more christian alternative appeared.

          • No, monarchy is hereditary rule.

            Dictatorship can have hereditary elements – or not. The emperors of Roman were not inherently hereditary. In 1400 years of the imperial system less than 1/4were hereditary. The overwhelming majority were generals that overthrew their predecessor. Followed by non related successors appointed by the predecessor or military with a few installed in palace coups along the way. In all that time the longest dynasty only lasted four generations – most were done in two.

    • The Chinese system is one thought, whereby the Party leaders have to prove their mettle within ever-widening circles. A man like Jiang Zemin served as mayor then Party Secretary of Shanghai during the Tiananmen era, but avoided the bloodshed of Beijing by clamping down early on protests. Already a member of the Politburo, he was made General Secretary of the CCP and elevated to the Politburo’s Standing Committee and would be slowly accorded more power by Deng Xiaoping until he was unquestionably the leader of the CCP’s “Third Generation”. It’s almost a corporate structure. In some sense, it harkens back to having state legislatures select Congressional Senators.

      The system creates plenty of opportunity for graft and intrigues, and it can result in a Xi Jinping refusing to relinquish control, but it’s also provided a good deal of stability and national focus for China. The Xi Jinping-type power grab could be avoided in theory by constitutional term limits, such as we have on our President. I’d rather not allow for hereditary succession. Yes, princelings exist in China, but the country hasn’t suffered anything similar to the abject mediocrity and downright mendacity of a Bush or Clinton family.

      • Remarkably prescient.
        The fusion of dynasty and corporatism- a Corporate State.

        I can see this replacing voter democracies, just as federal governments replaced Westphalian monarchial empires in the 4 years of WW1.

        (North America or the Anglo-Dutch Colonies as the Arian Goths, then? A footprint, but the people are no more?)

    • “if conservatism is dead, what replaces it on the right side of the political spectrum?”

      As the comments display, many people are attracted to monarchy. While I am would accept monarchy, I fear that regression to the mean is a problem. That is, a great king will often have mediocre sons. This is not a deal breaker because all theories of government have problems.

      My guess is that what most of our people want is a government that has its explicit purpose to be something like the flourishing of white families. No other value is higher. Not the economy, not the territorial disputes of our nominal allies, not other races in our own country or elsewhere.

      • In posing that question, I was less concerned with the form of government than with the ideology or political stance that replaces conservatism. But, perhaps in the new form of government–presumably monolithic–there will be no ideology.

        • The short answer is I wouldn’t be firmly committed to a permanent collapse, or end, to a Constitutional republic. It is rational to believe some strong men will get together to do the hardest work and that they will decide just how much influence women will have in a future republican government.

          FWIW, the systemically damaging demographic is the Karen, not the orc or zombies. BLM and ANTIFA could be ended tonight if philosopher man told Karen to go find the oven, make something tasty, clean up and wait for me in the bed in something sexy.

          The female race needs to be checked before we discuss any other demographic destiny.

    • Military dictatorship until the purge is complete and a constitutional convention is held to increase powers of the President, Senate is restored to state legislations and a justice of the SCOTUS can be terminated.

      It will be similar to Sulla restoring the republic.

    • I’m almost there…..just one….more…year….

      I’ve always found that life gives you the breaking point you need. It’s hard to change things up midstream.

    • Here’s the lawlessness of it. By law, a US citizen is supposed to be notified by DHS TRIP when they are put on this list. This never happens, but in a lawless age, nothing is done about it. There are lawsuits winding their way through the courts, but in a lawless age, that will take generations. What makes it worse is there is no way to know why you were put on the list and by whom. That means FBI agents, when not framing people for crimes, can put anyone they like on the list out of spite.

      Russia is freer than America.

      • You mean like the new ‘red flag’ on guns they want to pass? One could be prohibited from acquiring a gun for whatever reason by whoever, and then your name might just be scooped up and go on the DHS list.

        • I just keep buying to see how it goes. There is good steel hitting the market again if you know what and where to look.

        • They know what you have, but what if you lost it or it was stolen and you file a report? Pay cash for ammo. 😉

          • I learned math, organization, asset protection, and trading through a baseball collection starting at age 4.

            I don’t approach 2a implements as just tubes of steel and and aluminum anymore than I did baseball cards as paper or photographs.

            I own many NATO coins and buy by the case. As long as you have no corrosive primers, the shelf life is very long, it stacks and stores efficiently and has an atomic mass that is within about 5% of gold. If you can hoard gold coins and bars, you have no excuse because 55 grains works out to $8.73/ozt. at $1/r m193.

            As far as knowing what I have, I have a double digit quantity of NFA stamps. They know, but who wants to be first in the stack?

          • I will add that since April 2018 I have made it a personal mission to proselytize AR ownership and operation. I have yet to meet anyone who does not like shooting one and anyone can still afford one who can pass a NICS check.

            The black rifle can be a little scary, but exciting to the gun virgin. At about 1/10th the recoil of a 12 gauge shotgun, they are much more pleasant to shoot and very manageable for a woman to operate if you are the gambling type. There is a reason the Pentagon buys them and the control freaks want to ban them. They are that powerful in the hands of many and very powerful when the many form an identify and work together cohesively.

            New soldiers begin their military careers as liberal individuals, but learn to function in the cohesive whole through basic induction. I reason it will work the same after some psychological flash point and hardship will educate the mass of liberal individuals on the fly.

  7. “Look around the organs of official conservatism and it is mostly kids repeating the old clichés.” – And look at who they’re related to. One by one, if you read each name and bio, it’s someone with a parent who made their bones in the Reagan era or even before. Almost none of them are fresh-off-the-street “conservatives.” Conservative Inc. is not only a family business, it’s an inherited one. And much like a restaurant that had good food in 1980 and now serves something that’s been under a heat lamp for 30 years, and roaches under the tables, it’s going to close shop soon. Funny how these people support the “marketplace of ideas” while they get some commission from GOP insiders like some legacy. (See Jonah Goldberg, etc.).

  8. Today’s post should be the preamble to the future strong man government that will emerge. The one they’re so frightened of.

    • I’ve always thought that if a strong man does emerge, he will be a Latino. Most likely with large support from the prole whites.

      Import the third world become the third world can go both ways.

      Either way, I’m not letting some hypothetical future scenario affect my actions right now, as I said below. We need to do what we need to do, no matter what.

    • Re: David Brooks, if it’s a choice between Western civilization under the thumb of a strong man, or Third World savagery rouged up with liberal democracy, then it’s really no choice at all. Brooks and his fellow weasels and invertebrates can go with the latter; I’ll take the former.

      • Brooks is a tribesman and on narrative. I had business dealings with E. Wallison, son of P. Wallison at AEI, who was their emissary. Wallisons are Cohens of Ukrainian extraction.

        Thinking it’s going to be a Latino or Han is just a product of demoralization. Cheer up my man; go bend the old lady over and give it to her good. You will feel much better after.

        • I read my comment and should add that Brooks was a subject of EW and I’s conversations as he was bartering Brooks to me.

  9. It’s hard to say if people like Brooks are losing on purpose or not. His people have been feeling the pressure lately too, according to acquaintances from that community. Apparently Arabs, Africans, and Latinos don’t respect (or even know about) the Holocaust victims. The gentile conservatives basically have to be raging leftists now or else be accused of white supremacy.

    This is one reason I’m not too concerned about overall demographic % of whites, or what some writers say or don’t say. I know what needs to be done on the ground level and I’m working to carry it out.

    Alot of people, even white gentiles, are not on our side or are even hostile towards us. So why would I lose any sleep over whites being 55% of the population instead of 65%? The better question is how are your personal demographics doing?

    Have lots of children, connect with like minded people. I have cultivated relationships with Bible believing Christians as well as an assortment of gun people. All are repulsed at the left and modern culture; all either have or plan on having children. Are they “racist” or “dissident”? Not really, but they’re increasingly receptive to the term “anti white” and certainly don’t like their kids being taught that they’re evil just for being white… Nor do they like the thug rap culture that most white kids are supporting.

    I read CNN, Brooks, etc. as information to see what my enemies are doing. I don’t get too bent out of shape because they are doing what they are going to do, which is destroy white society. Our response needs to be action, not waiting for a political saviour, or a spicy right wing columnist, or Jesus coming back.

    • Also, please get in shape and dress well, nobody will listen to a fat fuck in real life.

      Stop filling your body with toxic junk, sold to you by anti white corporations like Coca-Cola or McDonalds.

      • Indeed- the Spirit, as all else, is downstream from biology.

        (It is the nascent seed of biology, as well.)

    • That’s one hundred thumbs up right there. May I add another one?

      Your ballot may not be worth anything… but your $$$$ are. Send your political hack a letter of termination. It’s amazing how many people will rant for pages on the internet but won’t send a letter to their politico. Be reasonable and courteous like our esteemed blog host. Tell them what ticks you off and tell him he won’t be getting your vote. Don’t be fooled – letters like that scare the living chit out of those guys. They want their place at the trough if nothing else.

