Cargo Cult Conservatism

If you were to go back in time to the 1980’s, scoop up a group of conservatives and show them this post from the National Conservatives, those retro-conservatives would be very confused. For starters. they would be puzzled as to why such a thing was even necessary in 2022. Surely by this late date everyone would know the general framework of the American Right. More important, it would be the general framework of the nation, given the trajectory of the conservative movement.

Once the present situation in America was explained to them, they would no doubt want to know what went wrong? Was there a horrible calamity that derailed conservatives and sent the nation reeling into authoritarian degeneracy? Did the Left stage a revolt and seize the country by force? Did we lose the Cold War? At this point, the room would fall silent as none of the signatories of that post could provide a coherent explanation for why things have gone so horribly wrong.

Many of them have been participating in a long running debate about what fills the void left by the implosion of Buckley conservatism. A few camps have formed up around various concepts. They all agree that Buckley-style conservatism was a failure, but there has not been much discussion about why it failed. In fact, they seem to think Buckley conservatism was fine, as they make clear in that document. Again, everything there was baseline conservatism in the 1980’s.

Those 1980’s conservatives would also be a bit puzzled by the names. Once they got their bearings, they would quickly figure out that many of their favorite conservatives in the 1980’s did not live to see 2022. New voices would have come along to fill those spots, but surely some would have made it. Which of these names are taking up the banner once held by Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried? It seems like those guys were right about the direction of conservatism.

Imagine the shock when it was explained that those guys were not only purged from conservatism but pre-emptively purged from the new conservatism. Sure, this statement of principles is being posted in a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan, but not a single name on that list would want his name in the same sentence with Buchanan or any of the other guys from the 1980’s who turned out to be right. In fact, many have denounced the old paleos as immoral.

There is something to be said for getting back to basics in a time of stress, so this statement of principles makes sense for a group that largely seems dedicated to going back in time and starting over. By embracing what was standard issue conservatism in the 1980’s, they are hoping to reset the movement and install themselves at the top, with all the benefits that come from it. That means their central claim is that real conservatism has never been tried.

It is in that document, however, where you see the seeds of failure within the old Buckley-style conservatism. The first principle starts with “We wish to see a world of independent nations.” It finishes with “We endorse a policy of rearmament by independent self-governing nations and of defensive alliances whose purpose is to deter imperialist aggression.” The fact that this obvious contradiction was not obvious to the signers suggests they have leaned nothing from failure.

As George Washington explained in his farewell address, a nation cannot remain independent when it forms alliances with other nations. As history makes clear, when you agree to defend Poland from its enemies, you inherit the enemies of Poland, even if that contradicts the interests of your people. Washington correctly argued that “inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded.”

One can maybe debate this point within the larger debate about conservatism, but there is no debating the bit about deterring imperialist aggression. The sole source of imperialist aggression in the world today is the Global American Empire. By the reasoning in that first principle, the world should unite in opposition to the United States and perhaps even the collective West. You can be certain that not a single signer of that document would agree with that point.

Of course, it is the last point where they give the game away. This is surely the contribution of Yoram Hazony, who seems to lack even a high school level understanding of human biology. Instead, he just accepts the far-left claim that race is skin color and that biology is a social construct. Whether he really believes this is open to debate, given that he is an Israeli, but he makes a point of denying biological reality whenever the opportunity arises.

That last principle is worse than ignorant, it is traitorous. These are the guys claiming to defend the tradition, history and culture of the people. At the same time, they insist “The history of racialist ideology and oppression and its ongoing consequences require us to emphasize this truth.” Really? Who are those racist oppressors? Is it the guys whose statues lie in ruins? Is it the guys lying in graves desecrated by left-wing goons bellowing about the history of racialist ideology?

This gets to the failure of Buckley-style conservatism. At some point, Buckley figured out that he could enjoy the lifestyle he deserved by conceding the moral high ground to the people he claimed to oppose. Once he conceded that basic point, he condemned himself to a lifetime of performing as a useful idiot for the benefit of his masters on the Left and he condemned his movement to failure. There is simply no room for conservative ends within the left-wing moral framework.

A nation is a people, not a collection of abstract concepts. Within a nation there can be a fair degree of variance, but relative to other people the differences are tiny from the perspective of outsiders. To a Swede, a Finnish atheist is no different than a Finnish Lutheran or Finnish pagan. They are just Finns. On the other hand, no one, not even these egalitarian nationalists, would confuse a Finn for an African. That is because they are obviously different people.

Finally, what this and the larger discussion within the group debating the future conservatism reveals is they have learned nothing. That is because they have not bothered to think about why conservatism failed. Perhaps the danger that lies in such a project is the issue. Maybe they lack the intellectual firepower to tackle it. Either way, repeating the slogans of the past, hoping to recreate the past is called a cargo cult, not a serious political movement.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

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

162 thoughts on “Cargo Cult Conservatism

  1. To nitpick a bit: One of the things that annoys me is the virtual disappearance of the word “man.” The use of the slangish “guy” in its place is way overdone and quite frankly undignified. When speaking of accomplished men like the late great Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan, they should be referred to as exactly that, men.

    The communists insist on the use of the word “woman” to ridiculous extremes (even though women no longer exist in their fevered brains), while men have been reduced to guys, boys, males, etc. Part of reclaiming our manhood is to call ourselves, and insist on being called, men.

  2. I find myself largely in agreement with the “conservative principles” enunciated in The American Conservative, but like everything to which there is “largely” agreement, there are items with which I do not necessarily or wholeheartedly agree. That being said, I found many of the comments enlightening as well, which got me to thinking about the whole concept of “white nationalism.” The problem therewith is that white people do not have a history of identifying with others of the same skin color, whereas blacks in America seem to do so, mostly because of their shared identity as the offspring of former slaves. (Plus the undeniable fact that they do not, as a group have a high enough IQ to reason their way beyond elemental, simplistic observations, of which skin color is among the most elemental.) As Z has pointed out elsewhere, American blacks have formed their identities primarily on the basis of being “not white,” whereas American whites are from very disparate backgrounds and cultures. For example, (and here I necessarily fall back on generalizations) ask an 18th Century
    Irishman how how closely he identified with his English counterparts, or the same of an Irishman. Their skin color did not prevent them from entertaining a great deal of animosity, to the point of organized warfare. Likewise, the Englishman and Frenchman, or the English and French about the German. The history of white Europeans from which American whites all descended was one of strife and mutual antagonism. Much of that carried over to these shores, and persisted through the Twentieth Century. The Irish were still despised by the English, the Italians and “Hunkies” were despised by both the Irish and English, etc. And don’t even get me started on the Jews! The color of skin being varying shades of white meant nothing relative to these animosities. The American black, however, clearly hated EVERYONE whose skin was lighter in color, thus being a simple identifier around which the blacks universal animosity could be organized. (This animosity was reciprocated until we became more “enlightened” about “race” during the so-called “Civil Rights Era,” at which point many whites of various ethnicities (but especially those pesky outliers, the Jews) decided to identify and ally with blacks against other whites, in order to more effectively carry forward their preexisting antagonisms. It was only then that the “white” people in America looked around and realized that they now had something in common–their whiteness, which was then being used by TPTB against them in the form of aggressive affirmative action, laws and court rulings against the right of free association, dismantling of formerly peaceful ethnic neighborhoods by aggressive insertion of foreign black elements, and the disruption of immigration laws so as to mandate importation of peoples with completely inappropriate backgrounds based exclusively on non-whiteness rather than any positive qualities. Immigration then became another tool in the box of TPTB, themselves largely white (but again, including those pesky and irritating people who I shall not again name) to maintain political and economic control over the mass of citizens. Whites are still in the process of awakening to this, but I fear it may be too late. Even the pesky ones are finding themselves castigated for simply being “white” by the now ascendant non-whites and their white allies, who will at some point find themselves being eaten last by the alligator they helped create. I suppose there is some ironic pleasure to be derived from this knowledge, but I would prefer something more satisfying, like survival. But as long as there are narcissistic, toxic white quislings like Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, et al. to be found, the outcome will remain problematic. Spicy times, indeed.

  3. Pingback: Cargo Cult Conservatism – Understanding Deep Politics

  4. ” they would no doubt want to know what went wrong?”

    We know what went wrong. The sensitisation of society, caused by the feminisation of society, amplified by the advent of the internet and social media, and facilitated by global mobility.

    None of that has anything to do with politics. Politics simply clusters around the prevailing public sentiment, like ants around a drop of honey. There’s no political solution. The cat is out of the bag – and clawing up the curtains. It will only get worse until the Great Debacle, the collapse of the world’s financial system – I guess towards the end of the century.

  5. Most small nations are small because they’re doing something wrong. They exploit the charity of great powers by aligning with the globalist hegemony. Great powers that compete with the hegemony, even if it’s the most basic competition of wanting to be the next hegemony, don’t deserve to be artificially held back by being unnecessarily respectful of pathetic minor powers.

    Great powers aren’t empires. The imperial model is the one that props up petty nationalists. Truly independent small nations that aren’t consistently willing tools of empire are a rounding error. The great exception to the rule is of course that little nation of Israel, and for some reason everything seems to revolve around it…

  6. One of the recurrent themes Z-man mentions is the need for a coherent dissident narrative.

    And it’s become clear that one of the failures of conservatism in its current iteration, is that it can no longer offer an overarching narrative, within which its individual components make sense, and come together to form a coherent, self-consistent whole.

    Say what you will about the founders and framers, they understood why they believed as they did: when challenged, they could point to an overarching narrative within which their beliefs and actions made sense.

