Is American Conservatism Possible?

In America, Right and Left are relative terms in that the Right is defined by its relationship with the Left. While the Left flits from novelty to novelty, the Right shouts, “please slow down” while following it around. As Robert Lewis Dabney put it a century ago, “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.” His observation has remained true to this day. It is why yesterday’s radical idea is today’s conservative principle.

This is not true in other parts of the world. Radicalism exists, but it throws itself against the defenses of tradition and history. It may break down those walls, as we see in Europe, but the contours of the Right remain in place. European conservatism is the appeal to hierarchy, tradition and permanence. Joseph de Maistre would be shocked by modern Europe, but he would still be able to make out the borders that define the modern conservative forces of Europe.

The opposite is true in America. Take someone from the founding generation and transport him into the middle of the 19th century and he would recognize the forces of radicalism quite easily. After all, the radical abolitionist would look strikingly familiar, having come from the same stock. Transport that man further into time and he would recognize the New England roots of the progressive. Conservatism, on the other hand, would make no sense to him in any age.

That is the problem for conservatives. The rest of the world has traditions, habits of mind and institutions with roots into the mists of time. America is a young society, so the ancient customs are not all that ancient. Most of those were borrowed from Europe during the colonial period. Others were trampled under the hoofs of one prior radical pogrom or another. Modern conservatives are left to conjure an authority due to a lack of tradition and history.

You can see the dilemma here in this speech Michael Anton delivered to Hillsdale College on the end of conservatism and the beginning of a new politics. Anton is part of a project to build a “new” conservatism. Like the “old” conservatism, his starting point is Lincoln and the “second founding” as imagined by Harry Jaffa. Note also that the person introducing Anton is careful to insert the Athens and Jerusalem line into his remarks, signaling his membership in the cult of Jaffa.

The cult of Jaffa and Lincolnism has been discussed at length here and other places, so there is no need to go over it again. Of interest here is the selection of Lincoln as the Abraham of modern conservatism. This is a bit like picking Karl Marx as your starting point for German conservatism. In his time, Lincoln was a radical and not just the bourgeois coffee house variety. He was willing to kill as many of his fellow citizens as needed to impose his radical vision on the country.

The “new right” would no doubt dispute that characterization of Lincoln, but you cannot place Lincoln on the Right during his age. Abolitionism was a radical idea, one that the radicals of the founding generation rejected. John Adams opposed the idea on the grounds that it was worse that slavery. Like many of his generation, he personally opposed slavery, but he understood the danger posed by the abolitionists. Adams would have viewed Lincoln as a dangerous fanatic.

Of course, in his own time Adams was a dangerous fanatic. The people trying to form up a new conservatism love waving around the Declaration of Independence, but that was the most radical document produced to that point. In fact, the entire founding of the United States was a great experiment in radical politics. It is not an accident that America is often called an experiment. The very basis of America is the praxis of radical thought and it continues to this day.

The truth is America has never had much to work with for anyone trying to create a genuine conservatism, because America lacks the history and traditions that would naturally anchor conservatism. Compounding it is that the limited history and traditions that are available are nothing but a long journal of one radical experiment after another in the vain hope of creating that city on a hill John Winthrop imagined when he and his fellow fanatics landed in the New World.

This lack of necessary ingredients with which to fashion a genuine conservatism in America is probably why conservatism has been a failure. When you are reduced to conjuring a novel history in support of novel ideas, as we see with the current “new right” experiment, all you are really doing is engaging in your own form of radicalism, just without the force of authority enjoyed by the Left. Conservatism becomes nothing more than a parlor game for outsiders.

This is why any effort to produce a genuine alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy needs to start with an honest inventory of reality. What can be produced from the materials at hand to create something that can resist the acid of liberalism? The answer cannot lie within the liberal tradition. To go back to 1950, 1850 or 1750 looking for answers to the problems created in those times inevitably means explaining away the defects of liberalism in order to preserve it.

The place to start with fashioning an alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy is not in 1950, 1850 or 1750, but in 2050. Given the current demographic trends, imagine a continent filled with versions of Orania and then contemplate the ideology of a people who can maintain it. This is one lesson we can take from the founders. They tried to fashion a practical solution for their people at the time. The next founding will have to do the same thing, but for a different people.

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. Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that makes coffee. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

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.

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

200 thoughts on “Is American Conservatism Possible?

  1. The American right is real, ideologically confidant, and has become an international force. Influencing political frameworks and discourse in borders far beyond the American mainland.

    The American right’s most successful variant, Conservatism, prides itself on
    defeating identitariansim, volkish attitudes, and of course fascism. Conservatives have consistently opposed those forces for hundreds of years.

    Conservatives link themselves to Lincoln by tying to Northern Republican industrialism, along with the belief that all people are fundamentally equal (with hard work and free enterprise anything is possible).