      Vote with your dollars. It doesn’t matter what the rest of us do – it matters what YOU do. When people hate you and say so, you need to hate them right back and stop giving them money. The NBA is collapsing. James LeBoon got reamed for calling a sensitivity fatwa on an innocent cop. The Oscars ratings dived by over 50% from where they were 5 years ago. Coke is trying to walk back it’s last anti-white virtue signal. We can hurt these guys.

      Finally – if you see this progressive idiocy in your family – deal with it. If you can’t do that – delete it. We will not be voting or talking our way out of what is coming, and it may well involve shooting our way out before it’s finished. The sooner we start doing real, concrete things… the better.

      • You know, I’ve never sent a letter to a politician. But you’ve inspired me to do so.

        • Check out They have an efficient fax and email system for contacting your representatives.

    • I’ll take someone receptive to “anti white”. To most Whites, they look at you as if you just said the sun revolves around the earth if you ay there’s an anti White agenda

  10. Re: Buchanan and even Tucker you wonder if they are crypto white nats. Buchanan used to come close (sometimes he sounded like Jared Taylor). He seemed to go just as far in describing the problem – he just never talked much about solutions. Buchanan was close friends with Sam Francis who was explicitly pro white.

    I think Tucker has given props to revolver which links to Vader.

    The thing is if they were explicit like you z, they would be destroyed, – no public voice whatsoever. Buchanan managed to keep his spot on MSNBC for some time and kept his syndicated column for a long time.

      • What ever did we find to blame before our phones knew (or thought they knew) English Grammar?

      • “Darth Vdare.”…hmmmm… 😈
        Would probably risk a call from Disney attorney…

    • Ok so not Tucker I’m afraid. Just saw an interview with him quoted on the oz conservative website. Tucker’s real in to the “wanting to live somewhere where you’re seen as an individual not a color” thing. Would be nice if it were a smokescreen.

      It was fun to try to link him to vdare but alas.

      • Tucker has had Beattie (the guy behind revolver) on his show.

        Beattie is quite good, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he lurked this site, or related ones.

  11. “It is only when the fight steps out from (1) the prevailing moral framework of egalitarianism, and (2) the blank slate, that politics can return to a debate about what is in the best interest of the people.”

    I have modified the above statement to be more clear, although I am far from sure the end result is what the author intended.

    Also, I get nervous whenever someone brings up a phrase such as “the people”. It begs the question, “What people?” Not every human being has the same interests as the others. And who speaks for “the people”, anyway?

    • A related aside, back in the day I had several black people tell me that “Jesse Jackson does not speak for all black people!”, even though, you know, Jesse Jackson speaks for all black people.

        • The sophisticated and boomer high status blacks listen to miles Davies, Louis Armstrong and other black jazz names. I once knew a man named George Daniels in Chicago. He would sit down with his little white dog on the patios of Carmine’s and Tavern on Rush. I learned a lot during my Chicago period.

          Jesse Jackson used to eat at Rosebud on Taylor Street. Many or most urban blacks know Jesse is a grifter, but they all fall into line when it matters. Rather than asking the question, “is this good for Jews” they ask the question, “will this hurt or anger whites?”


            These photos only scratch the surface of George’s influence, but JJ is pictured among them. George’s wife was actually RK’s manager. Having personally discussed RK with prominent as well as the bourgeoisie of Chicago’s black community, they distinguish between the R&B performers as the “artists” and the hip hop performers. Within hip hop, they distinguish between pop performers like Kanye and Drake and the gangster performers like JayZ, Dre and Suge Knight names.

            Generally speaking, you can learn something about an urban black if you ask them if they like Kanye or JayZ.

    • Paul, your question, “What people?” is foundational. I’ll just mention two conclusions that I have come to.

      For non-whites race is more powerful than values. Yes, you can find a few outlier non-whites who don’t put the dominance of their race before any political values that they profess, but they are few and difficult to identify. For example, find me a black Republican who didn’t vote for Obama. With the exception of a few outliers, your skin is your uniform.

      Many whites are anti-white. I believe that a lot of them are conformists who can be saved if the anti-white media is suppressed. But certainly, there is some significant percentage of whites who are our enemies.

      • I’d estimate that roughly 1/3 of whites are our enemies. For all intents and purposes, they might as well be black. Unfortunately, they’re on average quite a bit more intelligent than almost all blacks, and that makes them more dangerous.

        • When the culling finally starts, it will be death to the enemy and collaborators, race notwithstanding. I’d expect the same for our side.

        • True. But, white people at least have the potential to be white. Life is too easy now. Come crunch time, these black whites may show their true color. Chameleons change their color when threatened.

    • On this blog, “the people” means white people. All others are free to make their own way in the world to the best of their ability. They are simply not our concern.

    • That is THE question.
      Ask them. ASK them- “ok, who do you mean by ‘the people’?”

      I didn’t say demand an answer or deliver one. Just plant the seed, let them or others chew on it for themselves.

  12. “Duothat repeats many familiar claims by dissidents about how liberal democracy destroys family, tradition and community, before it then consumes the ancient liberties it is supposed to defend.”

    It’s almost as if society is a recursive loop of that fundamental unit— the family. Almost as if things like patriarchy, blood, and soil aren’t just the fever dreams of racist badmen.

    Almost as if classical liberalism was supposed to be the immune system of the body politic, run out of control these days. Brings to mind all the talk of the wonder shot and ADE. Just daydreaming…

  13. “Republicans and conservatives who believe in the liberal project”

    Did anyone else hear the laugh track when they read that?

  14. I can’t do any better than Z’s money quote:
    “What conservatism has become is a conservation of a system that is literally destroying the people who created it.”
    That is a cold, hard truth that must be confronted. Until then, the operative phrase is, “and so it goes.”

    • I’ll tie it to this: “Brings to mind all the talk of the wonder shot and ADE.”

      Reintroduction to foreign bodies has made the social organism’s autoimmune system overreact.

  15. David Brooks lives in DC. Maybe physically, certainly spiritually. And that’s enough to explain his thought-process. To be truly culturally conservative here is be un-person’d. That’s why my neighbor here in Chevy Chase is speaking to me in hushed tones *in his own front yard* when making reference to the People’s Republic of Montgomery County in context to their recent ban on lawn fertilizer (seriously). Since everything here is political, and thus related to both identity and employment, you cannot both threaten the Company and maintain a social/work life here. There is no way Brooks can simultaneously inhabit spiritual DC and express opinions that don’t conserve DC. Same with Jonah Goldberg, same with George Will, etc. etc.

    • Brooks and Goldberg (and the late unlamented Will) will say whatever their whore-mongers tell them to say.

  16. Tucker dips his toe in the dissident water, then recoils back to safe civnatism.

    He had Pete D’Abrosca on exactly once for a 2 minute segment. Then never again on the show.

    After the bloody nose he gave the ADL the other day, he seems to be content that they have kinda sorta left him alone since. He should have followed up with a full one hour exposé on ADL, then SPLC, then AEI. Go for the jugular while they’re reeling. Let people connect the dots, if needed.

    Aside, anybody notice how the AEI logo resembles a Mideastern font?

    • I understand your points, but I find myself unable to agree.

      Carlson is useful as a pink-piller in the MSM. If he gets some normies thinking for themselves, that’s a win.

      No one else in the MSM is saying anything similar.

      I think a similar argument applies to Sailer, who is useful as a boatman that ferries pink-pillers to this side of the divide.

      • Here’s a guy that openly discussed white racial replacement on the largest TV network in the country and some guys are complaining he didn’t go far enough. Unbelievable.

        He’s testing the waters. Go too far and Tucker, and maybe his whole family might disappear one night or have a tragic carbon monoxide incident.

      • I don’t think it’s controversial to observe that he is at the very absolute limit of what could possibly be said on American television. One inch further and he is fired, to be replaced with a younger version of Sean Hannity.

        Would he _want_ to move that inch? Who cares?

    • If Tucker pushes it he will be gone like Lou Dobbs and we would lose our best red piller. Lets face it the DR has near zero personalities that can do outreach like Tucker can among the normies.

    • I am not a fan of how people refer to the call-and-response back and forth in the media and on twitter as “slamming” or, as you say, “giving them a bloody nose”, or “punching back”, etc. Tucker Carlson made a statement about Immigration. The ADL called for him to be punished for it. He responded that he is not going to be cyber-bullied off the air basically. Oh but if only he had in fact given that ADL guy Greenblatt a bloody nose. That would be progress. But people are just saying crazy stuff in the media to provoke their enemies to say crazy stuff and on and on and on. People are jabbering their way through inflammatory rhetoric, apparently happy to try to incite violence but always keeping themselves at arms length from the real world grime. Everyone in politics and the media is doing this now using whatever topic they know will plainly trigger their opponents. The only people who have actually lashed out en masse as a result of this goading are black people, who now simply refuse to cooperate with the police at all in many cases. If only we could get white people so viciously riled up as to have them en masse start carjacking a car whenever they need to go somewhere or shooting wildly at their neighbors barbecues out of pure spite or punching a cop in the face whenever they ask you for id or simply shoplifting anything they want. All things black people do normally now and we all accept it. Our entire political class encourages it. But at no point has Tucker actually given anyone a bloody nose. And that’s the problem with all of this rhetoric. We need to stop paying attention to the media. It’s not helping us at all. It’s like a simulacrum that is designed to ensnare us so that we are impotently staring at the screen and having strong emotions but never in reality doing anything.