    And they got a lot of things right: they were realistic about race and sex differences. They realized that wise governance requires a minimum level of experience and competence, and they understood that everyone isn’t equal in that respect. They didn’t hesitate to exclude those groups they saw as unfit; and they didn’t see that exclusion as a bad thing. On the contrary, they would have had no problem justifying their decision to restrict the vote to White male property owners.

    One of the things conservatism has failed to defend and conserve, is a coherent worldview which explains and justifies conservative beliefs.

    And while the founders’ worldview wasn’t the last word in wise governance, it had a lot going for it: a lot that was not only worth saving, but absolutely necessary to save, if America is going to avoid devolving to the lowest common denominator.

    So today— in woke ‘George Floyd America’— we find ourselves in a strange place. Public opinion is so far removed from the vision of the founders, that voicing that vision will almost certainly get you canceled, fired, and shunned; and possibly even cast into jail.

    Woke opinion demands that we judge our ancestors— the people who not that long ago were considered to be great men, and universally held up for admiration— by the “anti-racist” standards of the present; by which standard they’re all found to be severely wanting.

    > All of which leads us to recognize that our dissident narrative— based on a realistic view of biological differences, and hence anathema to the woke mentality— is going to offend a lot of people. There’s simply no way around that. From their perspective, our view of reality will indeed be racist and sexist and homophobic and xenophobic.

    It simply won’t be possible to be true to our beliefs, while avoiding offending anyone. We’ll be offering, and defending, a worldview which they’ll surely see as not just wrong, but offensive; and not just offensive, but reprehensible, dangerous.

    The anger and conflict it will inevitably arouse will be both huge, and unavoidable.

    We’d best get ready for a shitstorm, because the same people who couldn’t wait to tear down Confederate statues, will be coming after us with an even greater level of animosity.

    • Fundamentally, without the spiritual the West has no heart and cannot survive…Because only spiritual beliefs provide a coherent basic moral and life narrative…Another word for that is community, and community requires an agreement on morals and spiritual beliefs…Women who sacrificed their children to some version of Baal would be executed, but the opportunity would never arise…

      • I guess…. it depends on what you mean by ‘spiritual’

        We no longer need to rely on myths to give us a sense of who we are as human beings, and how we got here.

        It’s now clear that we evolved, over hundreds of thousands of years. The genetic isolation of the various people-groups, and their gradual adaptation to their varying locales, explains how the various races came about.

        The human biodiversity we see is entirely to be expected, just what the evolutionary narrative would predict; it would be astonishing if the dramatic differences in appearance that distinguishes Swedes from Somalis, was not accompanied by equally-dramatic differences in inner traits.

        And those inherent racial differences in intelligence and temperament are all we need to explain what we see.

        So I’d prefer to locate “the heart of the west” in our ongoing striving to separate fact from fiction; to make sure that what we believe is congruent with the facts.

        It takes both strength of purpose and courage to move beyond ‘feel good’ beliefs— such as the woke egalitarianism that’s currently in vogue— and to insist on sticking with what we can show to be true.

        If there are spiritual truths characterizing our shared human condition, they also have to accord with the facts.

        Science and Spirit are not incompatible.

        Scientists can show us why they believe that the Universe most likely began with a ‘big bang’ event: the series of demonstrable facts which led them to theorize that that’s how it all started, and why they think that theory provides the most plausible explanation.

        But science can’t begin to answer the question of how it came to be that way, of what came before the big bang.

        There’s plenty of room for a Creator, a Prime Mover, a God; if that’s where your experience leads you.

        But whatever spiritual beliefs we have, they can’t contradict the facts of life as we know them. Clinging to beliefs that aren’t supported by the facts doesn’t demonstrate strength, but weakness. Having a factual basis for what you believe is what separates reason from superstition.

        The scientific perspective leaves plenty of room for mystery. It’s not necessary to deny the facts, to have a sense of numinous awe and wonder about the ever-more-astonishing Universe we find ourselves in.

        Or so I see it…. of course, YMMV

  7. “Those 1980’s conservatives would also be a bit puzzled by the names.”

    When I clicked through to the post and looked at it, I read the first name as *Wilt* Chamberlain. It was much more entertaining that way.

  8. For the love of God, what will it take to kill this Civic Nationalism beast?!

    Fifty years of utter and complete failure at every level possible and these twits are still pushing it. The pussies refuse to plant their flag on anything. This is just CivNats getting their panties in a bunch because they were promised that non-whites and the tribe would adopt Anglo-Saxon values and they reneged the minute that took power.

    • Beats me.

      I think I made iSteve mad by implying Susan Rice was one of the main puppetmasters in the WH.

      Turns out there are people out there who still seem to believe Biden is fully aware and in charge.

      • Wild Geese: Before he hid under his bed in fear of covid, Sailer very notably avoided any post (that I can recall) about the legitimacy – or lack thereof – of the 2020 election. Not that it makes a damn bit of difference at this point (and I personally want Trump to just go away), but it was an obvious avoidance of a highly controversial subject dear to many conservatards.

        Sailer and his boomer and IAMSOSMART followers perform intricate maneuvers to avoid facing the crux of any issue because it might be genuinely divisive. Really, they just daily rehash the civic normative slogan of “They shall not divide us” in minute detail.

        • Sailer avoids everything but the obvious fact that there average racial differences.

          He never writes about what whites should do about identity politics. He never writes about whether groups should identity with their own people. He never acknowledges the complete failure of civic nationalism.

          Honestly, the guy never takes a stand on how whites or any group really should fight back the Woke mob.

          He just presents another graph in hopes that it will finally change their mind.

  9. And wouldn’t a genuine conservatism start by insisting on describing things accurately?

    Wouldn’t a genuine conservatism make no bones about the fact that pretty much every discovery and achievement that contributes to civilization as we know it— whether in geographic exploration, philosophy, government, science, technology, medicine, the arts— was accomplished by a White person?

    Wouldn’t a genuine conservatism counter Progs’ vague charges of “White supremacy”— whatever that is— with the clarification that *supremacy of achievement* has always belonged to Whites?

    Wouldn’t a genuine conservatism insist that excellence is nothing to be ashamed of, that the ongoing striving for excellence has been what made all good things possible?

    Wouldn’t a genuine conservatism insist that on every level, meritocracy is how the world works?

    From the female chimpanzees all making themselves available to the alpha male, to Jeff Bezos landing a woman who wouldn’t give him a second glance if he wasn’t rich and famous— the reality is, that the world has always rewarded superior achievement. And that the White race ended up on top due to their superior achievements.

    Not because they oppressed anyone, not because (a la Jared Diamond) they just happened to find themselves on superior territory.

    No: Whites ended up on top due to their superior abilities and achievements: due to the fact that, of all the races, evolution gifted them with that combination of traits which allowed them to achieve on a level unmatched by any other race.

    That’s what the facts of history show!

    Wouldn’t a genuine conservatism begin by unashamedly acknowledging those facts? And by fighting hard against anyone who tried to spin their achievements as if they were somehow evil, somehow ill-gotten?

    Wouldn’t a genuine conservatism begin by separating fact from fiction? By making it clear who the achievers have been? By refusing to be ashamed of what has made them great, and set them apart from all others?

    • Agree with everything you say one hundred percent. The main element you’re demanding of a “genuine conservatism” is simple: BALLS. The vast majority of self-described conservatives are White. Today’s White people as a whole, with exceptions (but not nearly enough exceptions), essentially have NO BALLS. If they don’t recover their courage (and self-respect) in time, they may end up losing Western Civilization altogether.
      P.S.: We White people — yes, us! — are the indispensable ingredient of Western Civ. That so few of today’s Whites appear to understand that is arguably our biggest problem.

    • Even if a conservative forcefully stated all your points, it would persuade few. The population of the country has entirely changed since the 80s.

      Few want to dance to your song, even if it is a really good one.

      • No doubt you’re correct. And yes: that’s part of the problem.

        Isn’t the true story of America, and our justified pride in the achievements of our ancestors— which is a chapter in the worldwide story of White achievement— one of the most important things conservatives should have been conserving?

    • Never gonna happen, brother. Conservative Inc, just like Liberal Inc is owned and controlled by the same tribe of satanists. Coke or Pepsi? The illusion of choice, while nothing ever fuckin changes. The neworldorder marches on while we concentrate on diversions. We’re being led to the slaughterhouse or the holding pens of the talmud plantation. They print the money to do it and the tv and bagelwood to gaslight the dumbfucks into oblivion.

  10. I thought for sure that Ben Shapiro and Rich Lowry’s names would be on the list of signatories.

  11. Did the Left stage a revolt and seize the country by force?

    A revolt, yes. By force? I would say yes, as the understanding is that anyone who shows disagreement with the Left is persecuted by the state, which is ultimately backed by force.

  12. The “argument” or statement of principles in the American Conservative is invalid because not all the premises are true—or can be true. Biological differences are real and denying them—even those based upon a “lab test’—is denying observable reality and basic science.

    Wishing something true—even when not, is part and parcel of the Left. No true “Conservative” restatement of principles can use this tactic and call itself a new organizing platform.

    • Right: a genuine conservatism begins by separating fact from fiction: by distinguishing
      ‘what we can show to be true’
      ‘what we wish were true’
      ‘what would be true in an ideal world as we envision it.’

      And fortunately for us, the facts are on our side. We can embrace ‘the science’, because every day science is demonstrating the reality of group biological differences, and all that implies. Every day science is producing more evidence confirming that Whites rose to the top through merit, not through oppression.