    I despise Conservatism and believe it has a case for being most destructive ideology of the past centuries. It doesn’t have an identity issue or complex. No competing movement outside of liberals has the confidence to challenge a Conservative moral framework ( I personally don’t have a problem with X doing Y they are adults…) and it shows.

  2. Slavery in the US was itself a form of radicalism.

    Chattel slavery a departure from English common law. It had been outlawed following the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon England in the eleventh century. It had also faded from the cultures of northern Europe – which was the larger social milieu of English people. It also existed in America as an institution for ~150 years – less time than has passed since it was ended in 1867.

  3. The word conservative as a political label has become completely meaningless.

    So it’s hard for me to understand exactly what you’re getting at here.

    WRT the right in America as opposed to the right in Europe and radicalism here.
    The foundation of Europe’s right is the traditions and history of the people of various countries.

    That would be a place for a coherent right to form in America. The cultures – traditions – of the peoples that originally settled the US a century and mire before the revolution – let alone the civil war. That would include acknowledging that there was never a single culture for America – not at its founding (in the 17th century not the constitution), not during the revolution, or civil war, or after. There has always been a propositional element to America, but not the only or even primary element.

    It would require a return to federalism such that the cultural differences of geographic areas were mutually respected.

  4. Well done!
    Over the summer I read John Adams and 1776 by David McCullough, and a biography each of Washington and Jefferson, by Joseph Ellis.
    As I read I realized what you assert about the radical roots of the USA something I never got in AP American History or the “required” college “Humanitie$” courses.
    The contradictions are everywhere, from Sally Hemings through the Louisiana Purchase, the beginnings of Manifest Destiny.
    I agree, Lincoln was anything but a “Conservative”,
    I’m old and won’t be in a position to see what happens.

    • I’m old and the disintegration of the Union seems possivle for me to witness within my lifetime. Don’t throw away your popcorn yet!

      • Given the abomination personified by Katie Hobbs* the END has to be near.

        Dan Kurt

        *Celebrated Arizona thief.

  5. European here. It’s not about America being young. America is older than many countries. In 200 years you can develop traditions and you can preserve the traditiins inherited from your British past

    It is that America is the first country founded on the Enlightenment insane values: liberty, equality and progress. These are leftist ideals and they are the opposite of the values of the Right and every other culture: duty, hierarchy and tradition, respectively. America has no traditions because every tradition has bern destroyed in the name of progress,.

    This is why America has no Right. A Right that defends freedom, equality and progress is no Right but a Left who drags its feet. If equality is your god, yo have to end up accepting equality between men and women, gays and straight, native and immigrants, cis and trans.

    After World War II, the American Enlightenment model was exported to the entire Western world. This is why there is no Right in the entire Western world and the West is desrroying its traditions. That is, we do what you guys have done for two centuries. We are delayed, this is the only difference.

    • Sorry about destroying your countries. Our bad.

      But, seriously, great observations. I’ve lived in Germany a few times – and, no, not as a soldier. Even my dumb, young self (as opposed to my dumb, older self) noticed how WWII utterly destroyed Europe’s self-confidence.

      It was odd. Europeans seems to dislike and look down upon Americans even as they adopted our primary values. It was strange to watch. I suppose that they considered us assholes, but we were the victors so they should follow our lead. I’m not sure.

      Regardless, America was an experiment that succeed (for a time) due to very unusual circumstances. We had an empty continent of riches and mostly Anglo-Saxon settlers. Not surprisingly, we did great. It wasn’t so much our ideals as the land and people, but everyone just assumes that it was the ideals.

      They’re wrong.

      I hope Europe finds its way, which, ironically, is back to future.

      • Agreed. I only want to add that I did not want to blame America. The Enlightenment was an European project, whose first implementation was the US, followed closely by the French Revolution. This transcontinental project replaced the old traditional monarchies from late 18th century to the World War II.

        During the 19th century, a hybrid was created, which retained the private Christian traditions with the Enlightened form of government. This hybrid was destroyed in the First Worl War. European youth after the war embraced radicalim and degeneracy. World War II was the coup-de-grace.

    • Mr. Nobody,

      Another interesting observation when considering the USA is that it was founded by people who were willing to leave their homeland. This process of self-selection resulted in a country populated by the most rootless and ambitious/greedy of England. It’s hard to engender tradition with that material.

      • Agreed. People that immigrate are the most rootless. In addition, people came from different traditions: a German is not the same as an Englishman. So they had to invent a least common denominator culture with less tradition.

        A more radical version of this process ia tried right now in Western countries. Import the most rootless people of the world so the only they have in common is atomized capitalism

    • Self-admitted Euro. You have precisely dick to say anything meaningful about American culture, society, customs, anything at all. Not trying to be a dick to you, you seem a good chap. But America isn’t Europe and to be an American means one IS NOT European.

    • After World War II, the American Enlightenment model was exported to the entire Western world.

      Ive made this point a lot lately.

      The things we call liberal-democracy and capitalism would more properly be called Americanism.