        • This isn’t a 4th grade book report. Your conformity to white male cis-normative writing styles only proves the limitations on your capacity to think. Even the bible was a continuous wall of text until someone like you came along and decided to add punctuation and number the lines, in contravention of the sacred word. Obviously.

          Give it a rest man, your comments are usually pretty lame regardless of formatting.

        • Obviously, from the response, he thinks using proper grammatical construction is a sign of blatant White patriarchy.

  17. ” It is only when the fight steps out from the prevailing moral framework of egalitarianism and the blank slate that politics can return to a debate about what is in the best interest of the people.”

    The best interest of the people, in collective terms, is the continued health and prosperity of the banking industry, just as it has been for a very long time. A few years ago then Fed head Janet Yellen expressed public dismay over low oil prices which were, according to her, idling thousands of oil field trash. Of course her real concern was that fracking companies that had never made a profit (and have since gone bankrupt) wouldn’t be able to repay loans from US banks. To her, the head of US banking, high oil prices for American drivers were the price for a dynamic banking sector. This was little commented upon and not publicly debated by either the so-called conservatives or the progressives.

  18. Brooks isn’t a conservative, never was. Well, he’s a conservative in that he wants to conserve his people, and he’s noticing that the destruction of whites – both demographically and politically – might not be reaching a point of diminishing returns, if not turning negative, i.e. “Not good for the Jews.”

    Douthat seems to be recognizing that the conservative whites were the only thing holding back the Dictatorship of Democracy, a particularly terrifying thought when you realize that the voters are blacks and browns who just don’t seem to be picking up the Anglo-Saxon love of the rule of law.

    Brooks is worried about his people. Douthat is worried that if whites withdraw, the center won’t hold. They’re both correct to be worried.

    • The whites who will be surviving the new Brazil / South Africa / Yugoslavia (and that’s the best case, simply staying alive) will be the Dissident types. Armed, organized, connected, and ruthless. There’s really only three ways whites have a community the days – church, gun range, or family.

      We’re quickly seeing that the Anglo Saxon law system doesn’t work in a country bereft of Anglo Saxons. The rule of law will degrade further and the Latino gangs start baring their teeth. These animals only respond to bullets, not old Jewish men pompously reading something some gringos wrote 300 years ago.

      Unfortunately for the weak managerial types like Brooks they are somewhat screwed. Oh well, they had a safe and prosperous country to live in, but gave it away to the third world.

      • Yeah, it’s stunning that Jews didn’t realize a long time ago that flooding the West with blacks and browns just to spite gentile Whites would wind up hurting Jews.

        But, hey, Jews aren’t the most self-aware people on the planet. They’ve also fully bought into the holocaust story so they think that anything is better than gentile Whites.

        • Proto-Jews used African beast-men as shock troops to destroy Aryan-descended Mesopotamia in 2500 BC, and haven’t looked back since.

          In 200 generations of cousin marriage, that essence is distilled and bone deep.

    • Conservativism, civnattery with their paperwork americans, zionist “judeo-Christian” concoctions, and all the rest are all just about putting honey in the hemlock.

      Shaken or stirred. Take your pick. All sides agree on one thing: to be a real american, you must drink up.

      These soymales see what is coming as do we. So their productions of “(not) who we are” are increasingly difficult to pull off.

      They struggle to both acknowledge the approaching hellscape that is downstream of our destruction while also avoiding acknowledging us as a People and our right to exist as such.

      Sweetening our suicide was easier when the axle of Progress was wrapped in the flag and tilting at the distant evil empires threatening our freedom to turn our daughters into whores and sons into daughters.

      But for progress to exist it must burn the past and pop tomorrows seed corn to animate the current year toward change. The evil empire is us now and the flag is just moar racisms. The statues have been torn down and the future is an insatiable feral brown female.

      The good news is they are running out of honey. The bitter tea of conservatism is getting harder to sell. The bad news is we are running out of People.

      The tween shall meet. Plan accordingly.

      • I joined Gab a few months back. Nothing to do with the Capitol stuff, just decided to join. Anyway, it’s stunning how many CivNats came over to Gap after the Capitol. They were expecting a warm welcome compared to Twitter, but they’re getting roasted by the DR.

        Colorblind CivNats have no home. First, their strategy doesn’t work, so it’s pointless. The Dems hate them and are winning. The DR thinks that they’re morons and coward, and we destroy their arguments, making them look stupid.

        Colorblind CivNat is a suicide cult and that’s becoming more and more obvious.

        • Citizen – I don’t do any social media, but it’s good to hear the DR on gab don’t hold back. In the short time you’ve been on gab, have you noticed that the DR is having any effect on the civnats other than embarrassing them? Specifically, do the civnats even understand what they’re being accused of, or that their basic tenets are the same as those of the left? Or do they merely cry “rayciss” and pout about incivility?

          • Not sure that the DR is having an effect on them. In part, we should be more patient with the CivNat, but their moral superiority makes that a bit hard.

            You really have two types of CivNat over there. First, the patriotic CivNat who views being colorblind as part of being an American. They hate the Left because of policies and because “they are the real racists.”

            I do think that we can get some of these guys with time and patience. They’re slowly realizing that their strategy of having no team isn’t working against the Left, even if they don’t like it, i.e. they might be forced to stop being colorblind by the other side. I also think that just seeing Whites who are proud to be White but not Nazi larpers helps.

            The other CivNat is the very religious types. They go with the “We’re all God’s children” mantra, so racism to them is literally unholy. These will be a tougher nut to crack. (Lineman might help us with them.)

            That said, of the two groups, I’d way more want to get the religious CivNats on our side. They’ll fight for our cause on the ground and have your back. Truth is that we need them to win.

          • Citizen missed the third type: the LARPer. The conversation inevitably goes like this:
            Q: “Why then as a white person do you hate white people so much?”
            A: “Lol, I’m not white”

        • Yes, this makes sense. But the DR needs to have more patience with the CivNats because they’re the logical recruits for the DR. The CivNats are in a crisis of denial, just like kids who’ve been told there is no Santa, nor milk nor cookies either…..

          The grief and acceptance come soon after this phase. It’s a process.

          • I agree, even that I don’t always practice what I preach. Instead of telling them that they’re stupid for being colorblind, we need to walk them through how it’s not working and how it’s not so terrible to love your own people.

            However, they are pretty insufferable. They definitely love being your moral better by calling us racists. Hard to keep your cool when they act like that.

          • Captain Willard: In my (admittedly) limited experience, the religious civnats are equally adept as the left when it comes to cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, they will rabbit on about how we’re all God’s children and how hate is corrosive and vengeance is the Lord’s. On the other hand, the more realistic ones (usually the Scots-Irish) will admit that one has a responsibility to one’s own family first, that self defense is perfectly normal and acceptable, and that Christianity was not meant to be a suicide cult.

            I’ve also gotten the excuse “I’ve had so many blacks/browns/etc. be so kind to me.” I personally have not had totally negative experiences with non-Whites, but I don’t equate outliers with the mean and I’m way past the stage of judging individually. The problem is that some Christian ‘conservative’ civnats may move toward the DR as the anti-White activity intensifies, but a lot of them will literally sacrifice their children to the woke, believing they’re headed for sainthood because of their persecution. It’s really hard to say how that group will go.

    • David Brooks divorced his wife of almost 30 years, changed religions, married his “research assistant” who was 20 years younger than him, the write a celebrated article called “The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake.”

      What could possibly be more conservative than that bio, I ask you?

      • ProZnoV – Actually, I don’t think Brooks changed religions, he’s always been a Jevv. Both his wives converted to Judaism for his sake prior to the marriage. So the first one dumped her family and faith for him and then he dumped her. What a mensch.

      • I heard him speak in person at a conference a few years ago and he described his personal journey and new romance with passion and sincerity. Only Brooks could make his tale of chucking his old lady for a new, fresher piece sound like a Herman Hesse novel…..

        Many in this thread have commented on his staggering lack of self awareness, but you really have to see it “live” to believe it.

        • Werner Erhard, the founder of the 1970s Est movement, was little different. And that’s per his official biography. Abandoned wife and family, faithless businessman, etc. Changed identity and started over. I’m ashamed to admit that I paid money to this scam artist. in the 80s, when it was called “The Forum” by Werner Erhard Associates, which could be accurately described as a mix of all the worst features of a self-help movement, a cult, and multi-level marketing. 🙁

      • What could possibly be more conservative?

        Perhaps Brooks in a sundress, heels and lipstick-?

  19. More true now than when it was written ten years ago.

    Though he sometimes makes a case for his “Ice People” (Whites + Asians) alliance against the coming black and brown demographic tsunami, Derb knows the West is doomed. It’s not coming back. The numbers are too overwhelming and White people can’t even get it up to reproduce themselves, much less reclaim their cultures and lands.