    • I gave you an upvote. Your only error is the all-too-common tendency to ascribe faults to (only) one’s opponent. Only the Left is guilty of self-delusion? Really? And what makes you think that the rest of humanity is immune to this fault, dissident right included? Of course, that doesn’t mean that everything of “theirs” is bad/false any more than all “our” stuff is good/true. As always,the same tests of admissibility of evidence and rigors of proof must apply to all claims, no matter the source. Anything less is intellectually dishonest.

  13. I’ve never seen, read or heard of any black or brown ever saying “I don’t see color.”

    • Fairly certain I’ve heard Candace Owens say exactly that. But she’s a clown so…

      • Professor Alfred Sharpton: I don’t know about a clown, but she’s always had her eye on the main chance. When she observed that being yet another black leftist didn’t pay enough, she did a volte face and promoted conservatard magic principles, immediately becoming their beloved brave, independent black justification for muh equality. She snagged a financially comfortable White Englishman and quickly birthed an extremely odd looking mulatto (whitish skin and mother’s exact nose and face). She’s movin’ on up.

    • In fact, it’s just the opposite: race is the FIRST thing Blacks think about, whether it’s describing themselves, or explaining the world around them.

      Have you ever heard a Black person being interviewed, who didn’t begin with some variation of: “As a woman of color” or
      “As a Black man…”?

      But you’ll rarely hear Whites talking that way.

      And although Obama campaigned on a promise to usher-in a “post-racial world”, in point of fact he began the process of racializing everything: encouraging Blacks to identify first and foremost as victims of a racist system, and to view everything through the lens of race.

  14. That was their bold statement? That was weak. Things that stood out:

    1. No mention of individualism
    2. Why are non-Americans authors and signatories? Good for the UK, Poland, Israel … I wish you well. Just like an individual must accomplish his own goals so must a nation. I wish you well in building your nation. But my nation, its people and their resources are to be used for building and maintaining our nation. But out of our business. This is insane that people from other nations are writing our nation’s statement of nationhood. That right there tells you nothing
    3. Leads to: No outright rejection of foreign nation building in any forms; wars of occupation; “foreign aid”; permitting foreign agents to be appointed or eligible to any political office or to be used as an advisor to elected and appointed officials.
    4. No mention of dual citizens and people with allegience to another nation or people not being permitted to participate in political life, and the damage that has done to our nation. No elaboration of citizenship.
    5. No mention of Freedom of Association as a foundational principle.
    6. No outright explicit rejection of progressivism and its destruction of our civilization and nation’s founding philosophical and legal order.
    7. No outright rejection of the “Civil Rights” project and the Welfare State and statement of fact at how it has destroyed our legal regime and bankrupted the nation
    8. Renunciation of neo-conservatives and other infiltrators
    9. Statement of intent to enforce treason and punish to the letter of the law. You could start with the new SC justice who explicitly stated in writing she does not individuals have natural/negative rights. Then move on to every Senator who voted for who and who swore her in in direct violation of the constitution. Move on to the neo-cons and the military officials who fly non-US flags, violate bodily sovereignty, . Move on to the officials who do not protect our border in direct violation of our laws. Name names!
    10. Explicit statement of reforms. Ex. Dismantling of welfare state; Dismantling of DOEducation; Dismantling of all Progressive Era federal bureaus by handing over to the states to address how they see fit with jurisdiction limited to their borders.

    This was weak. I’ve seen some of these guys speak and they seem okay. Anton seems pretty good, but signing this seems like a sell out. I saw someone mention Douglas Murray. Why is this bbbbba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-British ba-ba-ba-ba-babbling and stuttering dolt the person who is leading the right in the battle for the West? If he is the Marshall in this war it is doomed to annihilation. Why is any foreigner doing so? It’s just a bunch of book writers looking to sell books and TV/YT slots.

    This is going to be a bottom up movement and it won’t be led by book writers and a rotating circle of former leftists promoting each other with guest slots and interview/whining sessions on each other’s channels and shows.

    As someone said, the Left has done more to wake people up

    I agree with an earlier post that the left has done more to help the cause of reclaiming and redefining America than anything. I hope they don’t stop and that those who have been slapped in the face at work, in the schools and the culture at large don’t spend much time getting bamboozled by the book writer’s sewing circle. Of course, there is no space for those who don’t bend the knee, which is why they wrote this statement the way that they did. The openings are wide and the economic crisis will increase them in number and size. Patience and then – fortune favors the bold.

        • To clarify, the questionable “individuals uber alles!” fags and fagettes are not acting alone or simply minding their own business.

      • Collectivism is why we are on our knees. Disorganization is why we are on our knees. Lack of self worth multiplied across is why we are on our knees. Atomization is why we are on our knees. Shame is why we are on our knees. Lack of erudition is why we are on our knees.

        Individualism is not every man for himself on his own. Individuals have rights. Individuals commit crimes. Individuals elevate themselves and perform acts of valor. Individuals cooperate with like minded individuals to achieve something greater than one individual can achieve alone. Individuals are not defined by their group, the group is defined by the sum of the individuals who comprise it. The West and America are an invitation to the individual to elevate himself in cooperation with his brothers committed to a reciprocating cooperative elevation. We band together to ward off the collectivist hordes

        Individualism is a key component of the information war. I’ve been catching up on the podcast archives. I think a major theme is that this is an information war. A very effective tactic is to confront witches and bugmen with the notion of individuals. Individual rights. Individual responsibility. They can’t handle that idea, and they recoil in shame because you call them out for who and what they are – collectivists in a hive. It is certain to give you the high ground in any discussion or interaction.

        In the race and sexism arenas it is simple. ‘Name the specific individual(s) who have been harmed. Name the individuals who have done the harm. Show the empirical proof of harm in a court of law.’ They can’t do it. Because it doesn’t exist. Their utopia is just the final delusion born of their paranoid delusions. They crumble in shame because they are confronted with being everything they accuse us of being. They stand naked in the light of their projections. The key is to do it in ways and in forums where we gain standing and never lose standing.

        I do get your point. “We”, the people who want to rescue our civilization and our nation, are atomized and disorganized. That is true. I don’t have an answer for that. I’d love to hear some answers from people who have them. It is not too late to rally, nor is there any acceptable alternative.

  15. Regarding the distiction between Swedes and Finns, neither of which would be mistaken by anyone sane for an African of any sort, it still remains unclear to me how we ultimately decide who a people are in the sense of “are they my kindred?” It cannot be purely language because many Kenyans, South Africans, and Nigerians, to name just a few, speak passable English. It cannot be purely cultural, in the cultic sense, because many Africans share my religion or some other transnational viewpoint, e.g. the science behind boiling water. Is it simply geographical? I am from this region and they are not, as the German word Auslānder (out lander) for “foreigner” captures. How then do we address the apparent sorites paradox of determining where this region begins and ends?
    I’m not trying to be a douchy contrarian. I am genuinely trying to reconcile two modes by which I actually live my daily life. I tend to act in a racialist manner. I trust individual whites I encounter until I have a well-founded reason not to do so. In contrast, I distrust and mostly avoid blacks as a class, while recognizing that I am occasionally surprised by an encounter with one that shades from neutral to good. I wouldn’t care if my immediate neighbors were Swedes, Finns, even Frenchmen; but I’d be concerned if any were POC and hyper alert if they were black.
    When it comes to groupings of a size beyond Dunbar’s Number, I favor two principles. First, I care more about ensuring the conditions that foster free association, including the right to be left alone, than I do about the well being (material or psychological) of the remoter people subject to those conditions, whether they are five miles across town or living in Europe, Asia or Africa. It’s not that I don’t care about human suffering, but I recognize that it’s an inescapable part of our existence. I prioritize alleviating that of those I know and to whom I owe a duty of care.
    This leads to the second principle, subsidiarity. You don’t rely on a higher level of society to resolve what can adequately be addressed by a lower one; and should indeed rely on the lowest level necessary to do so. I’m not a libertarian (honk, honk). But I do believe that big government tends to be too remote and lacks sufficient nuance to address local concerns. To cite just one example, ask anyone in Modesto or Bakersfield if they felt a keen need for Sacramento elites to make them the epicenter of a wildly over-budget and behind-schedule high speed rail project. The vast majority would respond with a resounding “No!”
    I find that in these latter days I am more confident about what I am not. I am far less inclined to consider myself an American or a Californian. I guess I am expecting this path of negation to ultimately paint me into a corner, at which point I’ll look around to see who’s there with me and that’ll be “my people” by default. It’s not ideal, but it is realistic.

    • When you have mobility and allow free association, a natural sorting process always ensues and gets to an optimized result end eventually. And there are many paths that can be taken along way. Each local environment will likely have its own unique path that works well there but not necessarily elsewhere. Only tyrants and bureaucrats demand a one-size-fits-all solution.

  16. The conservatives are mensheviks to democrats bolsheviks. The history tells us that the most ruthless wins.

    • I produce eighty 5 dollars each hour for in operation an online job at .st03 I ne’er thought i’ll have it off but my relief makes 10 thousand greenbacks monthly operating this job and she or he or he instructed coniferous tree State to be told further concerning it. The potential with this will be endless.
      For a lot of detail……

    • Anna, it’s a pleasant surprise to agree with you. From where does the fierceness and ruthlessness of the democrats/leftists/progressives come?

      I’ll add that, as a certain painter once observed, conservatives’ highest values are comfort and security and so they will never really fight the establishment.