      Both were imposed and or aped by other countries as America’s military power grew. Maybe reaching a peak a decade ago – but maybe not.

      Taking a long term historical perspective the Ukraine war is really about the expansion of the American way of life into new territory. I’d say its an open question whether or not that expansion proceeds.

  6. @usNThem, “are there enough entrepreneurs willing to take the chance of creating a genuine conservative, reality based alternative that many more would be gladly willing to join?”

    No. Not a prayer. Read the last couple days comments and see all those you have to exclude, and who you have left. Race realism does not apply to white progressives or white conservatives. Or white libertarians. Or any apathetic, indifferent or pretty much any other whites. It also does not apply to non-white conservatives, because it does not apply to conservatives at all, conservatives being all deluded or clueless or cucks or whatever. While non-white progs may have the appropriate racial identity, they are excluded because it is not white identity. It also does not apply to Teh Boomurz because they are all greedy or something. Nor to uppity wahmmuns who don’t know their place is cooking and having babies.

    It appears to only apply to a tiny minority of arguably right-leaning white males. I say arguably because, like Marxists and other progressives, they think of people only in terms of their group identity. That is, they are collectivists, who are almost completely in agreement with progressives in their categorizations of people. And yet awareness that they share so many views with the Marxists seems not to register. If all you have to do to change a race realist into a Marxist is substitute “class consciousness” for “race consciousness”, it might bear a little more thought.

    Self evidently race realists are largely quite intelligent white males, but not very wise, if the plan is to limit itself to a demographic that would fit comfortably in a typical high school grandstand without violating social distancing guidelines. Particularly if step 1 is, as with Marxists, to exclude people with capital. If one is thinking in terms of a new society in juxtaposition to existing society, its hard to be much of an entrepreneur without capital.

    Seriously, if I were seeking to marginalize the ideology, it’s hard to come up with anything more effective than it’s proponents have done to themselves.

    • There are a huge number of issues with your comment. For one, the Marxists have themselves changed “class consciousness” into “race consciousness.” The proletariat revolution failed so they are trying a race based revolution.

      That goes to your next point about being collectivist. The reason anybody arrives at this point is because the choice was made for us. It was the regime that abandoned the propositional nation. It was the regime that chose population replacement and replacing the founding Constitutional order with a legal and financial regime and a victim caste system that targets us for dispossession. If the endless anti-white vitriol institutionalized by the regime is taken at face value it could lead to our, “abolishment.”

      As time goes on more and more people will be here. It won’t be because they are collectivists. It won’t because they are just like the Leftists. It will be because of the reality and what will be necessary to survive.

    • Steve, thanks for bringing your contrarian observations to the party.

      Speaking for myself, I am quite individualistic by temperament. However, reality has forced me to embrace a collectivist mindset and here’s why: the unit of survival is the tribe, not the individual.

      I fear we’re headed for some really tough times and my selfish desire to survive has forced me to awaken to the deeper “collectivist” reality.

      • This is why I don’t write for a living.

        I am not at all opposed to collective action. From my first commercial venture at age 12 (importing fireworks) until I sold off my last company a decade or so ago, I’ve always understood the advantages to group action over individual action. I’ve also understood that you generally maximize your position by hiring the best person for the job that you can afford. (Somewhat circular, I know.)

        But it is stupid to lock yourself into an inferior outcome just to accommodate faddish preferences. I get that those preferences are increasingly being imposed by force, which is why I’m out of the biz now.

        Thing is, IME, most of the angst is unnecessary. As @RealityRules says, this strife was imposed from above. People tend to self-segregate. Where I was born, an interracial couple was when she went to the prom with someone who spelled his name Larsen instead of the proper way, Larson. And don’t get me started about the Larssens.

        Without all the centralization, we’d mostly all head back to our local community of like-minded people.

  7. Fascinating. Quite radical, lol!

    This goes back to the Three Kingdoms, doesn’t it? Settlement by the Puritans and Freemason Founders*, if done in 2022, would be like settlement by marxist trannys.

    A fine ending, by the way-many Oranias.
    Yes, that’s the most likely prediction. Something to plot from.

    *DC is replete with Freemason architecture and motifs, with only smidgen, a nod, to Catholic-derived Christian symbols. The Enlightenment Masons, radicals themselves, combined what knowledge bases they had, drawing from such sources as Greek, Egyptian, occult, and pagan attempting to find a better solution than throne-altar hierarchy. The Romans, remember, had tried rearranging the government chairs themselves.

  8. Stipulate that your critique of the “Cult of Jaffa” is valid.

    What other ideas than those HJ propounded would you espouse?

  9. For any “ism” to triumph, including conservatism, it must be able to exclude its enemies. For Oranias to thrive in 2050 on formerly American soil, there must be apartheid certainty; enforced by a death penalty, if necessary. Are conservatives willing to make the bones of their enemies the foundation of their polity? History has demonstrated that their enemies, the Leftists, are. If there is to be a Third Founding to dismantle the project celebrated by Jaffa’s hagiography of Lincoln, then it will almost certainly require another bloody civil war. Otherwise, all these potential Oranias will become as prolific as Shaker communities (which is to say “Not!”).