    • The idea of whites and Asians teaming up is ridiculous. Asians, especially Chinese, resent whites due to our perceived role in the opium trade and the century of humiliation. They hate that white men sleep with Asian women so much. Just because they’re meek and polite (to you) doesn’t mean they like you.

      And anybody who has been over to Asians’ houses know that they are actually quite lively in private. The super meek attitude is a facade they have on while at work, on the bus, etc. Seems to be cultural.

      They’re also quite lively in their resentment of whites, behind closed doors…

      • People who think the Germans had an ethnic superiority complex have never dealt with the unvarnished sentiments of Han Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans.

      • You describe the character and mentality of the passive-aggressive: They are mostly reticient in public, for now, but are hostile in private.

        The males resent us, I’m sure, for the fact that we offer the females, in many cases, an opportunity to enjoy a much larger tool without the extreme social disgrace of burning coal in bed with a low IQ semibonobo. This combination of characteristics makes us serious mating rivals in a way that few of semibonobos can be.

      • Ridiculous, sure- but still, it’s happening, an unlikely a pairing as Siberian Denisovians pairing with Euro Cromagnons to create the mestizo New World.

        Nature’s scale is patience; Creation keeps trying new combinations. All to effect fulfillment of the final function of a living world- the Seeding, the Heaven unlocked by the Whites and their Christ-like Spirit.

    • Low birthrate is a consequence of long term affluence & its consequent extinction of fitness selection culling. As any population persistently accrues DNA contamination, nature’s response is either colony collapse or hyper-selective mating behavior by females. So what is the best way to reintroduce fitness selection culling is the modern era? Boy-o-boy, talk about a toxic taboo subject for public debate!

    • John Derbyshire is a genius!

      And a big fan of the Z-man, I first heard of him from the Derb

    • The stat people should bring up whenever somebody mentions “minorities” is that white people ARE a global minority making up a smaller population worldwide (12-15%) than many groups benefitting from affirmative action in the European and European diaspora countries.

  20. All across the West, Elite Inc. & its lapdog politicians are pushing as hard as they can to force a violent explosion within their nation’s ancestral population. Yes, this is madness, but it is reality nonetheless. Why they do this is beside the point. They have become the root problem. And at some point that will become obvious to a critical mass of the public. They fear the pitchfork mob storming the gates of the citadel, but what if a different remedy occurs? One that exploits their greatest weaknesses and is extremely difficult to defend against. What if the antibodies are smart, elusive, and novel? What if infiltration works both ways and the guard at the door is not what it seems? What if the manufactured desperation yields primal cunning rather than cowering subservience? We have no fate but what we make.

  21. Here’s to a new column entitled ‘The Conservative Case for Embracing White Identity’.

  22. What is the shape of a plausible future configuration of human organization? One perspective I take on things is recognizing there is some finite carrying capacity of the planet for its human population. Coupled with the true “dismal science” of HBD and what it reveals about the potential and capabilities of genetic populations a lot of policies being pursued do have a certain consistency and logic. The material wealth generated through advances in technology has enabled the explosive growth of populations that could never have generated it nor could they sustain it. Obviously you can’t have representative government working with that raw material either but the longer you as the ruler can maintain the charade of one, avoiding directly confronting a population that has been raised to believe it is their birthright, the longer you can avoid resorting to force directly. White privilege is the concept our rulers have come up with to disabuse whites of idea that they are entitled to representative government whose primary task is to serve their interests. Whites could have that but only in the context of something like a south african model coupled with genetic engineering and ruthless population control measures on the genetic have-nots. Our elites see whites in the same way. They are composed partly of outsider “white presenting” hostile aliens to European civilization and partly by collaborating race-traitors cementing their high status within the ruling class by collaborating in the white “genocide by a thousand cuts.” They have the strength of the reigns of power and unity of purpose, whites have the strength of numbers and that is exactly why the greatest crime in the moral framework of our rulers is any encouragement of white identity awareness. I think our biggest challenge is overcoming this and producing political leaders for the movement. Trump’s greatest crime was presenting as political leader that owed his office to that white constituency. Never mind that he wasn’t really that leader, he had to be undermined, vilified, and destroyed if possible because we thought he might work for our interests.

  23. The short answer to what is killing conservatism in America is “America.” But you cannot tell that to people who spent most of their lives in the twentieth century, even if they’re conservative. They’ve been bred to believe “America” is great, and the solution to all problems. America is a staggering zombie, a reanimated version of a loved one. It looks like your dead grandma, and as it lumbers toward you it plays on your heart strings, but if you get too close, you get bit and and you’re toast, too. How do we get normies to accept that America is killing them, and that the only hope for White America is to withdraw, and use their skills and spiritual endowments to recreate what did actually make America great, for the time that it was great? It’s true that the black and Hispanics on the right half of the Bell Curve know they have a good thing (or a had good thing) in a functioning America, but our elite hates bourgeois blacks and Hispanics, and only rewards and emboldens those dumb, psychopathic, or desperate enough to be used against what’s left of civil society in America. I feel bad for blacks and Hispanics who know this is crazy, but they’re on their own, as are the Jews who are not insane or evil, like Jim Kunstler/ Steven Miller types. We need to start over, and advocate for it peacefully and reasonably. If they hate us and we’re the only thing keeping post-racial America from being a utopia, they should be happy to see us go.

    • As someone that spent the better part of my life so far in the 20th century one of the most disorienting things about today’s America is that it embodies everything we were raised to think it was worth nuking the whole world to prevent. I wonder how many of my coevals have the same outlook.

    • Let’s keep the land, and extirpate the Columbians.

      Here is a depiction of the whore, Columbia:

      Her District ( we must abolish as a separate political entity apart from the rest of Maryland, which has a repugnant name, I would add.

      As it turns out, the Democrats have opened a conversion on the latter goal. They want to convert the DC into a state, but the precious Constitution prescribes a “District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States” (Art. I, Sec. 8). So conversion of the DC into a new state will necessitate the establishment of a new “District (not exceeding ten Miles square)”. One way out of the connundrum for the Democrats is to pass an amendment to the Constitution to abolish the requirement for a “District”, also mentioned in the 23rd am. This will draw a lot of fire against them given the fact that it would call much more attention to their plot to grant four Senators to Maryland, a point which appears to be over the heads of most Republican voters and the talking heads whom they trust.

      • An amendment requires a constitutional convention. Congress has been avoiding that for decades through the expediency of getting the holy priests of democracy in the supreme court to enunciate the revealed commandments as desired. My bet is that Roberts, fresh from being reminded of that donkey f*cking episode in Tijuana casts the tie breaking vote on the opinion that the requirement for the district was actually a requirement for no district.

        • The death knell- a Constitutional Convention.

          Just as our Civil Rights were a replacement fot the black-letter law of the Anglo Constitution (and the Canadians got Trudeau’s communist Charter), a Convention will enshrine the Second Gentleman, Doug Emhoff, as Holy Regent.

      • Where to put the Africans?
        Not the long-suffering South.

        Put them in a ring around Columbia, and around New Jerusalem West, aka New York City, Broward County FL, and Hollywood.

        Let the Wokies commute through that banlieu- they love urban rail, do they not?

  24. “The crisis of modern conservatism is that conservatism must begin and end with the conservation of the people.”

    That along with the rest of the penultimate paragraph nails it. Conservation of a nation’s people make it a nation. Failure to do so makes it a factory farm with overwhelmed slaughter houses.

    I have taken to listening to conservative talk radio since the election. You detect both an unvoiced acknowledgement there is ongoing genocide along with fear to admit such. The hosts go up to the bell, refuse to ring it, and then fall back on clichés and fantasies such as MLK quotes. Tucker Carlson is considered edgy only because he will, on very rare occasions, tepidly voice a well-edited slight admission of what is happening.

    Tomalj radio is a lagging indicator, I suspect. Conservatives probably are a step or two ahead, at least in their thought processes. Individuals don’t have to rely on My Pillow commercials.

    We should not alienate these people but help them along by pointing out empirical and undeniable facts and also the steady stream of lies they are fed. It is more affirmation than conversion now. I always have been a nationalist of the Right but most people arrive here from conservatism. If we prevail, it will be by first reaching those who listen to Hannity and fibd something a little off these days

  25. Unfortunately, the population in this (former) country is now so polluted with various shades of pox and various forms of degeneracy, getting a majority to step away from the prevailing morality is going to be tough. The powers that be and the social media mobs won’t allow it – even at a local level.

    No one with any fame or gravitas has the stones to call out the demographic reality and further, lead the charge. Perhaps Carlson, sort of, but it’s the toxic third rail of everything these days.
    I still think the only chance is some sort of existential crisis that absolutely forces these things to be confronted and dealt with once and for all. And it had better happen pretty soon – the hour is very late.

    • The only solution right now is to balkanize. We need to separate ourselves from the system as much as possible and coordinate with like-minded people in silence. If some dissident group disagrees with another, who cares, just don’t bother them and work on your own tribe. Once some of these groups gains enough power outside normal politics, we can talk about how we can live with each other.