  17. The problem with conservativism is that they’re Washington Generals of politics in bi-factional ruling party Kabuki play. I can see them snapping their fingers after every defeat and saying “oh dagnabit, we lost again. Let’s get ’em next time.”

    They cave every time, just like with the guns in the Senate. Or they reach a compromise with the forces of darkness, celebrate it as a win for them (hey guys, we owned the Left) and then the Left comes back a year later, two years later and demands more. And then they compromise again, giving the forces of Satanic chaos another victory.

    “But Dr. Mantis, they’ll call us racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe or Nazi if we don’t go along with that!”
    My response is they’ll call you that even when you give into to their demands. Which leads me to the conclusion that they’re nothing more than token opposition designed to keep faith in our system, which is nothing more than a bankrupt, desiccated, amoral husk.

    If you would’ve told me 30 years ago that no only would sodomites be able to marry, but our rulers would devote a month to celebrate butt sex, scissoring and genital mutilation for the “trans” gender, I would’ve laughed.

    I think the Conservatives are sustained by inertia with the Baby Boomers and older folks, but when those cohorts hit the actuarial tables, what we knew as Buckley-style conservatism will recede into the mists of history.

    Why did it fail? Quick answer: It bought the assumptions of the Left on egalitarianism. That rotten fruit corrupted every policy downstream. By denying biological reality (black-run cities and countries are always hellholes, but the conservative would tell you it’s because they’re run by Democrats), they deny reality itself and they’re nothing more than gatekeepers to keep white Normie content, along with porn, video games and sportsball.

    Conservatives are in the way of the system collapsing and a new, better one rising in its place. The grifters of Conservative Inc have to know that their time is running short. The days of cushy do-nothing jobs at “think” tanks and other Conservative outfits getting paid six figures is hopefully coming to an end.

    • “You don’t think in a pilot?”
      “I don’t think you’re a doctor”
      “That…. is a very serious…. accusation”

  18. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Cargo Cult Conservatism

  19. Any organization which is not explicitly anti-Semitic sooner or later becomes Yoram Hazony.

    • Vegetius, and any country which is anti-semitic sooner or later becomes Ukraine.
      That’s why I stand up to the American antisemites:
      to protect this country from the Higher Power’s wrath. I don’t bother with other countries antisemites.

      • Anna: Sugar britches, Ukraine and its native people have been raped by yours (Kolomoisky and his protege Zelensky as prime examples) for decades. Ukraine has enough natural resources and inherently capable people that it ought to be a comfortably middle class nation and not a financial basket case, but it’s been sucked dry by parasites. They needed a Putin of their own and didn’t get one.

        • Hoo boy, 3g. With its resources and literate white population, Ukraine should be richer than Germany.

          SHOULD be

      • Terrifying idea, that we may be invaded aggressively by Mexico due to our antisemitisms, being shelled mercilessly by the Burrito Battalion. Higher power is really looking out for us. Oh, wait a second…

  20. This is a formal declaration of surrender, isn’t it? They’re applying for positions under the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.

  21. They are actually a cargo cult of a cargo cult. The only thing 1980s conservatism accomplished was surrendering every battle and making Con, inc rich.

    Imagine the grandchildren of a cargo cult believing the cargo cult of their grandfathers worked and brought lots of great cargo and so set out on rebuilding the bamboo airport!

    Of course, the modern conservative would look at their peers building the bamboo airport and drone on about how the building the airport is creating jobs and growing the economy and calling it an investment in our future.

  22. Did Buckley ever really have that much appeal, even in his early years, outside the professionals of the 1950’s and 60’s? My dad liked him because he was raised by a 1950’s CPA who liked Goldwater, who was really big on the west coast. It seems to be, and I’m completely alien to that era, born far later in a post white society, that Buckley politics were sort of aspirational in a middle class pecking order of the time. Once you went from the Chevy to the Buick, and the GE oven to the Thermador oven, you embraced Buckleyism. Your politics were a material sign of your success. Given that what’s left of the white middle class is facing obliteration, that whole demo is long gone. The Sons of Odin will be a thousand times more popular than any reboot of this type of soft, suburban politics which will no longer exist to any extent.

    • What? But you too can join the Royal Order of Water Buffalo- that’s patriotic democracy in action, by golly!

    • I can remember being a little boy in Seattle in the 70s. Buckley came on the TV and my Dad said, “This guy has a mind like a steel trap.”

      • And so he did. There is no doubting the man’s intelligence. But being smart doesn’t make you right. Look at Karl Marx.

      • So did Bernie Madoff.

        The problem of judging his popularity among the conservative voters is the mainstream was even more controlled then than it is today. I get the feeling though that he was a bit like Sean Hannity in that the boomer conservatives follow him because that is what the mainstream feed to them. If the conservative movement of the time had the choice, I’m thinking they wouldn’t have chosen him.

        There’s video on youtube of Buckley debating some black guy at Oxford. He was horrible, even in the 50s. He tried arguing against the “civil rights movement” by proxy. Vague appeals to property rights and democracy. He was too much of a cuck to just say “hey, if we don’t want you here, we have that right. You have no “right” to access to white people. Don’t like it? Go build your own country”

        This has been the problem with the conservative movement for as long as it existed. It always tried meeting the progressive 15/16ths of the way, giving up every moral and “pro-us” argument trying to couch their arguments in unoffensive terms. It never works. It always looses. Why do they bother?

      • I grew up with parents who regarded Buckley as ‘the world’s greatest genius’. So, being young, I just assumed that Buckley was our Maginot Line against the enemy, the Left. Boy was I disappointed, when I got a bit older and checked out the man for myself.

        Back in my NR days – we’re talking 1985-1995ish – I avoided Buckley’s essays because they were prolix and confusing to me. On TV his verbal and physical mannerisms – quite aside from that obnoxious accent he picked up in college – made me suspect that Buckley was playing a role, acting in his own play.

        He was in charge when the purges at NR culled hard-hitting conservatives like Peter Brimelow and Larry Auster. Of course I was a tradcon at the time and accepted these purges as necessary to the cause, in spite of the fact that I liked both of them very much and continued to follow them elsewhere.

        Finally, the “Prestige”. In 1968 Buckley debated Gore Vidal on one of the networks (the video is on YouTube). I had not seen it; I was 7 at the time it aired and of course my parents talked a lot about Buckley “owning” Vidal, that arrogant commie homo.

        Anyway, I checked out this epic debate on YouTube a few years ago, expecting a slam dunk display of ‘muh conservatism.’ All that Buckleyite mannerism, prolixity and haughtiness was on display, yet to my way of thinking, Vidal made Buckley look airheaded, unprepared and pretentious.

        Sure, Vidal was a homo lefty prick, but he did his homework, sat up straight, and exposed Buckley as a phony. My final assessment of Buckley is that he was a fraud. By making ‘conservatism’ effectively a brand, by purging those who fell outside the ambit he chose for the branding, and by presenting himself as the “face of conservatism”, he made himself into the Arthur Godfrey of conservatism, fooling millions.

        • Thank you for the background. It only lends support to my claim elsewhere, that Buckley was a CIA property from the start. (I claim no intimate knowledge of the man; chances are I am just parroting something I read once.) I’m sure books or at least articles have already been written on the topic: Isn’t it possible that the Deep State used people like Buckley for the express purpose of de-fanging potential opponents (e.g. “True” [Paleo-]Consevatives)?

    • Buckley tended to be on the insufferable side. Kind of slumped in his chair, speaking in affectatiously (is that a word?) pretentious language. I guess since he was nominally taking on the left, he had some use, but not much…

  23. The key to understanding the East Coast conservatives is they never actually wanted to CHANGE anything. The Buckleys, Kristols and Wills, et al were just a big, snotty debating club created to show the world how superior they were. That’s why they were absolutely horrified by people on the right like Reagan and Trump who really wanted to do stuff.

    • If memory serves, George Will loved Reagan, until the disarmament deals with the USSR worked out by Reagan’s team in his second term. Will was so upset by this ‘appeasement’, attacking the agreements in his WP columns, that Reagan invited Will to the WH to straighten him out. Thereafter Will was again a Reaganite; he mollified his tone in ensuing WP columns, and all was well.

      Tubman DF in action.

    • The only thing the Buckleys and Kristols (or more properly their ancestors) changed was the demographics of the Northeast. They conserved nothing because why would you conserve something you had no part in? As far as Reagan: he signed the Amnesty (w/o any enforcement) that changed electoral politics forever. Candidate Trump v. President Trump is one of the biggest reversals in the history of politics. I’m not sure what to make of it.

  24. ” We are citizens of Western nations who have watched with alarm as the traditional beliefs, institutions, and liberties underpinning life in the countries we love have been progressively undermined and overthrown. ”

    They could have as easily said, ” We are citizens of Western nations who have watched with alarm as the traditional beliefs, institutions, and liberties underpinning life in the countries we love have been undermined by Progressivism.”

    But, as they are progressives themselves (albeit the foot-dragging variety), the distinction doesn’t occur to them. No wonder they are whipsawed with confusion. Same with Douglas Murray and his latest book “War on the West”. He thoroughly describes what is happening but can’t pin down why, since he also believes in that ‘long arc of history’ can make a better man(kind).

    • Yeah they watched in “alarm” as the success of their grift has gone beyond their wildest dreams. A sucker born every second and all that.