    • You’re touching on the issue. Orania—in weaker, nascent versions, is here. Have been for quite a while. They are now recognized and have been targeted by the progressive Left now in power. Obama used HUD funding to “block bust” these Orania seedlings. Nothing stopping the Fed’s from relocating our newly admitted “refugees” to any particular Orania either. This strategy will continue and I suspect grow in the future.

      In SA, the talk of Orania (at least what I read) conceded that Orania existed because the current Black government ignored it (for the time being.). We have no such luxury I fear. Also, Orania was seen as less successful than hoped because of less White participation than expected—due to the hardships of relocating to such an “experiment”in progress. And of course, we have a healthy percentage here of traitorous Whites ourselves.

  10. This is an excellent essay, and its concluding paragraph is particularly appoosite and accurate. There is no hope whatsoever of instaurating Western civilization within existing political confines. Even Russia is not entirely proof against the abominations of the Left. We will have to refound the West de novo.

    Such a project entails many things, not the least of which is absolute independence in our own autonamous lands. We must be absolutely free of Leftist entanglements.

    It also means that the citizens of these lands must be entirely or almost entirely Western, i.e. white. This must be statutorily inviolate. It must be an unamendable first principle.

    Once the land and its people are secure, we must also conjure its cultural, political, religious and intellectual underpinnings. The culture would have to be overwhelmingly and perhaps entirely high culture. Pop culture and youth culture, with their reckless and anarchical tendencies, are salients for Leftism. They will be banned.

    Presumably, there would be an official religion, and orthodox Christianity seems to be the best bet here. It has proved the most resistent to Leftist decadence and corruption. Citizens would be allowed to hold heterodox religious and non-religious beliefs, of course, but would not be allowed to organize around such beliefs and to promulgate them.

    The intellectual basis of the new West would be overwhelmingly pre-Enlightenment. All nonsense revolving around democracy, egalitarianism, so-called “human rights,” and the perfectibility of men and their society would be right out. And needless to say, this philosophical structure could not be at odds with orthodox Christianity.

    Obviously, this is a scattershooting and reductive rough draft. But over time our best brains will have to come to terms with these issues, and I’m confident they will. My hope is that I live long enough to see the new foundation.

    • seems like leftist “thought” is part and parcel of the white genome. not everyone carries it, but many do. any human managed society, no matter how “stiff” initially, eventually transitions to “soft” mode and implodes.

      • Agree. This inherent radicalism may be the driver.
        Experimentation and exploration are ever our way.

        The ancient proto-Aryan pattern was not empire. When a settled land’s population grew large, outliers would migrate. There are chains of red and blond heads all over the globe.

    • I haven’t seen much Christianity that is resistant to wokeism. Most of it has been converged. Most of the churches that don’t have rainbow flags hanging up still carried the regime’s water for the plandemic.

      • Agree. The Gutian halfbreeds revised our literature, then spent centuries erasing steles and burning every library that their versions might be dominant, our only reference works.

        Most all Greek an Latin sources, for instance, are second and third-hand copies. We must take back the Bible from its Semitic propaganda. Only then will Christianity stay the true course: our gods are White.

  11. I think a better approach would be do decide what specific socioeconomic policies you want to push for. I suspect much of whats driving this “new right” thing is the culture war.

  12. “Of course, in his own time Adams was a dangerous fanatic. The people trying to form up a new conservatism love waving around the Declaration of Independence, but that was the most radical document produced to that point. In fact, the entire founding of the United States was a great experiment in radical politics.”

    This is an important point that needs to be challenged.

    To the contrary, the American revolutionaries were profoundly conservative. They were fighting for the the rights of Englishmen of 1688. The Bill of Rights is a knock-off of the English Bill of Rights. The Declaration is a knock-off of Locke’s “Second Treatise.” They weren’t trying to eliminate the English language, the English common law, or English Protestantism. They rejected an alliance with the radical French revolutionaries of 1689. They were merely trying to replace the corrupt administration of the British ruling class and the British Army.

    If the American Revolutionaries were “radical” in any way, it was only insofar as they expected the British government to adhere to its own laws.

    While Jaffa is surely incorrect in alleging that the Founders would have secretly or tacitly endorsed Lincoln and his aims, he is not wrong in alleging that the Civil war constituted a Second Founding. But the Second Founding was not as benign as he makes it out to be, nor was it a continuation of the founding principles; to the contrary the “Radical” Republicans violated those principles, essentially scrapping the Constitution and re-establishing the country at gunpoint. Whereas the Bill of Rights of 1791 begins “Congress shall make no law,” the Fourteenth Amendment, which supersedes the original Constitution, declares “No state shall…”

    The South was the truly “conservative” side in the Civil War, and American Conservatism ended with Sherman’s March to the Sea. With the possible exception of the “return to normalcy/America First” brand of Republicanism in the 1920s, everything since the Civil War has been one or another flavor of progressive radicalism. The election of 1912 in particular was a choice between the Democrat Progressive big-government warmonger and the Republican Progressive big-government warmonger. Conservatism has been dead for a long time.