      • One way to “balkanize” would be to separate the control of rural and urban areas. Declare “city states” to be independent, self-governing entities. Dissolve geographic state boundaries and governments. Self-governing, non-urban counties organize into cooperative groups, regardless of geographic area.

        The urbanites can coddle the trannys, the druggies, and the “oppressed minorities”, provided they are entirely self-financed, and their “values” and costs are not imposed on anyone outside their borders.

        • The only way that happens is with a complete collapse, otherwise the cities will send hordes of angry white men in blue to shoot you and your ilk dead.,

          Yeah that’s right your fellow whites will be the first to try and kill you. Study your damn American history. Ever since lower class whites have gotten uppity, the ruling classes had no problem recruiting other white men in the form of ANG’s, Pinkerton men, rent-a-thugs to murder us. Today it would be no different. The various police departments, PMC’s and ANG units would have no qualms gunning us down. Those men sold their soul for 20 pieces of silver a long time ago.

          These whites don’t care if they are working for the nogs, chinks or some other brown skin tyrant as long as the money is good.

          • Yup, every week across Canada white thugs are being sent in to disrupt church services which are “violating” the lockdown.

            That’s one reason I don’t care about Chauvin personally. I could easily see him attacking Christians, then returning home to his alien wife and mutt kids.

            Which side would he take? I guess he will have a long time to mull it over.

    • The toxic third rail is failing. Witness Buchanan, Carlson and the entire emerging dissident right. Reality always intrudes. Eventually. So it’s happening now as demographic replacement becomes ever more obvious.

      • Tucker went about as far as he could go on MSM TV in terms of naming the unnamed people without having the screen immediately cut to a test pattern until a Slap Chop infomercial could be cued up to fill the remainder of his airtime.

        • Sometimes our impatience blinds us to the reality of what it would take to reverse our nearly-two century slide into obsolescence. The left got where it is today, through a persistent march through the institutions and an incremental (though at times, such as the present day, accelerated) capture of cultural territory.

          Tucker’s not going to come out as a dissident. It’s unlikely that Tucker’s one day replacement will either. But there are green shoots appearing in many places. The crumbling TV ratings for the Oscars and the Congolese Netball League are one example. There’s been an explosion of anti-woke sports media on Youtube. Many of them are still using the “get woke, go broke” cope, but you also see lots of commenters touching the third rail. I watched a Mark Dice video over the weekend and he’s gone from man-on-the-street videos where he shows the stupidity of lefty millennials to discussing FBI crime statistics and what they portend. And we’ve all had the private conversations at work or with friends where things were said that wouldn’t have been uttered even 5 years ago.

          I’d say the wave has crashed over the beach and the undertow is just now beginning. Contra the Z-man’s take on David Brooks, the strong man remains a possibility as I think there is a growing constituency awaiting that person. For me, the danger is that so many of the Dissident-curious types would quickly gravitate toward a female or colored “leader” in order to salve the guilt they’ve been taught to feel, leaving us with Trump 2.0.

          • KGB-

            You nailed it.

            Tucker is not going dissident because he has too much to lose in terms of his pay check and family fortune.

            That said, it should be clear he understands what is happening and he is unhappy about it.

            His ADL monologue was specifically crafted to go right up to the line without crossing over it.

            If that gets some normies asking questions, that’s a win.

            Speaking of small wins, the alphabet soup movement is the best example of this in the modern era.

            The alphabet soup flood we see now can be directly traced back to the 70s,when those people successfully got the libraries to stop classifying their lit as degenerate.

          • Well said. That GD guilt is the one main thing that has to be shed. As long as it’s there, tugging at YT’s heartstrings, the tough decisions will be hard to come by.

          • “For me, the danger is that so many of the Dissident-curious types would quickly gravitate toward a female or colored “leader” in order to salve the guilt”

            I couldn’t agree more but there is hope. The tribal sorting is making the MLK fantasy seem even more fantastic, and the obviously mentally ill White gals at the BLM fests have opened many eyes.

            Today too many cucks would see Candace Owens as a savior, but tonight a few more Whites will make a wrong turn into a BLM love fest.

            The line in the 70’s/80’s was “a conservative is a liberal who was mugged ” The line today should be a Dissident is a cuck who took a wrong turn and saw Shitavious and Shitniqua up close and personal.”

  26. The problem is that there are no leaders anywhere on the Right. Even Trump. Trump got a big pass because he was willing to say directly that we (i.e. his supporters) do not want more (illegal) immigration from Latin America. That is pretty much what was driving most of his support. The other stuff that Chamber of Commerce or Religious Republicans try to throw into the conversation never really had an audience. Most people don’t really care about the Capital Gains Tax or Religion at all. The only thing the Republican Party is good for now is providing a platform for Transexuals like Caitlyn Jenner or non-white people like Tim Scott or flaming homosexuals like Lindsey Graham. A kind of “Off-Broadway” version of politics where third rate performers can still get a little bit of airtime on the nightly news. Ultimately, politics is a dead end. I think the only thing really making politics seem attractive is that non-white people, illegal immigrants, and race baiting shills seem to be using it effectively. But in reality they aren’t getting hardly anything done. It’s all just a lot of talk. If it hadn’t been for the truly egregious power grab we witnessed during the Covid attack, which in my opinion should be considered a biological attack and an act of war that was abetted by the Democrats, we would all just be working and doing normal things like always. Nothing really changed except the way they talk about things on TV. Yet, it feels like we lost already. That’s how psychological warfare works. The mere fact that we have been subjected to biological and psychological warfare should be talked about more. Like… stop talking about what people on TV are saying and instead talk about how these 5th generation warfare techniques are in fact being used against us. It’s a war crime. What’s even worse is that now that we have seen it done to our own political system, it’s truly horrifying that the US government has been doing this same stuff to other countries for decades. The US government is the problem.

  27. One of my buddies knew Douthat in college, and apparently he was significantly more based than the pudgy piece of soy he is now. Apparently he was even part of a mildly-edgy newspaper. Rest assured, his views now are carefully calculated to be on the surface mildly provocative, but ultimately toothless. He’s the quintessential charlatan who goes with the wind of those in power because he likes the prestige, like most journalists and professors. If we had the strongman they pretend to fear and that strongman did the first obvious thing and turned Harvard to glass, he would be one of the first foot-soldiers to sing the praises of the new order.

    • “the pudgy piece of soy he is now” “quintessential charlatan”
      Pure poetry. I know exactly who you are talking about, and can picture him perfectly.

      • You know, I honestly didn’t know who this doughy bean-head was until I looked him up just now. How do these neckbearded legume gluttons find their way into prestigious “conservative” media jobs in the first place? I mean, I get it that Conservatism Inc is a sham, but you’d think that they’d do a better job of finding minions who at LEAST look the part.

  28. ZMan is totally wrong here. Ben Shapiro is about to point out that Chauvin voted for Obama. Twice!

    Wait until that “sick burn” comes out and shows how hypocritical the left is and they’ll surrender on the spot.

  29. Vermin-like rapacity

    Just when you think Z can’t outdo himself, he does.

    Thank you for your verbal acuity. It makes your posts that much more enjoyable.

    • Just for the record, and perhaps to get a cheap ‘like’ from Zman, I never EVER think Zman can’t outdo himself.

  30. But how do you define the people? I have a couple of friends who are Mayflower descendants yet are social justice warriors through and through. And a Latino acquaintance who very much believes in a moral order akin to the one you suggest.
    Demographics, too, are malleable.

    • Back in the day we used to call them “Americans”. Nowadays they are split and divided along the lines of the frooty coloured rainbow. I would start with them, and of those, I’d start with the blacks. Any black person that thinks George Floyd is a saint gets a free ride back to Africa. And to prove I’m not racist – any whites thinking that way can go to. After that, the Jews. Those that foment race tensions get sent back to Israel. Whites afflicted with white guilt can be shipped back to their neoliberal peers in Europe. Germany would be my suggestion, Angela Merkel has created the world’s first multicultural Utopia they would be right at home with. The queers and other perverts could be worked to death in the camps.

      • “Any black person that thinks George Floyd is a saint gets a free ride back to Africa.”

        What are you going to do, drop them off on the beaches of Sierra Leone? Africa doesn’t want our shiftless, uneducated, entitled, psychotic blacks any more than we do.

        Lincoln or rather the post-Civil War USG missed its opportunity to remove blacks from the US after the 13th Amendment – repatriation was actually considered at the time. There were plenty of colonies in Africa and Central and South America that were still controlled by Europeans and we could have probably made a deal with someone somewhere to resettle our obsolete farm implements back in 1865. But there’s nowhere outside the US to send them to now. We are either going to have to ruthlessly reassert White control of this country (unlikely), or set aside a geographical area in our borders for blacks and call it Wakanda West.