  25. Political ideology is just bullshit that “educated” midwits throw at “uneducated” midwits so the “educated” midwits can make a living. It makes a fetish out of words and phrases like democracy, or the “right side of history”. As per my post of yesterday, what “works”? That should be the only thing that historians and political “pundits” should be concerned with. If something doesn’t work, remove it. Don’t try to make it “work” less destructively. Pontificating about the future is just mental masturbation. It allows despots and people that shouldn’t be given a public forum to engage in stoking fear and the “need” to change the structure of society for something that has never worked in all of human history. The Founders had it right when they tried to limit the power of central government with checks and balances and State superiority. And they knew it would be a crapshoot, given the inertia of human nature. That is why some kind of Star Chamber is necessary to cull those that are only interested in money, power, and destruction of the Posterity’s way of life. The only problem with that is who chooses the members of the Star Chamber? I can envision some kind of Foundation that exists in the shadows that is composed of noble and good people that do what is necessary to maintain a world that benefits those that have little ambition for self-aggrandizement. Unfortunately, I know human nature too well that believe that wouldn’t be corrupted, too.

  26. The reason “conservatism” failed is the same reason “liberalism” failed: They start from false premises. All modern political theory comes from two guys: Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx. Marx would go into one of his trademark murderous rages if you showed him how his Science of History has been perverted into “everything is a social construction” (Marx was the original I Fucking Love Science ™ guy), but it’s obvious how it happened, and how it flows logically — no quotation marks — from his premises.

    Hobbes is a different story, but his premises are equally flawed. Hobbes gave us the “social contract,” which is the basis of all non-Marxist political theory. The “social contract” comes from his famous thought experiment about the “state of nature,” which has never existed and never could exist (Hobbes says this explicitly, but everyone ignores that part). And the foundation of Hobbes’s “State of Nature” experiment, the initial condition from which all else flows, is:

    The equality of man.

    Seriously. For Hobbes’s theory to work, all men must be fungible. Deracinated. Considered completely in the abstract, as if at the bottom of a spreadsheet — add up everyone’s “natural” advantages and disadvantages, Hobbes says, and you end up with everyone basically equal. It’s breathtakingly false, but… there it is. And lots of Hobbes’s critics saw it, because again, it’s really fucking obvious. But John Locke didn’t see it (because he didn’t *want* to see it), and the Founders loved Locke, and… there it is.

    You *really* want to turn back the clock, “national conservatism” boys? Set course for 1651.

    • If I set my clock to 1651, then I’m going to meet Machiavelli instead of Hobbes. Guy behind the guy, as they used to say.

      Also, Hobbes does say in Leviathan that the state of nature exists in North America:

      “It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places, where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before. Howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there would be, where there were no common Power to feare; by the manner of life, which men that have formerly lived under a peacefull government, use to degenerate into, in a civill Warre.”

      • Ol’ Hobbes apparently ignored the Great League of the Haudenosenee, the Iroquois Confederacy, who had a functional government both internally and externally. The “state of nature” did not exist in North America either. Every single French, Dutch, or English official in America who did diplomacy with the Haudenosnee would have flat out told Hobbes he was wrong, but Hobbes never went to America to see for himself. There’s a reason that the People of the Longhouse still live where they did 1,000 years ago, and the Delaware and Shawnee and Cherokee live in Oklahoma today.

        “It would be a very strange Thing, if Six Nations of ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble;
        and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies…”
        Benjamin Franklin, 1751

      • He could have lived a comfortable life living off the happy nostalgia of now adults who loved his show as children. Instead, he became a regime clown.
        I’ll never forget a Reddit AMA, of all things, that just mercilessly pummeled him what what he had become. Even the hard left is turned off by him.

  27. The future consists of a mandate of righteousness. Refusal of righteousness is variation in self destruction even as a nation state. “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” Proverbs 14: 34

    The United States is vastly demonstrating self destruction through sin. Gigantic degeneracy has overwhelmed a once godly people. “Conservatism” cannot replace Christian morality and the ever greater demand of it that technology amplification brings upon us. The hoofbeats are now ICBMs, biowarfare labs, cognitive warfare and food as a weapon strategies.

    So… you want to play endless ‘conservative’ pinball wizard while drifting away from Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the mandates of truth through Him. Pluralism and its claim to ‘equality’ is the lie to take you away from Christ and truth and recreate sin, criminality and vast public moral degeneracy in the image of equal footing for all.

    The lie was… “You can’t legislate morality.” But the truth has always been … “You can only legislate morality and the question is whose morality are you going to legislate… God’s or Satan’s?”

    In the departure from truth and the necessity of it this is a good point to remember that 27 years ago a jury in Los Angeles acquitted O. J. Simpson of multiple homicides.

    At about the same time the FBI began a decades long campaign of looking the other way in the criminality of Jeffrey Epstein.

    Now.. you have a rotted baloney sandwich claiming to be the legitimate symbolic head of your national government.

    BTW those who are “fiscal conservatives” have lost all reason and attachment to reality in their ‘social liberalism’. Social liberalism cost money… lots and lots of money and creates enormous damage. This is another reason as to why the Republican party has never been a home to Christianity.

    Physical reality in this world demands an adherence to truth. Moral truth through the human is the interface with the physical reality of this world. The intellect, heart and soul can perceive… but it must ultimately comply with the truth or continue to fool itself with anti-Christ shitty world.

    “But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness…” Matthew 6: 33
    That means it is obtainable.

    • Some extremely Christ-like, moral, and good people have had absolute success turning a well ordered city and state full of typically competent and reliable Scandinavian descendants into a rapidly declining 3rd world shithole.

      Sorry Christcuck, but what passes for Christianity today is largely weak tea and needs to be completely thrown away in 90% of cases.

      Minnesota is now Somalia and Minneapolis is now Mogadishu. This was all done by some very moral and well meaning Christcucks like yourself. Please explain to a heathen like myself how this comports with maintaining civilization?

      The Christianity of Old built Europe & western civilization that is irrefutable. But the religion in nearly every incarnation has become more and more egalitarian and j3wed in the past few decades, also irrefutable. These are paradoxical and simply cannot be squared. Either reboot it back to around the time of the Spanish Inquisition or call it the failure that it is. Full stop.

      p.s. Thought experiment for you—

      Would you rather live in a community of 5,000 Christian and highly moral imports from Zimbabwe or a community of 5,000 heathen Odin worshippers from Iceland? Discuss.

      • I wouldn’t say Christianity is weak per se, more that the institutions of Christianity saw which way the wind was blowing and followed power towards the left a la “every institution not explicitly right wing eventually becomes left wing activism”.

        Better to rule ten billion Africans in hell than to serve ten whites in heaven I suppose.

      • If those 5000 black Zimbabweans were real Christians – ie Bible following, Holy Spirit led, then they would support the maintenance of all God’s boundaries – including racial ones. They also would face up to their own sin and not project it onto Whites. They also would be so concerned for their own race and nation’s salvation, that they would return to Zimbabwe to improve their own people. This goes for all Christians of whatever race – so if they do none of these things and push for “rainbow” nations – they are clearly false Christians. Unfortunately the majority of mainstream Churches are false – they have forsaken Biblical teaching when it goes against liberalism. They are liberal churchians – not Christians. If you look at what the majority of Christians believed up to World War Two, particularly about racial boundaries, you would see that this is so. The whole Bible is about accepting and maintaining all of God’s boundaries.

        But the Bible warns that only a few will follow the narrow way. Always, man-made institutions (Churches too) eventually fall to the Satanic, because all become venues for political power games. And in this world the political current generally moves in rebellion against God. To make us face up to our powerlessness, to face up to the fact that we are mere creatures, God’s way of salvation in Christ Jesus, means accepting our total dependence upon God, which means a continual overturning of man’s pretensions to power. When men turn to God’s holy standards, nations are blessed. When men reject his commands, nations are destroyed. There is a time limit to God’s endurance of men’s sin – the judgement is coming – whether you laugh at this or not.

        If the movie, “The Northmen” is a true reflection of an Odin-worshipping society, then I think that movie makes it clear how grateful we all should be that Europe was Christianised. Few human societies are, or have been, purely wicked. They are mostly a mix of good and evil. That also goes for pre-Christian pagan societies. God wants all men to be saved, and his grace and goodness always has been manifest in all societies. But the origin of all goodness – whatever it is and whoever manifests it – is God, the Creator. “In him we live and move and have our being”. The West no longer understands the extent of the dependence of high civilisation on Christianity. The majority of men alive today, do not admit how dark life would be without God, how insupportable, how miserable.

      • Tough call – the Zimbabweans might be more morally compatible in some respects, although the Icelandic heathen worshippers would have more biologically desirable mates from my perspective at least. So you are looking at a biological v. moral trade off. Some game changers: Can I convert the heathen (at least the one I would marry)? Do the Zimbabweans include former Rhodesians?

        • Theoretical Zimbabweans versus real life Scandinavians, plus:

          You can change a goddess of Thule’s religion, but you can’t make a Ubangi a goddess.

          Ask DeNiro about his kids.

    • The O.J. trial was a televised performance piece as much as the Chauvin one. A big show in other words.
      No different than the current J6 performance.
      They pull these off to stoke the divide and carry on the continual subjugation of White folk to their desegregation project. It’s their hammer, to bludgeon any solidarity and identity from White Americans. Sadly, so many lap it up as real.

      The OJ Trial was all one giant contradiction from them removing the grand jury for excessive media coverage, which would be against California’s own statute, as first degree murder charges must be convened by a grand jury, to the deciding to televise it with that same media coverage.
      Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states, “Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”

      From Wikipedia selling it as real:
      “However, some federal courtrooms experimented with cameras from 1991 to 1994”
      They experimented with it on whose authority? That question is never answered, and don’t rely on the lamestream to even ask.