    More broadly, though, there is a bigger point here: history is made by radicals who institute a system, and once the system is in place it becomes “conservative” to try to maintain it. The English system that the Founders were fighting for was the result of the English Civil War of the 17th century. “Freedom of religion” and “representative government,” which we regard as a “conservative” principles today, started out as a radical principles when Cromwell challenged the official state religion of England, deposed Charles I, and seized control of Parliament.

    Christ was a radical who was tortured and executed for challenging the authority of the Pharisees, and a thousand years later the Church that was founded in his name was torturing and executing heretics. Mohammed was a radical who slew the unbelievers, but by the 19th century Islam fell into decay as the Ottoman “conservatives” sought to preserve the system created in his name. DeGaulle was a “conservative” who sought to preserve not the Bourbon monarchy, but the French Republic created by the Jacobin radicals. Bolshevism began as a radical movement; by the late 1970s-early 80s, Brezhnev, and Andropov and Chernenko were considered “conservative.” Pro-choicers today are “conservatives” insofar as they sought to preserve the 49-year-old precedent in Roe v. Wade, and were aghast when the supposed “radicals” on the Court actually read the Constitution as written and overturned it.

    I confess that I not have really good answer for this. It seems to be a universal principle that conservatives are always on the defensive, as the only guarantee in history is constant change.

    I would argue that “conservatism” is, broadly speaking, a set of cultural mores, laws, and religious beliefs loosely but not exclusively associated with a particular geography and a particular people. Lee Kuan Yew was a perfectly conservative Englishman yet racially Chinese and located in Singapore.

    Perhaps the best way to define “conservatism” is to be skeptical of change merely for the sake of change itself until the change is demonstrated to be salutary and beneficial. Progressives seem to have a faith-like belief that change is always good and are always pushing for it… yet none of them have bothered to demonstrate to me what the benefits of gender reassignment, gay marriage, or drag queens indoctrinating toddlers actually are.

    • America has always been two countries. One founded at Jamestown and the other at Plymouth rock. One side wanted live as Englishmen in the New World, the other wanted to establish Zion and a shining city on the hill (this includes William Penn and his lot). Massachusetts conquered the country and thus Thanksgiving is a national holiday.

      Z man is wrong.

      The answer is 1750. Who we are can be grounded in the reality of Englishman in the New World exercising our ancient liberties found as far back as our Germanic and Celtic ancestors. That is what will provide the footing for those little Oranias.

      Incidentally, it is protestants from across the channel who live in the current Orania and its what they do just swapping out Dutch ancestors.

    • the conservative South was less fit than the radical North; re: economy. and they paid the price. conserving a losing strategy is no virtue.

    • “Progressives seem to have a faith-like belief that change is always good and are always pushing for it…”

      …except for “climate change”. Every Liberal I hear is dead set on implementing global climate stasis immediately.

      • I get your snark, but…climate change *is* change—on steroids!

        CC amelioration is nothing less than complete and total change of every aspect of the human condition. How you eat, what you eat, where you live, how you live, and so forth. Heck, even the stasis level of the boogeyman, CO2, is in dispute with some countries (Germany) having signed onto negative CO2 admissions goals after their no growth CO2 emission target is reached.

        • I’m happily battling the CC agenda by flooding the atmosphere with grubby Co2 via our warm toasty fire. Maybe tomorrow, I’ll add more by barbecuing a couple of ribeyes.

    • Xman: Important point about ‘conservatism’ being innately on the defensive because it is generally defending the status quo, regardless of the origin or nature of the system being defended. I also concur that to be conservative means to be sceptical of change for the sake of change. That is necessary but not sufficient.

      I would argue that genuine conservatism must have a clear belief about precisely what it is that merits conserving, and that such things must be more than transitory fads or procedural details. Conserving the traditional family, traditional morality, and most important conserving one’s people and history are worth fighting for. Conserving ‘low taxes’ or fighting about the specificities of the city council do not meet that bar.

      • I think what we are getting at here is that Conservatism is already a dead word. I don’t know what the new word is, but it must reflect what 2050 is and it must reflect an affirmative posture. By that I mean that Conservative connotes a defensive posture. The very project was silly because it took place in a context where its enemy appealed to an idea of constant, linear progress toward an ideal. The progressive juggernaut could bribe an electorate to vote for it by promising moral, financial, legal largesse in exchange. Lib whites got the moral largess, the POCs the financial and legal largesse. Conservatives stood no chance. The last phase of regime granted largesse is status in victimhood and liberation in self degradation as the realities of bankruptcy set in.