        • If the US or Europe wanted to resettle their blacks in Africa, all you need to do if find an African leader willing to take a bribe, I’d say they would be lined up begging for the cash. if you offered $1 billion to any country willing to take in US blacks, so for $46 billion you could in theory start a program which would allow US blacks move to the African country of their choice

          $46 billion sounds like a lot of money, but actually its a bargain, in fact I’d add in a lot more, if paying blacks to leave the west is what’s need to make it happen

          • Even if the scheme were otherwise plausible, a fatal flaw in it: Africa is very tribal. The Afro-Americans of North America, indeed any Negro descendant of slavery, have been in the West for up to five centuries. As such, they have no tribal identity. Most are chance hybrids of multiple Negroid races ancestral West Africa with admixture of non-African races. Transported suddenly to any region of Africa, they’d likely suffer the twin handicaps of having no identity of their own, and to be loathed by the natives of the area.

            It is only White liberal feather-heads that could imagine that America’s Blacks would be welcomed with open arms by the mother continent.

        • “What are you going to do, drop them off on the beaches of Sierra Leone? Africa doesn’t want our shiftless, uneducated, entitled, psychotic blacks any more than we do.”

          Yep. That’s why they sold them to us centuries ago.

        • Are you nuts? The abolitionist fanatics would never have let their precious Negroes be shipped off back to Africa after 1865. They wanted them right here in America because they were angelic, Christ-like black martyrs that had to stay put in America because we somehow owe them, in perpetuity, and must also wash their feet, in perpetuity- just like Saint George Floyd.

        • I know I’ve posted this before, but when Madison attempted to free his slaves and repatriate them back to Africa, they asked to be sold instead, which he did to a relative.

        • He’ll, I’d be willing to pay them a million or two a piece to permanently relocate out of the country.

          To where? Who gives a fuck. I’m sure there’d be plenty of placing willing to take in nuveau rich African immigrants.

      • “And to prove I’m not racist”

        Don’t do that. Don’t submit to the Left’s morality. You literally just lost the argument right there. Break free or submit.

    • “Demographic, too, are malleable.”

      Two things.

      Thing one. Demographic are malleable, but within limits. Genetic distance place limits on cultural malleability.

      Thing two. Propaganda works. The media, the university, the government lies and propagandizes prodigiously. How resistant one is to these assaults on rationality depends on how strong your cognitive equipment is and how much exposure to the propaganda you suffer.

      • Repetition is a key hallmark of effective propaganda.

        Let me repeat that: repetition is a key hallmark of effective propaganda.

        Now watch TV/movies/news media…the anti-white, anti-hetero, anti-male messaging has been amped up to 11 for at least a decade.

        It’s having it’s intended effect.

        Because repetition is a key hallmark of effective propaganda.

        • Covid is the most obvious one at the moment.

          The endless repetition from every angle should be a tip off that all is not what it seems.

    • Nice try, fifth columnist. But your childish colorblind CivNat platitudes – which I don’t actually think you believe but just use a tool to undermine and divert – have long been destroyed around here and are now simply laughed at.

      I’m surprised that you didn’t start with “Italians and Irish weren’t considered white 150 years ago.” I guess that no longer works so you guys are going with “my conservative pretty-white looking Latino friend” these days.

      But for the record, for many thousands of years, countless races and ethnicities have managed to figure out who are their people and who are not, even if things get a bit frayed at the edges. I’m pretty sure that we can work it out as well.


      • “But how do you define the people?”
        Needlessly splitting hairs, trying to get lost in the minutia. This is similar to the Left’s attempts to undermine genetics by claiming that “race doesn’t exist!” Oh really? Can me and my wife perform coitus and expect a little Asian baby to pop out 9 months later?

        Don’t try to complicate something that is extremely obvious and simple. (The Left seems to think that convolution is necessarily intelligent) Consider a healthy fit person who exercises daily, has a steady diet, a few reasonable vices, compared to a generally unhealthy person who leads a sedentary life, eats garbage and has degenerate vices. Then one day, you inject the healthy person with a fatal poison. “What even IS healthy anyway? I mean this “healthy” person is at death’s door, while this unhealthy person is still chugging along just fine!”

        • I learned long ago that the job of hasbara trolls was to muddy the waters, to get people to go down a rabbit holes of definitions and as you say hair-splitting.

          They also love, love, love to bring up the edge and present it as the middle, which is why they always use the “Italian and Irish weren’t considered white in the 18th century” or this guy’s “my conservative Latino buddy” schtick.

          Seriously, these tribal trolls are incredibly lazy. They literally use the same lines over and over. Admittedly, it’s worked extremely well against gullible whites, who argue in good faith. (They’re really good at using high-trust against us.)

          The best answer to them is the simplest: Shut up J**. We know who we are, and, now, we know who you are.

          • Totally agree with everything.

            I’m at the point where I don’t care if I’m dealing with a shill or a dupe, if you’re making the same argument, I’ll treat you as a shill. The result is the same and its not my job to decipher which is which.

          • Actually, I retract my criticism of the Hasbara trolls using the same lines over and over. Look, they’re no different than a salesman, and a salesman has a script, which has been crafted very carefully to push emotional buttons in the intended audience.

            These guys are just following their script – because it works. Also, like any salesman, they make money with volumne, so they spit out the script and see if it works. If it does, they keep going with more scripted material. If not, they move on. Makes sense.

            Regardless, always remember, they’re not debating with you. You’re just a sucker that they’re hoping with bit their bait.

          • Sometimes its good training to shadowbox. You can also teach others by shadowboxing. You’re not actually fighting anyone. But you’re getting things done all the same.

          • Agree on the shadowboxing. The trolls arguments might be scripted and stupid, but they’re not any different that what a real CivNat says.

    • Mayflower descendants who are social justice warriors? I’m sorry, is that supposed to be jarring?

    • imbroglio: No one here would deny that goodwhites are a problem. And those who cannot be forced to their senses must remain outcasts – when the great sorting happens, they must be sent off to live with their ideological brethren, and their genetic legacy will be subsumed.

      Problem is with your purported ‘based’ Latino (or everyone’s favorite ‘x’ is different). Each race has its far-right end of the bell curve and/or the small minority with industry and independence combined with traditional values. The eternal problem, which I find individuals like you never address, is that you are then deliberately introducing diversity – no matter the percentage – into your nascent homeland. Are their children going to be the same as the parents? Are you going to allow in more ‘special’ Latinos for them to marry, or are they going to intermarry (assuming based, nationalist Whites are willing to do this) and have them be pretty indistinguishable from other Whites in 5-6 generations?

      Some, like John Derbyshire, assert that it’s similar to a bit of ‘salt’ in the ‘stew’ – i.e. a small amount improves the mixture whereas too much renders it unpalatable. But even that small amount of ‘salt’ then appears to give credence to the civic nationalist belief that it’s ‘culture’ (from magic dirt or magic air or mere White society) that matters and not biology, so adding your magic based ‘x’ in the beginning admits a weakness that will, in the future, turn into the exact globohomo world we live in today.

      Demographics are NOT malleable. Study history and genetics. When one tribe moves into another’s territory, the native male genes almost entirely disappear. The conquerors kill the men and mate with the local women. There is no peaceful or shared territory anywhere on the earth. Wise up.

      • I really need to edit before I hit reply.

        tl;dr: just the last paragraph of my comment is sufficient unto itself. And Citizen, you are absolutely correct. I should have just ignored imbroglio as a troll rather than respond rationally,

        • They can be good practice. Stupid as they, they say the same thing as real CivNats.

  31. It might well be there is nothing left to conserve. Once a culture is gone, how do you get it back? Trying to revitalize Western Civilization might be like trying to revive pharonic Egypt.

    Best case, we’re the Soviet Bloc. Whatever made, say, a Romanian had been stamped out, replaced by the loosest collective identity: “we are mutual sufferers of state repression.” Worst case — and I fear we’re worst case — we are the Ik, brutal individualists with no culture to speak of.

    How does one pull a culture together after that? That’s where goofs like Brooks are right, albeit for the wrong reasons – the Strongman provides those temporary pseudo-social bonds. I know I don’t have to tell *you* this, Z, but for those who haven’t studied it, this wad THE primary purpose of Fascism — to provide those bonds, thus avoiding the “alienation” of industrial society that led to Marxist revolution. (Fascism always accepted Marxist analysis as correct… largely because it IS correct, at least in it’s very narrow lane).

    • “How does one pull a culture together after that?”

      That’s the tragedy of this whole thing. Its this fact about immigration which the normie needs to understand. Once it happens, that’s it, there’s no going back. Things have changed now, forever, irrevocably. Whatever you had is gone and its not coming back. The cat’s outta the bag…

      One of the epiphanies I had while reading Marx– the economy/exchange system of a society will effect the way people interact with eachother. We live in an international exchange system. We buy cheap products which are disposable as opposed to durable. We don’t buy a toaster which we intend to keep for the rest of our lives. We will buy 3,4 toasters at least. If it breaks we don’t fix it– that would be ludicrous. We throw it away and replace it with a new one.

      This is how people interact with eachother now. This is how people understand the world, and politics (on a subconscious level at least).
      Meh. My neighbor moved and is replace with a new one. My culture is dead. Meh.

      • Yes, Marx is quite useful on that score. His contention in the German Ideology is that the base (the relations of production, as he calls them: working conditions, property relations, financial relations, employee/employer relationships) is generative of the superstructure in a society. The superstructure comprises the customs, culture, religion, social relationships, social mores, legal relationships that ensure the smooth functioning and continuation of the base. (Until such time as those relations of production change, as they always will.)