      “Immediately after that trial, California Governor Pete Wilson announced his opposition to televised trials, and he later asked the Judicial Council to consider re-instituting the ban on film and electronic media coverage of criminal trials.” Isn’t that convenient.

      The website of the California courts says an experimental rule was adopted in 1984 allowing broadcast of court proceedings, but again they don’t say who adopted this rule and by what statutory method. And conveniently the bill search at only goes back to 1993.

      And I live in MN, and am very familiar that the same law applies here, no televised court proceedings. Yet somehow that got put aside for Chauvin without any legal proceeding.

      I know it shouldn’t surprise anyone after all the illegal and arbitrary bullshit they pulled during the Covaids Hoax.

      I know it’s just the tip of the iceberg of televised fakery, but take a look at the career trajectory of Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor. She wasn’t even a District Attorney! She was deputy DA, and why the hell would a deputy DA be put on as a prosecutor for a 1st degree murder trial, especially one of this magnitude? Clark is said to have compiled 19 consecutive murder convictions, but there is no evidence to back that record up. She is supposed to have convicted Robert John Bardo of murdering actress Rebecca Schaeffer. That conviction was achieved in a bench trial. No jury trial. A jury trial is required for all first-degree murder convictions. Bardo would have to waive his right to a jury trial, which he wouldn’t do unless he were insane. If he were insane, his attorney would never allow him to plead or waive. These are a few of the many “things that make you go hmm” holes that riddle the whole show. It’s like they get some B rate writers to put these things together and never dot their I’s and T’s, just contempt for the audience like some bad Lifetime script. And yet people lap it up, and then defend it despite the holes.

      After the trial she just gets her retirement package as star host of CourtTV.

      And a shit ton of makeover work!
      Look at her then:
      And Now:

      Now the noble negro actor from the Chauvin one gets his 30 shekels for the sellout:

      Ok, TLDR, downvote the hell out of me, I’ll take it in stride. All I ask is that I used to believe it all too, but in order to better adapt to the clown world, it helps to acknowledge you actually live in it. And what keeps it going is staged performances like the OJ and Chauvin Trials.

      milesmathisdotcom is where to start.

      • You are clearly not a California attorney and display a woeful ignorance of criminal procedure.
        1. I, in my former career, and many other deputy district attorneys routinely try first degree murder cases. The only counties where this is not the case are the two or three of the 58 that are so small that the elected DA has no deluties.
        2. Trials are a matter of public records, and the minute order kept by the court clerk memorializes who the attorneys of record are for any particular case. While it would be tedious, it would be a trivial matter to search the records of the Los Angeles Superior Court to find evidence of exactly how many murder trials Clark prosecuted. Nineteen is certainly not an unusual number for a career prosecutor.
        3. I assure you that first degree murder cases are frequently resolved by something other than jury trial. While a bench trial for such a serious charge would be extremely rare, there is no statutory authority for your assertion. Moreover, the case law interpreting the constitutional right to a jury trial has held that it confers a similar right to waive that jury trial. Indeed, every plea deal requires such a waiver; and one of the most frequent reasons for a negotiated guilty plea to a charge of first degree murder is to receive a guarantee that the death penalty will not be sought or imposed in those cases where one or more death-qualifying special circumstances have been alleged in the complaint, indictment, or information.
        As juries are instructed in almost every trial, if a witness has been proven to be unreliable or incredible in any portion of their testimony, you are entitled but not required to reject all of their testimony. I’d suggest that the readers would be guided wisely by this instruction with respect to your entire comment history.

        • I appreciate your response but don’t understand the snarky put down at the end. It leads me to believe your a pompous ass, but regardless, and again, I appreciate your response.

          1) I am glad you informed me that deputy DA’s do prosecute 1st degree murders, however, you neglect to counter my point being why in the HELL would they allow one to prosecute a case with this magnitude?
          Where was Gil Garcetti? If this was as real as they implied, it would have been icing on the cake for a glory hound like him. I’m simply asking the question.

          2) What I base that off of is the most prominent listing for the trial, Wikipedia, and they make that claim without providing any links like the which you mentioned. And what regular Joe has the time to tediously search for those records. The Wiki people’s duty is to back up those claims, which leads me to 3) The one record they do claim was a prosecution that was settled in what you yourself say is “extremely rare”, a bench trial. So that’s all they could come up with out of her 19 prosecutions, the extremely rare one where when I put in a search bar “how often does a 1st degree murder trial go to bench trial” it doesn’t bring up any results for the first 5 pages (after that I quit scrolling)? Again, I’m simply asking the questions.

          I’d also like for you to retort the doubts I have about the whole procedure from the start, especially thw whole televised scheme. Let me ask you this, being a former attorney, what are the odds you would endorse a trial you’re being a part of televised? On National Mainstream News Nontheless!

          Yes, I am no California Attorney, but if they are going to put on a show, I’d expect them to give a little more thought to covering any potential plot holes, and not be lazy especially with obvious ones.

          Thanks for the response, I do enjoy almost all of the commenters takes on this site.

        • “The website of the California courts says an experimental rule was adopted in 1984 allowing broadcast of court proceedings, but again they don’t say who adopted this rule and by what statutory method. And conveniently the bill search at only goes back to 1993.”

          States generally follow federal guidelines. I’m asking the question when did California change it, and where is the record.

          • That would almost certainly be a judicial counsel Supreme Court thing, not legislature.

        • Cre and FRE are generally the same. There might be a few differences in hearsay exceptions or such. Usdc and sup ct are fairly similar on procedural stuff.
          Every courthouse, Fed or state, i have been in within CA (that I can recall) has an order posted forbidding any recording, photography, etc. Most courts have such a rule, in my experience.

  28. I honestly neither want to go too hard on these old men sporting their Members’ Only jackets nor do I want to even think about them very much. They’ll fail either way, and make sure to ignore or expel anyone who’s not onboard with the continued project of being a Beautiful Loser, so what’s the point? A little bit of analysis from Z and then moving on sounds about right.

    Regarding not going hard on these guys, it’s important to remember that, as mentioned, they are like battered wives and so one should probably feel more pity than hate for them. As Schumer’s incitement of a psycho to show up at Kavanaugh’s house armed for bear shows, the left is good at terror, very good at it, both the subtle psychological version and the blow-you-up version. I look at these guys saying, “We can make color-blind conservatism and a network of alliances work this time,” the same way I’d look at a wife with a black eye telling me she fell down the stairs. As an object of pity. But they’re objects I pity in passing, and they’re irrelevant. It’s our turn and all the momentum is with us. 70% of republicans, according to a recent poll, believe that the primary goal of the democrats is to replace us. That’s enough to start a country, let alone a movement.

    And the progs, with their big mouths and crazy antics, did that. Not Jared Taylor. We owe our enemies a great debt of gratitude for their behavior over the last few years.

    • Very well said. Hopefully it’s also becoming apparent that they can’t actually run or produce anything of value.

    • The challenge is how to harness that 70% with the vast array of forces working to channel it against its own interests.

  29. Semi-OT, but I often find the most insightful material from old lefties. I’ve recommended Tragedy and Hope before. Maybe it’s passe, maybe everybody’s read it, idk, but I think it’s an indispensable book, not for the secret history of a secret society, but for its simple, lucid telling of world history in economic and sociological terms.

    I think it’s especially useful for people like the DR, who are dealing with a right that’s stuck in ideology and the blank slate, and being written by an old lefty, it’s not woke, although you often see the seeds of woke in high relief, which helps with understanding the line of thinking that led here.

    I’d like to give examples of what I mean, but I don’t want to write an essay. Highly, highly recommended reading in any case.

  30. The crux of Z’s argument is this: one cannot be on the Right in any meaningful sense if one is not a race realist.

    That is absolutely correct. Acknowledging the irreducible difference of race and its sociopolitical significance is the sine qua non of any Right offering another option from the Left. If, on the other hand, we procede from the postulate that race is a pernicious social construct or that it is real yet inconsequential, we must conclude that the obvious difference in outcomes for the different races spring from invidious forces such as racism. In this schema, those at the apex are racist oppressors, and those at the bottom are their victims. Remove racism and all races reach their natural level, which is strict equality. This belief justifies increasingly radical and aggressive interventions against the oppressors and on behalf of the oppressed, and there is no end to them until “equity” is achieved…in other words, never.

    This race irrationality is the Left’s central tenet. If the so-called “Right” adopts it, everything else it says is meaningless blether.

    • Race is the foundation. If you get that wrong, such as believing there are no racial differences, then everything else that follows will be wrong. That’s why it’s so important to be on the side of reality.

    • For a good example of the point you make— that there will be no end to the increasingly-radical interventions aimed at “achieving equity”— just look at California:

      For the last 40+ years, they’ve poured *billions* of dollars into efforts to “close the Black-White performance gap”.

      They’ve tried every conceivable program: Black teachers, Black textbooks, Black tutors, Black posters in the classrooms, Headstart programs, school breakfast programs, school lunch programs, programs to get Black parents involved, eliminating standardized tests and honors classes, eliminating requirements (like turning work in on time) seen as favoring Whites…..

      And the result?

      NOTHING has worked! The gap between Black and White performance has actually widened…..

      But does that convince liberals to rethink their initial assumption: that the performance gap was caused by environmental inequities, rather than by a group difference in intelligence between Blacks and Whites?

      Not in a million years! Merely suggesting such a possibility is (gasp!) RACIST!!!

      So the endless search for the impossible continues…. benefitting the education bureaucrats and race-hustlers, if no one else…..