        The new thing with a new word is going to be an affirmative regime that also has the power to negate. ‘This is who and what we are and why. This is who, and what we are not and why. This is what we do to preserve and improve who and what we are. The why is never questioned. This is what we do to crush all that threatens the preservation and improvement of who and what we are and anything that questions the why – where the why is our people’s survival, territorial sovereignty and ability to thrive.’

        Looked at in retrospect, it is insane and stupid to have founded a propositional nation when you know that the very people you know are most fit to agree to and live by said proposition are not likely to do so in very large numbers. What we are going to do is have a debate. Then not knowing if we convinced the voters or not, we will let them vote. One side gets to expropriate from the other. That was the United States of America – a total and utter failure as the people who created it predicted. It was pandora’s box. They warned themselves not to open it, but they did it anyway.

        Treason in 2050-ism will be dealt with swiftly and harshly as will any attempt to open that box.

    • “Perhaps the best way to define “conservatism” is to be skeptical of change merely for the sake of change itself until the change is demonstrated to be salutary and beneficial”

      “England has a parliament. England is the leading industrial nation, ergo democracy causes prosperity and is the future”
      Substitute the USA “liberating” the Germans after WWI as Woodrow Wilson “made the world safe for democracy”


  13. I suspect that the urge of some conservatives, which Z-man points out— “to prove to lefty that the motivations behind their preferred policies are in tune with progressive morality”— arises from the misbegotten notion that someday everyone will be in unity; that somehow the divisions which separate us will all be “healed”, and we will all come together as one.

    That, of course, is an impossible dream.
    As Hemingway put it in another context, “Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?”

    I’m no longer a Christian believer, but I remember from the New Testament that Jesus had to explain that to his disciples, that not everyone is going to respond: some will, but most won’t.

    That’s not a failure of the message; that’s just the way life is.

    The sooner conservatives realize that, the better. Then they can stop wasting their time, trying to convince people who will never be convinced.

    • The real Bill: My dearest friend is innately conservative (family, religion, tradition) and has come a long way under my tutelage (if I may flatter myself here) but still clings to the tenets of Christian universalism. One mantra she still repeats is the Latin “Divide et Impera” so beloved of color-blind civic nationalists. I believe her wholehearted desire to love everyone, but she is very gradually learning that not everyone will love her and hers in return, and that the warmest wishes in the world don’t require living in the same space by the same rules with racial/cultural strangers. She now adds “like to like” as another mantra, so I count that as solid progress.

  14. Agreed, that American conservatism cannot work because there is no Old Way that we can preserve. For instance, I read the colonists as self-governing people that didn’t like the veneer of Brit authority laid over the top.

    I say that what we need to do is create a Commoner-friendly culture and politics, that is by, for, and about ordinary middle class people. Today we have a state that is all about the educated class and their needs and their conceits.

  15. Can someone explain to me exactly how Lincoln was a radical, because I just don’t see it. He pursued the Civil War with two goal in mind: 1) to preserve the Union; and 2) to end slavery. The first was hardly radical; countless rulers before him had fought civil wars to keep their territories intact. And as is acknowledged in the essay, many Americans had opposed slavery even before the country’s founding. Britain — a country with “traditions, habits of mind and institutions with roots into the mists of time” — abolished the Atlantic slave trade in 1807, and slavery itself in 1833. Yes, I get it, you don’t like black people. I don’t either. But the institution of slavery is morally abhorrent, and its abolition is something that everyone, radical and conservative alike, ought to see as a positive good. So again, where, exactly, was Lincoln’s radicalism? What other radical goals did he pursue?

    • I think the “radical” part was the notion of a supremacist federal government versus a federal government that existed solely by grace of the States. Lincoln’s top-down vision of the US was a radical departure from the bottom-up vision of the old Republic. But all I’m really saying here is “radical” is highly contextual. In the broader scope of history I agree: Lincoln wasn’t radical for thinking a big country needed a big, unitary federal government, and slavery was an archaic, culturally and economically disastrous throwback.

      The “confederate” system of sovereign States ceding a few cross-border functions to the federal government was never really workable. This is why parts of the US Constitution no longer make sense to us: States coining their own money? What does a federal tax look like that’s “in Proportion to the Census?” It was simply convenient and practical for the federal government to dominate, just like it’s more convenient and practical (in all sorts of bad ways) for the country to be run by the Executive and Judicial branches rather than by Congress.

      The Declaration of Independence actually reads hopelessly quaint and trivial when looked at in the context of the current lunatic, capricious US Leviathan that now rules us.

      • Depends upon what you see as workable. The Confederate system would never be workable for a nation that seeks imperial glory.

  16. Ideas are nice and being right is nice but this thing is going to work (or not) in a rough arc running from say the Monongahela to the Red River. The enemy understands this, which is one reason he has spent decades murdering the people there with poison.