        In sum, how profit is extracted from your labor and the specific material conditions of “work” and capitalist production in your specific time and place produces a culture, educational, and legal structure that aims to protect and serve those conditions.

        Now, we may argue as to whether Marx got this backwards, but in the Communist Manifesto we all have read his prescient observations as to how capitalism sweeps away all fixed, fast-frozen relations such as religion and the family. This is why he was so giddy about capital’s advance — it would prepare the conditions for communism. And in the Grundrisse Marx also astutely observed how technological advances (the machine) would do the same to labor over time, making the worker ever more-disposable, and ever more precarious and unable to maintain a family and thus traditional European culture in his poverty. Profit doesn’t care about marriage, or music, or art, or anything but remaining profitable. It will do what is necessary to maintain M – C – M’, even if it involves carpet bombing the Louvre and redefining the family as five eunuchs.

        Over the years I have attempted to discuss Marx with conservatives on this point — pointing out to them the destructive march of globalism through American life and its effects upon the family and our heritage — with (obviously) no success. Even giving them books such as “I’ll Take My Stand” got me nowhere. And now we see how the lust for profit and the current relations of production under globalism (the base) have destroyed a way of life and replaced it with a new code of values and social organization above (superstructure).

        Michel Houellebecq’s world of atomized, rootless, family-less, faithless, amorphous individuals slaving away for Globohomo Inc. is here.

        • That was an incredibly erudite and succinct summary, if I may say so.

          “Over the years I have attempted to discuss Marx with conservatives on this point — pointing out to them the destructive march of globalism through American life and its effects upon the family and our heritage — with (obviously) no success”

          I too have struggled with this. I think many on the DR came here after reading through Leftist/Liberal/Socialist materials in earnest at some point in their life.

          However, there are a lot of “lifers” in the conservative party. For many of them, Marx is evil as is everything he ever stated. There can only be the simple dichotomy of Capitalism good v. Marxism bad.

          But in fact, you can agree with certain points, ideas, theories, criticisms without accepting the whole. You can learn something from the man without turning into a “true believer” as Zman terms it. We need to understand our current circumstances and how we got here in order to fix the major problems we now face, and understanding Marxist ideas and influence is effective in this endeavor for multiple reasons.

          • Thank you for the compliment. I agree wholeheartedly. Take the meat and leave the bones, as Aquinas wrote. We must read everything we can, both for intellectual but also tactical reasons.

            I will look for comments from you here henceforth, and hope to keep sharing thoughts with you.

    • PS before anyone jumps down my throat for saying anything nice about Karl Marx, the best description I’ve read of Fascism — as it existed in the minds of reflective kids back when it was a going concern — was a war memoir called Black Edelweiss. It might be tough to find, as it was written by a member of the Waffen-SS and…well… you know. Anyway, he wrote it in prison in 1946, and he talks about the idealism of him and his comrades. Not for some glorious monochromatic future, but for a society absent the constant “class struggle” of Marxism, which he takes as a given. Worth a look if you can grab it, though I can understand you might not want it showing up in your Amazon search history.*

      *I got a pass, as back in my teaching days I could always more or less plausibly claim my terrible, horrible, no good very bad reading habits were for “research.”

      • This looks like the book you mention:

        Black Edelweiss:
        A Memoir Of Combat And Conscience By A Soldier Of The Waffen-SS

        By Johann Voss
        (sounds like foss or fauce, auf Deutsch)

        Downloads available in the usual formats.

        FYI, I believe that a new edition of Cialdini’s Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion is due out soon. As you know, he’s one of the darlings of the gaslighter class.

        • That’s the one. I don’t vouch for the translation or accuracy, and given the circumstances it’s more than a little self-serving, I suppose, but very interesting for all that. Thanks for the link.

          • Don’t mention it. I think, however, that you may have undersold the book just a little. Voss was still quite young at the war’s end, but he wrote in the Preface that “I have enjoyed a rich professional life as a corporate lawyer with various international ties”. In fact,…

            This book was conceived and for the most part written a long time ago. I was then a prisoner of the US Army from March 1945 to December 1946. The idea of editing and publishing the manuscript had never crossed my mind in the following decades. The war and what followed were a closed chapter. The subject surfaced only when President Reagan and Chancellor Kohl visited the German military cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, in 1985. This visit raised worldwide protests, namely because some young Waffen-SS soldiers were buried there. Including these soldiers in the memorial ceremony was widely regarded as an outrageous affair. Since then the indiscriminate damnation of Waffen-SS soldiers has become even more pervasive and intransigent. Apparently, in the sixty years since those soldiers fell in battle, the rubble, which the collapsing Reich heaped upon the course of their short lives, was not removed.

            So by the time that the book was edited down to its final length (about 1/2 of the original manuscript) for publication, Voss had acquired much knowledge and understanding about the world and the war. It appears also from the Acknowledgements that he had the help of several Americans.

      • There’s “descriptive” Marx and “prescriptive” Marx. The former is the only one that should be discussed in 21st c. The latter is just a trail of carnage and no thinking person should defend it.

    • Severian, I must object bluntly to your claim that

      Fascism always accepted Marxist analysis as correct… largely because it IS correct, at least in it’s very narrow lane

      That idea is difficult to defend once we understand that Fascism arose because, in part, Marxist analysis was utterly defective and, by the end of the Great War, had been discredited before the eyes of many communists. Fascism arose in no small part as a movment of disgruntled and disillusioned Marxists, syndicalists, etc. who sought a pragmatic route to power. One of the many dirty little secrets of Fascism is that

      Its leaders and initiators were secular-minded, highly progressive intellectuals, hard-headed haters of existing society and especially of its most bourgeois aspects.


      Mussolini and a group of adherents launched the Fascist movement in 1919. The initiators were mostly men of the left: revolutionary syndicalists and former Marxists. They took with them some non-socialist nationalists and futurists, and recruited heavily among soldiers returning from the war, so that the bulk of rank-and-file Fascists had no leftwing background.


      Of the seven who attended the preparatory meeting two days before the launch, five were former Marxists or syndicalists.

      Now, how could that be true if Marxism was mostly correct? Why would Marxists and syndicalists have given up their internationalism? Is Fascism a euphemism for pragmatic Marxism?? Well, no. The story more complicated, as explained by one of communism’s many apostates, a libertarian by the name of David Steele, in

      The Mystery of Fascism:
      Mussolini – as he would have liked to be remembered
      (PDF available for free download)

      The plot in the story of Fascism begins to thicken significantly in the 1890’s during what Steele called “the Crisis of Marxism”. (This is not, I think, his own phrase.) The manually laboring class wasn’t becoming much worse off, and, as now in the USA, this class rejected internationalist revolution. Awareness of the calculation problem, too, was growing, thanks to

      Böhm-Bawerk’s devastating critiques of Marxian economics (1884 and 1896) [which] were widely read and discussed.

      Genuine antifascism now knows that Fascism is a creature of internationalist communism, which has a destination suspiciously similar to the evident goal of internationalist capitalism and its plutocrats. This is very interesting given the hegemonic globalist alliance comprised of internationalist communists, international corporate capital, Semitic supremacists, “Antifa”, and even some Christian Zionists. If you think about it some, I believe that you’ll come around to the idea that the alliance was conceived as a latter day solution to “the Crisis of Marxism”. It has obvious policy implications for the working class of lightskinned Caucasians. Such people steadfastly refuse to cooperate in globalist totalitarianism, so many of their private associations were scheduled for destruction and a campaign of replacement migration was begun against them before the rubble of WW2 had been cleared away.

      If anyone succeeds in establishing a viable political party to represent our interests against the aforementioned demonic syndicate, the party’s leaders will have to remember what we’ve learned about the demons. The leaders must also devise strategies and tactics for exposing and shaming the demons in such a way that the aforementioned globalists are condemned by the public to death in the spirit of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. Suffice it to say that the National Justice Party doesn’t count as the sort of party which I have in mind, and that recidivist affair ought to be sabotaged before it can lead many more astray.

      • Correction: The subtitle of Steele’s essay is

        “Mussolini – as he would like to have been remembered”

      • Fascists accepted the reality of Marxist class conflict due to the means of production. They rejected the Marxists’ conclusion – that the revolution of the *International* proletariat was the inevitable result. Recall that Marx predicted that the State would wither away – they could still believe that in the 1920s. Mussolini’s vision of “all inside the State” was explicitly designed to end the kind of class conflict that led to international proletarian revolution.

        And as for whether or not Marx was right in the long run, look around – we are where we are because the managerial class has achieved revolutionary consciousness. Marx got the class wrong, but the basic idea was sound.

        • Who wouldn’t accept, in some form, the idea of class conflict arising between those who own and control productive assets and those who work for wages? Such conflict is older than the industrial revolution, and theories of such conflict are not uniquely Marxist. Marx was badly misguided also with his nonsense about surplus value. He thought that manual labor was the source of economic value and, hence, that the difference between wages and economic value was pocketed as profit, which Marx spelled as e, x, p, l, o, i, t, a, t, i, o, n. I’m fairly sure that Fascists didn’t carry that theory of value over to their own system.