      • I understand similar things, including grading, and penalizing absence and disruption of class, are being jettisoned in the Chicago public schools for the very same reason. If blacks cannot live according to the standards of civilization, then civilization must go.

        (Jesse Jackson and a mob of Stanford students bellowed as much back in the 80s. “Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Western civ has got to go!” The Hutus are so charming when they make their crude efforts at poetry.)

        • Honors classes and advanced placement classes are being eliminated in schools all across the country. It’s not just in urban jungles like Chicago.

      • Albert Schweitzer explained the situation to us decades ago.

        If only we’d listened.

    • They could have simply left that part out, you know. It’s tacked on at the end without any particular reason, except that they accept the morality of the left.

  31. Here’s a principle that I would like to see become a lodestar for the dissident community. I would like to see a world in which the fat, good-for-nothing, parasitic, grifting, backstabbing, fake, squishy, oily, preening, self-absorbed, shit-stain disease cells just quietly begin to disappear without much notice and in novel ways that remain obscure and unexpected. And after a few years of this, everyone notices that the species has rebounded with epidemic sanity and renewed robustness in the absence of this scourge. No species can long survive when the majority of its DNA heritage is pathological.

    Or, we could just send those arrogant assholes to the Ukrainian frontlines in the Donbas with an unloaded AK-47 and a roll of toilet paper, and then let the Russian artillery do the rest. Nah, leave out the roll of toilet paper. Let them stew in their own shit.

    • “just quietly begin to disappear”

      Yet they are the most privileged people in our society.

      It’s like when my conservative friends think that they have crafted a brilliant compromise for the tranny athlete problem by saying they should have their own categories in the sporting events. My reply to them, which they hate, “You are trying to negotiate with them. They are trying to destroy you.”

      • “You are trying to negotiate with them. They are trying to destroy you”


        You’re trying to ‘win an argument’ or ‘convince your opponent’; while they’re looking to destroy the very ground you’re standing on, and you with it.

        And as Z-man has pointed out, in the very act of engaging with them— whether you realize it or not— you’re tacitly acknowledging the validity of their viewpoint.

        You’ve come onto the ground *they’ve* chosen, in order to do battle with them; failing to realize that by doing so, you’re affirming their definition of things; and that when you’ve done that, you’ve already conceded defeat.

        Once you start using their language, without immediately pushing back, you’re tacitly acknowledging that “trans person” is a valid category.

        The more the public hears the terms “trans man” and “trans woman” and “trans person”, the more those terms become normalized; and with them, the entire conceptual framework they come from. Young people overhearing the conversation will naturally assume the validity of the concept.

        While what we should have done, is to redefine the terms, thus bringing the discussion back onto our territory: insisting that what they’re referring to as “trans people”, we see as mentally-disturbed individuals struggling with gender dysphoria, or perhaps fullblown delusion.

      • “You are trying to negotiate with them. They are trying to destroy you.”

        The left is just entropy. Arguing with or even hating entropy is pointless as if you could take a piece of poop and yell at it until it turns back into a hamburger.

        The only way to deal with entropy is to expel the waste and keep pumping energy into an ordered system.

        • “You are trying to negotiate with them. They are trying to destroy you.” That sums up Bill Buckley National Review “conservatism” in two short sentences.

        • I don’t disagree: arguing with Progs is a waste of time.

          However, there’s another battle going on: for the hearts and minds of upcoming generations. Ultimately, the direction America goes in will be determined by what future generations believe.

          So to the extent that arguing with Lefty means exposing young people to the right ideas, it makes no difference whether or not Lefty gets it.

  32. These guys think they’re George Kennan and it’s still 1947. My God the utter cluelessness to reality. This is science fiction-tier fantasy. The US is turning into French Guyana and they’re talking about arming the world.

    • This, a million times.

      I am beyond tired of hearing the world + dog’s, “Arsenal of Democracy, ” fantasies.

      The US has not had that kind of top to bottom industrial capacity coupled with the political will behind it since the late 60s/early 70s.

  33. “2. Rejection of Imperialism and Globalism. We support a system of free cooperation and competition among nation-states, working together through trade treaties, defensive alliances, and other common projects that respect the independence of their members.”

    So… reject globalism by creating global networks of trade pacts and military alliances.


  34. Now that the left has kicked color-blindness to the curb, conservatives are going all in on it. Even Tucker Carlson is constantly referring to race as “skin color.”

    The left has decided that not seeing color is itself racist, since Whites have to acknowledge their own racism, and aren’t allowed to ignore race, according to them. The left wants to make everything seen through the lens of race.

    Conservatives see this as an opportunity to differentiate themselves from the racially-conscious left. They can shout “Dems are the real racists,” and virtue-signal about how “we’re all one race, the human race” as a strategy to gain minority votes.

    It’s true that support for Democrats is plummeting among Hispanics, but that’s due to skyrocketing prices and general stumbling and bumbling from Biden and Harris.

    The Third World people flooding the US obviously don’t care about all the MLK colorblind crap coming from the conservative camp. They’re here to get stuff. It’s all about land and resources and competition with other tribes, the same as it’s always been.

    • Right: the notion that “colorblindness” is a good thing is based on a fundamental misconception: the erroneous idea that “race is only skin deep”.

      Once you realize that group racial differences are real, and consequential, then colorblindness ceases to be a virtue.

      It becomes clear that ignoring the reality of racial differences can get you killed.

  35. I still read Buchanan and listen to Gottfried, the destruction of these mens influence in conservatism was shameful.
    Whatever our movement becomes and how ever it progresses from here we must constantly be aware of the tactics that our enemies might use.
    The positive thing that is happening in this century is that normie out there is not quite as trusting of the GOP establishment nor the media that supports it.

    • You’re right. These guys are Twitterlitterati compared to intellectual heavyweights like Gottfried and Buchanan. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with coming from the academic/bureaucrat class (until lately, that is…), but seriously, this posse has two foreigners and zero first-hand experience with the American working class. Again, not that they are outright hostile against the working class like that NR psycho Williamson, nor are they as phoney as JD Vance. But is it too much to ask that our inteligentsia have some association with the men and women for whom these ideas are supposed to defend? This group could just as easily make a lateral fit into the MSM strata of professionals completely disassociated from the society they profess to analyze/ report on. Another day, another mind fart, another dollar.

  36. “It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre” – Enoch Powell

  37. ZMan:…”A nation is a people, not a collection of abstract concepts. Within a nation there can be a fair degree of variances, but relative to other people the differences are tiny from the perspective of outsiders”…
    Therein lies the fault line between the National Conservative manifesto and the Dissident Right.

    Also, it would appear point 11 of the NC manifesto was omitted: We believe you should vote harder in the future.

  38. Is it accurate to suggest that— however much truth its principles may otherwise contain— a movement can (and will) be brought down, by the presence among its beliefs of even one blatant falsehood?

    > And that for conservatism in America, that fatal falsehood is the belief in, and embrace and defense of, radical egalitarianism?

    And that once the central premise of egalitarianism is granted— once conservatives have accepted the notion that all races are essentially alike in their endowments and capabilities— *then the eventual demise of the entire conservative project is inevitable*?

    Because once it’s assumed that all people-groups are essentially alike, then any consistent disparity in outcome must be the result of a faulty system: Eric Holder’s doctrine of “disparate impact”.

    And as a movement dedicated to fairness, conservatism would find itself compelled to join this struggle to fix this flaw in an otherwise-admirable system.

    > And at that point, the conservative project has been effectively derailed; as it sets about to diagnose and correct a systemic ‘flaw’ which does not in fact exist, in order to correct a supposed ‘inequity’ which a proper understanding of biology— that by the nature of things, human people-groups will inevitably be differentially endowed in those traits and abilities which lead to success— would completely and satisfactorally explain.

    Because it stands to reason that this search for a non-existent entity could theoretically go on forever: ‘We haven’t found it yet, but we’re not giving up!’

    At that point, persistence in this search— for something which by definition will never be found; cannot possibly be found, since it doesn’t exist— is framed as a sign of great moral strength and determination: ‘We too are opposed to all forms of racism, and pledged to eradicate them, whatever it takes.’

    And when finding and fixing this non-existent ‘problem’ is framed as the greatest of all moral objectives— ‘ending inequity once and for all’— it’s not hard to see how conservatism could be permanently derailed in the process: wasting its time, and destroying its credibility, chasing the ever-elusive phantom of “racial equality”.

    • Once conservatives embraced egalitarianism, their eventual fate was a foregone conclusion:

      Divorcing themselves from fundamental biological reality by denying inherent human differences, ensured that so many of their beliefs and positions— regarding sex and male-female relations, race, relations with other nations— would be wrong.

      And how could a movement which was wrong about the essential
      fundamentals ever hope to endure?

    • Maybe you are correct. I think that, had they simply allowed the right of free association, it would have been the kind of hypocrisy that helps. Yes, yes, there are some who are still benighted and choose not to associate with the Black man- we, of course would be happy to commune with such men, if any could be found who qualify (on the merits, you see, on their own merits) for admittance to our club. Sadly…

      • Right: like so many things, ‘affirmative action’ sounded reasonable when first introduced: ‘let’s do everything possible to give Blacks the chance to perform at White levels. We’ll ‘level the playing field’, to make sure everyone is getting equal treatment. And when a Black and a White are performing at equal levels, we’ll agree to pick the Black.’

        Was it ever that way?

        Or has affirmative action always been what it is now: rather than raising Black performance so they can compete with Whites, lowering standards until Blacks can pass them. In the name of ‘equity’, discriminating against Whites, with lower job requirements and lower admission standards for Blacks. And then when Blacks still can’t compete, doing away with evaluations and grades altogether.