    You are going to go a lot further in that country by saying grace and “ma’am” than you are with some Just So story about Lincoln and the brave pilgrims.

  17. As far as I know, it’s not clear to what extent the Founders understood America as a ‘Whites only’ or a ‘Europeans only’ proposition.

    It’s clear from statements like Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s that African Blacks were not included in their vision.

    Could they even have imagined a world of airplanes and global travel, where the diverse of the world would congregate in America? Could they even have imagined an America in which Europeans were a minority?

    My guess is, that if Jefferson could see the state of affairs in current-day America, he would point to the racial situation and say, “See? I was right! The two races, equally free, clearly *cannot* live in the same government!”

    And exposed to the scientific findings regarding human biodiversity and inherent racial differences, I expect the Founders would quickly realize that the traits they hoped and expected to see in citizens of their Republic, were differentially distributed; and showed up more in the White European race, than in other races.

    And once they recognized the extent to which the chaos and divisiveness of “diversity” was threatening that Republic, they would understand— if they hadn’t previously— that their vision requires a substantial degree of homogeneity in the population; and they would be quick to institute strict immigration laws favoring European Whites to the exclusion of everyone else.

    I’ll bet Ben Franklin would have some pithy observations about Black Lives Matter…..

    • Federalist #2 explicitly talks about the benefits of homogeneity:
      “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people…descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…a band of brethren”

  18. Schopenhauer had little interest in politics, but perhaps for that very reason he knew that attempting to ignore or abolish traditions such as monarchy and set up a state on the basis of “muh democracy” or “muh human rights” was foolish. His view of “The United States of North America” as he quaintly calls it, is that far from being “a light unto the nations” it serves as a example of complete failure.

    “The United States of North America exhibit the attempt to proceed without any such arbitrary basis; that is to say, to allow abstract right to prevail pure and unalloyed. But the result is not attractive. For with all the material prosperity of the country what do we find? The prevailing sentiment is a base Utilitarianism with its inevitable companion, ignorance; and it is this that has paved the way for a union of stupid Anglican bigotry, foolish prejudice, coarse brutality, and a childish veneration of women. Even worse things are the order of the day: most iniquitous oppression of the black freemen, lynch law, frequent assassination often committed with entire impunity, duels of a savagery elsewhere unknown, now and then open scorn of all law and justice, repudiation of public debts, abominable political rascality towards a neighbouring State, followed by a mercenary raid on its rich territory,—afterwards sought to be excused, on the part of the chief authority of the State, by lies which every one in the country knew to be such and laughed at—an ever-increasing ochlocracy, and finally all the disastrous influence which this abnegation of justice in high quarters must have exercised on private morals. This specimen of a pure constitution on the obverse side of the planet says very little for republics in general, but still less for the imitations of it in Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia and Peru.”

    Note that this true European “conservatism” is anti-slavery, anti-imperialism, (eg. the Mexican War, which Thoreau was jailed for protesting), anti-Christian Nationalism (“Anglican bigotry”) and anti-feminist. It doesn’t map onto American left/right, democrat/republican, liberal/conservative dichotomies at all. Which is why there is no political solution to America’s problems.

  19. Please explain as simply as you can, what genuine American conservatism is. For example, does it wish to see the poor die off rather than continue with a Welfare State?

    If so, that would not be so far from the position of Britain’s old Tories, who in e.g. the East End of London (as described by Jack London in his ‘The People Of The Abyss’, 1903) were happy with a system of unregulated, unremitting labour and overcrowded housing plus the prospect of the workhouse or infirmary for those who eventually, inevitably weakened.

    ‘Nature red in tooth and claw’? Or do you have something less Darwinian in mind?

    • Your questions have been answered here repeatedly.

      The host of this site has been very clear in his opposition to radical individualism. He’s also been clear about the need for those calling themselves “conservatives” to be vocal about their desire to assist those of our people who are worthy of and truly in need of assistance. Prior to that, however, we need to determine just exactly who those people are and organize thusly.

      • “Worthy.” My American brother is hearing people say things like, the poor don’t “deserve” pensions. The implications are disturbing.

        • Which poor, though- the race or the state?

          We must be hard-hearted here; it seems conservatives happily give the store away to aliens, while being hard-hearted only to their own.

          Thus the liberals can recruit and betray them, as conservatives do.

          A very good point you make about the back-stabbing bastards. They should not be allowed to rule without severe risk.

    • The poor are being systematically genocided right now. The primary mechanism is obesity-induced infirmity, but the mRNA vaccines & boosters are fast moving up the list and will take the lead next year. And all of this is man-made as opposed to natural fitness selection. What role have you played in enabling this mass murder?

    • Sackerson,

      In America, anyway, prior to the welfare state, the poor were not “dying off”. Those truly unable to support themselves were helped by the church, their families, and their neighbors.

      The ‘cost’ of that, for the poor person, was that they had to make an effort to get along with everyone else. You couldn’t be crazy and obnoxious and demanding, and still expect to receive charity.