          And when did Mussolini and the Fascists predict a dictatorship of the proletariat? When did they argue that the state would wither away? Mussolini’s vision was informed in no small part by the painful realization that “international proletarian revolution” was a ridiculous pipe dream, like so much else of Marxism. The revolution wasn’t going to happen, and so he and a number of disgruntled collectivists like him developed the theory and practice of Fascism. They diverged greatly from Marxism (in terms of theory) much as secular communists of the 1800’s diverged from theocratic communists of the previous 3 centuries. Of course, the Fascists retained underlying currents of secularism and utilitarianism (even as Mussolini made a great show of his alleged conversion to Christianity).

          When you consider “whether Marx was right in the long run”, it does no good to notice that Marxism and liberal democracy converge in practice. It’s never been any secret that Marxists and their ilk (e.g. Leninists) have had to make numerous compromises with their own dogma once in power. Recall what the communists in the reorganized Russian empire did during the 1920’s to save their regime from economics. I think that you’re letting yourself become confused about the differences between theory, means, and outcomes of the chaotic political activity of egalitarians. I have in mind here “Free education for all children in public schools” and “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” (The Manifesto, Ch. II), to give just two examples of predicted measures which are turning into lasting outcomes.”Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state” is another candidate.

          Please retract and your completely misleading generalization in favor of something defensible. I recommend the following as a point of departure:

          Fascism, a heresy of Marxism and syndicalism, rejected Marxist analysis as incorrect…largely because it IS incorrect except, maybe, in one very narrow theoretical lane not unique to Marxism

      • “Genuine antifascism now knows that Fascism is a creature of internationalist communism.”

        Fascism is just the desire to use the government to advance the interests of the native population.

        Refute me. I’m happy to learn.

        • The Constitution was adopted thanks to “the desire to use the the government to advance the interests of the native population.” But American federalism was not Fascist, not even when you point out the fasces displayed in Congress.

          So your defintion is much too narrow. When writing a correct one, bear in mind the idea of stating first the genus, then giving specific differences.

          • I’ll grant that the Constitution includes “to ourselves and our posterity,” but that was quickly discarded. The Constitution was not explicit in its intentions the ways fascism is.

            We would not be where we are now if the Constitution was fascist. Of course, I grant the Founders a lot of slack for not seeing how the world would evolve.

            Ms. Nut, do you have a problem with a ruling document that says explicitly that the purpose of our government is the flourishing of white families? If not, how is this not fascism?

            What parts of fascism trouble you?

            (I do appreciate your civil response.)

      • A lot of Marx’s description a d critique of nineteenth century capitalism were correct. Including the idea that market capitalism was an acid bath that was dissolving traditional society and human connections, reducing the value of everything to its cost of replacement in the market.

        The downstream consequences of that include the destruction of religion and the family and culture and nations. The atomization of everyone into selfish immature consumers.*

        Marx was also wrong in believing that economics had been the driving force of history. That class conflict was central to everything. Worse, his predictions and prescriptions were childish fantasies.

        But he was correct about the effect that market capitalism was having on society and people. Modern Globo-Homo is near the end state of that system.

        *If the idea of Marx is too off putting for you, consider that Schumpeter’s creative destruction and capitalism sowing the seeds of its own destruction are describing the same phenomenon without the class war and world revolution fantasies. Also that catholic intellectuals in the late 19th century were also doing so when they developed distributism as an alternative.

  32. I you were a Conservative, this could be titled, “The Conservative Case for Jailing Conservatives”.

  33. To think I used to get excited in college when David “Baruch”Brooks would be a guest on the Charlie Rose show. I progressively became less impressed with him as I became more politically aware. By the time he wrote a scathing article around 2016 about the state of the conservatives and “white America” I was finished with him. He of course condemned the “tribalism” he observed and warned of the dangers which comes from tribal warfare.

    How rich. A proud member of “the Tribe” condemning that very behavior in others.
    If it wasn’t so typical and tragic, it would be hilarious.

    • To give Brooks the credit he’s due, “Bobos in Paradise” is worth reading, in the same way Marx is worth reading – his diagnosis of the disease is spot on. You’ll never find a better description of the Cloud People (that he thinks he’s writing as some kind of outsider is ironic enough to give Alanis a chubby, but that’s neither here nor there).

      • I’ll take your word for it, and order it now. I’ve never been steered wrong regarding recommendations from this comment section. I just finished a book the other day suggested by one of the commenters here.

      • I read that book the summer it came out and I thought it was great, but the lack of self-awareness was breathtaking. I kept putting it down and wondering if I was just not getting some inside joke. Then it occurred to me that not matter how accepted he was in that world, he felt like an outsider. This sense of being a perpetual outsider drives a lot of Cloud People thinking.

        • Yeah it was surreal. I guess I didn’t mind as much back when I read it, as I was in the academy at the time, which is an experience I can only describe as “feeling like you’re mildly stoned on bad dope, but all the time.”

          It’s the little details that make it great. Like the pause, and the almost apologetic uptalk, when they tell you where they went to school. “Ummm….Harvard?” They can’t wait to tell you — Harvard men are like vegans or CrossFit people, they can’t not bring it up within five minutes — but they’re kinda…you know… apologetic about it?

          [I should’ve done back then what I recommend doing now: If you encounter an uptalker, beat him — he’ll know the reason why].

          • The Ivies are an interesting microcosm of the problem plaguing out elites. The number of mediocrities coming out with Ivy degrees is stunning. Even those in STEM are jarringly narrow. Sailer thinks their selection process is geared toward future earners, so they have a heavy bias for the sort who ends up in the managerial class. If you are curious or heterodox, the Ivies are not interested as you most likely end up in a cabin writing a manifesto.

          • Cross-fit is the polar opposite of Fight Club b/c the first rule of Cross-Fit is never shut up about Cross-Fit. Same goes for Ivy League attendance, at least among the middle class-strivers. That was (is?) my ex-wife, who went to Cornell and couldn’t shut up about it, she managed to fit that little detail into every conversation, no matter how routine. And that schtick fails to impress the truly elite, and alienates everyone else. My ex-wife so wanted to be in that elite world, and she could ape their mannerisms and their cadence, but they knew an imposter when they saw one, so she was and always will be an outsider. Best book on Class distinctions in America: Went a long way to explain to my CivNat former self why my high school friends in CT got summer jobs at Pfizer and I worked at McDonalds.

          • Hate to bring up my lovely ex-wife again, but Sailer’s observation largely matches what I observed in my ex-wife’s “development” job for a relatively big university. (Development is term academia uses to avoid the term “fund-raisers”) The big money for college endowments is in estate planning – Harvard didn’t get to $41B by $10/month donations. The first rule of fund-raising, you can’t give big dollars unless you have big dollars. So, admissions, outside the diversity rackets, is largely geared towards those who are likely to earn big dollars – so that means family connections, extrovert tendencies, etc. (this is why Academia hates, hates, hates excessive Asian enrollments – they don’t earn/give big dollars) That view applied to large state schools explains why fraternity culture remains tolerated, if not encouraged … frat members are *much* more likely than normal alumni to give money, and to maintain the emotional connections to the college that when coupled with the benefits of superior networking (or training to network gained in a fraternity) , allow them to amass estates that can fund large endowments. So … for example, HBS admitted C-student GWB b/c his dad was at the time CIA director. That is, they understood that having such family connections opened up networking/business opportunities for GWB that us mere-mortals could not obtain. And … they were right!

          • This a reply to Z below: “as you most likely end up in a cabin writing a manifesto.” That made me LOL! (Uncle Ted wasn’t wrong about everything, though.)

      • “” Those “illiberals” he claims, will “eventually turn to the strong man to salve the darkness and chaos inside themselves.”

        The guy that wrote this is a notable journalist and author?

      • Read it way back when. I have to admit some of his insights into these people was enlightening or spot on from my experience. I just couldn’t figure how he placed himself outside of all that then realized , oh yeah, one of the tribe.

        • I often find myself thunderstruck by what appears to be pathological hypocrisy and extreme lack of self-awareness in Brooks’ ilk. Like Z-man I wonder if I’m out of the loop of some inside joke, or some esoteric wink or nod to others “in the know.”

          • Oh there is an inside joke with winks to go with it. I have seen even with Jerry Seinfeld when interviewed by his people. One learns to pick up on it when you finally get it.

    • I followed the same path as you in regard to David Brooks. (But then I used to get amped about watching The Firing Line.) Around the time of Brooks’ article you mentioned, my friend, now at home (in many ways) in San Francisco, remarked to me during one of our conversations that he admired Brooks’ analysis and balance in covering social issues. My friend has continued to admire other high priests of progressivism like in this article by Jonathan Franzen that he recommended to me recently, saying it’s the best article he’s read on the subject. A mind (and a friend) is a terrible thing to waste.

      • Oh crap, Johnathon Franzen. There’s a name I haven’t thought about since college. I used to get excited about the New Yorker as well, but just reading the title of this article gets my blood boiling. I’m not sure I can stomach it haha

Comments are closed.