        Meritocracy is racist! ‘Excellence’ is just a dog-whistle for White supremacy! The only true “equality” comes from mandating equal outcomes.

        Not hard to see how any society which embraces this nonsense is well on its way to an Anti-racist Idiocracy.

        • Correct, real Bill. When you fail to achieve equality despite numerous programs and money invested in the project, what’s left is to eliminate the standards set up by (White) society. After that, I think we all know what they might like to eliminate next….

  39. I hope Paul Gottfried responds to this. Of the names I recognize, Julie Kelly is the only real surprise. She has been good on defending the January 6th protesters. I wonder what she is thinking throwing in with this group.

    • From what I gather, there is some sort of schism in the Claremont world. One camp is open to rethinking conservatism, to a point, while the other side is ordering new powdered wigs. The former group, the people behind that TAC post, are a little bit open to right-wing ideas, but very hesitantly.

      • I’m sure they’ll sort out their schism in about 10 years, by which time there won’t be anything left to conserve. We talk; They Act. Until that changes, there is little hope.

  40. So, does a nation that should be able to control its borders for the benefit of its own people be able to exclude whomever they wish? If country X doesn’t want, say Africans, just to pick a totally random people out of a hat, is that ok? Or is it now racist, because they are excluding based on looks, or intelligence (lack thereof actually) or culture? I mean if we’re all equal in the eyes of God, how can any country truly be able to control who lives there? The idea of freedom of association was done away with decades ago – how does that square with points one and ten?

    I have to say I was sorry to see the Hillsdale boys signing off on this, but I shouldn’t be surprised – it’s the society we live in and let’s face it, the sainted negro, icon of the left, is ultimately at the bottom of it, as always. Something we’re apparently never going to be free of.

    • I wonder if they really believe it. If they do, they simply have not been exposed to the Urban Ape. If not, it’s more insidious, and they are misleading others into believing something that isn’t true.

      The reality is that, with regards to the Sainted Negro, they, like every other race, can be charted on a bell curve. Most are in the middle, and are violent and dangerous. Guys like Ben Carson or Thomas Sowell are WAY on the right, outliers.

      Apparently, reality isn’t a “thing” anymore. That is, until it carjacks your ride and shoots you in the head.

      • I think Dems/liberals understand race biology more than Repubs/normies. Look at how they live. They are simply and ruthlessly exploiting anti-biology for personal political benefit. It’s why they have no true problem embracing former outright racists like a Biden or Byrd, as long as they play along with the strategy.

    • I mean if we’re all equal in the eyes of God

      Equal in God’s eyes for God’s purposes. Unequal in man’s eyes for man’s purposes. Just ask the (((chosen))).

      Reminds me of those signs “In God we trust. All others pay cash.”

    • Remember, Hillsdale went all in on the covid scam. There’s not much of a difference fundamentally between them and any other random institute of higher learning.

    • Non-white countries can exclude anyone they want. For example if China is full of Chinese or Eritrea is 100% Eritrean, no one is going to raise an eyebrow.

      But if white countries try to exclude anyone at all…”Oy vey! It’s anudda shoah!”

  41. Forgot how bad The American Conservative’s comment section was. What a train wreck. A bunch of leftist and moderate midwits thinking they’re owning the right.

    • That really is a dumpster fire. I noticed that the few remaining NRO readers are also well to the left. The weird part is the commenters are well to the left of the writers, who are left-of-center for the most part.

    • There are leftists who appear to spend most of their day commenting at a website called “The American Conservative.” I have seen people ask them, why are you here, they don’t have a good answer. They are also publishing columns by Peter Van Buren, who just wrote this column on how the Democrats can win his vote back. Buchanan should make a public statement against the magazine and ask them to no longer run his column.

    • It was Rod Dreher who attracted all the lefties. He had a serious case of TDS and attracted the lunatics. TAC had some good conservative commenters but they gave up once the flying monkeys took up roost.

  42. I’ll admit I don’t know much about Buckley biography, so I read the Wiki page. It’s quite an eye-opener. Yale, Skull and Bones, CIA. This doesn’t make him an evil person, but isn’t it more than just a little bit likely that he was one of many paid influencers during the Cold War? People forget just how deep is the influence of the Deep State, and it goes back generations.

  43. Yoram Hazony, who seems to lack even a high school level understanding of human biology.

    What is a white man?

    I don’t know, I’m not a biologist.

  44. give the abject and comprehensive failure of conservatism, from its very inception, why is it worthy of discussion? why should we care about the bugmen at NR and their fantasy manifesto? i have turned my back to conservatism (and conservatives) and am focusing my attention on the new society that is emerging from the ruins of AINO.

      • The converts will come via sky high gas prices and sexual perverts being forced on our kids, not through some high-faluting prick in a bow tie and trendy glasses lecturing them about what Bill Buckley or Russell Kirk would have done.

      • DLS: I’d rather live in a small, rump society of genuine hard right racial realists than one filled with lukewarm converts of convenience who can never truly be trusted.

        • Me too, 3g4me. I guess the trick is not so much gaining a lot of converts, but moving a critical mass just far enough that we are left the hell alone. Like Putin, we need our own neutral Ukraine as a buffer from GAY (Global American Yiddishville).

          • Like Putin you are going to need nukes to enforce your own boundaries, otherwise its Gadaffi time.

    • Likewise with the sentiment, but their readers comprise a not insignificant portion of the populace that is most likely to come around to our side. It’s not the writers we should care about, but their audience. Same sentiment with Hannity types. But if he is a gateway to Tucker who is gateway to the DR, we should care.

  45. “For starters, they would be puzzled as to why such a thing was even necessary in 2022.”

    Conservatives, being almost entirely white, the ethnic group with the least ethnocentrism, could not imagine the power of fundamental tribalism over all other groups on the planet. Consequently, they were unable to foresee how unappealing their race blind civic nationalism is to almost everyone. Even minorities that espouse conservative platitudes rejoiced when OJ is acquitted and when Obama was elected.

    Further, the blank slate egalitarianism, promoted but not believed by those who run our media, caused them to assume that all races were approximately the same with respect to intelligence, criminality, and the ability to build and preserve a civilization. Therefore, it was unseemly to be concerned about who enters our country.

    The deepest reason that conservatives almost always fail is their inability to understand and accept that racial tribalism is the most powerful political force and respond accordingly.

    • They also fail to appreciate that they are defeated. The man or woman who lives in comfortable surroundings and only has the rudeness of formerly subject others to deal with doesn’t yet appreciate the magnitude of their fall. Our society is filled with people who still think they are kings (privileged) and won’t feel threatened until it’s their house burned, their kid terrorized, their community destroyed.

    • caused them to assume that all races were approximately the same with respect to intelligence, criminality, and the ability to build and preserve a civilization

      For those that do believe, I think they sustain this misconception because of contact with the odd specimen that is intelligent, law-abiding and diligent. Problem is, they extrapolate that specimen to the rest, and fail to look at averages or typicality.

  46. I think it was DeMaistre that said if something needs to be written down, it shows the nation’s decline is almost complete. Beforehand, what it was to be an American wasn’t something you needed to write down, since it was known implicitly.

    Overall, the document would not be that bad and most ion our side would nod along with most of it. Unfortunately, it contains the poison pills of its own undoing, and not really hidden in any way.

    Race: We condemn the use of state and private institutions to discriminate and divide us against one another on the basis of race.

    Like Z said, this is anti-reality. The one that really galls me is the private institutions portion. This makes them essentially on the same plane as radical 1960’s leftists.

    Immigration: We call for much more restrictive policies until these countries summon the wit to establish more balanced, productive, and assimilationist policies.

    Immigrants ARE assimilating to the culture. Our culture is built around grievance and hating whitey. This is rehashed 1980’s conservatism

    Real shame. I had high hopes for some of the signatories like Michael Anton.

    • At this point even the most well-intentioned ‘conservatives’ are merely running against the wind.

  47. “Was there a horrible calamity that derailed conservatives and sent the nation reeling into authoritarian degeneracy? Did the Left stage a revolt and seize the country by force? Did we lose the Cold War?”

    Yes (the Bush Family)

    • I really like Z’s phrase ‘authoritarian degeneracy’. It’s the best label I have seen for what we are being subjected to. Our rulers remind me of a punt returner who has nothing in front of him for 50 yards to the goal line. Our only hope – and it is not unrealistic – is that the returner starts doing a victory dance ten yards from the goal, and either fumbles the ball or is tackled through inattention to pursuing defenders.

      NB: Yes, for those here with long memories, I am thinking of the Leon Lett fiasco toward the end of the 1992 Super Bowl. It sticks to me as a kind of parable of how arrogance and stupidity are punished.

        • No, it was the Super Bowl. The Cowboys won 52-17, and could of won 59-17 except Lett celebrated his fumble return for a touchdown too early, and it was either Steve Tasker or Don Beebe who tracked him down, tackled him, and forced a TO. Not that it mattered to the outcome, but it was a moment of pride for a defeated team.

          If memory serves, that Thanksgiving game the following year was won by the Bills. Hell, I have to check it out.

          • It was Beebe. When you watch a compilation of “early celebrations” in football, a very distinct trend emerges regarding the hue of those players doing the show boating and those who see the play through.

          • Yup, Super Bowl, the second one the Bills lost to Dallas and their fourth in a row. Beebe caught up to him just before the goal line and knocked it out of his hands for a touchback. Respect for doing this in a blowout game, and shame on Lett for showboating.

Comments are closed.