      That’s what I notice about today’s welfare ‘entitlement’ state: it allows people on government benefits to be as antisocial as they want; since the government will always take care of them regardless.

      The pressure to get along with their fellow citizens and conform to popular standards of behavior— which was there before— is no longer there. They can act as hostile and antisocial as they want, and there will be no repercussions.

      I do believe the welfare system has contributed to the ‘de-civilizing’ of our poor

      • From the mid 19th c. on there were both almshouses and workhouses. By the late 19th c. most were operating at more than 3x over capacity, filled disproportionately by immigrants. It was one of the drivers of public charge laws and of immigrant screening at the ports of entry beginning in 1892.

        • Jack London notes how fresh waves of immigration kept down wages and vitiated the attempts of unions to press for more.

      • Oddly enough, I agree; we have turned the safety net into a shabby hammock. I think the best chance for a happy society (jnsofar as people can be content to be happy) is to control inward migration and terms of foreign trade so that employment and wage rates for the indigenous peoples can rise and enable them to support their families. This would also put the onus on heads of families to provide, and make the choice of marriage partner more exacting.

      • TRB – well said. Keep “feeding” the animals and you’ll get increasingly grubby and demanding behavior.

      • I also don’t know that the term “genociding” the *poor* is quite apt either when one considers Covid, vexxines, and the simple fact that we are all fairly poor (if one considers the wealth disparities in the USA). The average joker I pass in the street these days qualifies. I’ve described this before.

  20. I believe the question that needs be asked is: Can American Conservatism unite and heal a country as divided as we are now?

      • Right. The term has to be abandoned and redefined under a new moniker. The Left is expert at this ploy. We should learn this trick ourselves.

    • I’m a simple guy and I can confidently answer that question. NO.

      Unity requires some sort of cultural foundation and shared value system. There is none of that now. Ask yourself, how can you possibly unify on anything with people who think a man and a woman are interchangeable? How can you unify with someone who worships the criminal race? It is impossible. The USA is a long forgotten land that has been dumped into the dustbin of history never to return again. It is all about survival now, and unofficially, the economic trading zone formerly known as the USA has already begun balkanization.

    • No, conservatives cannot unite the country because conservatives believe that principles are more important than racial tribalism. For most non-whites, not all but most, the success of their race is far more important on an instinctual level than any principles conservatives may appeal to.

      Further, the media, even the conservative media, is largely controlled by people who actively want to see whites dispossessed and so even if conservatives had arguments that appeal to non-whites, which they don’t, the media would suppress these arguments.

    • The question is whether Conservatism could arrange itself into something that could kick Progressivism to the curb. The answer is almost certainly no. Conservative voters have always held out hope that the GOP won’t kick them in the teeth yet again, to no avail. Trump might have been the last gasp. I don’t know.

      Conservatives firmly believe we are still in Claire’s awkward stage…

    • Unity will only come through top down totalitarianism, as we already got a taste of with and since the plandemic. And unification it was – the overwhelming majority put on the mask when told to, and evidently better than 2/3 took the jab. The tools to achieve this totalitarian unity are unprecedented and growing in power and reach every day.

      “Healing” comes by getting everyone digitally plugged into the current thing, so that there is little mental deviation from the thoughts the regime wants us to think. They may not be able to control what we think, but they can damn sure control what we think about.

      • “And unification it was – the overwhelming majority put on the mask when told to, and evidently better than 2/3 took the jab. The tools to achieve this totalitarian unity are unprecedented and growing in power and reach every day.”

        This may read like copium but it isn’t: I was stunned a third refused and entire states told the federal government to get fucked. I was further stunned when only 30 percent took the booster after the “vaccine” failed, and even that number fell below single digits with additional boosters. We indeed would be on the fast track to totalitarianism but the unity to get there is missing. It never will be there. The control is in place but it last cannot and will not last.

        Covid was the inflection point.

        • “We indeed would be on the fast track to totalitarianism but the unity to get there is missing. It never will be there. The control is in place but it last cannot and will not last.”

          Good post Jack, but I disagree with you on the point I highlighted above. The left is smart enough to know that you don’t use brute force. For instance, they aren’t going to come to your front door and confiscate your fire arms. Instead, they will make it very unaffordable/difficult to own one, and even worse, they will make it so that if you have to use it, your life will end. Heaven forbid you shoot a black sacred cow who was attempting to stab or shoot you, your life, and everyone in your family will be ruined forever.

          You have the wrong think? Your company, working in lock step with the regime, will terminate your employment and black ball you. Now you’ve lost all of your wealth and livelihood. This is all going to get much, much worse. They now know that they can do this without any repercussions. The mail in voting has fortified “democracy”, they can take away funding for companies that do not conform, and any whites who get out of line in the slightest lose everything they have and maybe even thrown in prison forever.

          There is only one way out of this. Everything else is simply bullshit conversation.

  21. Pingback: Is American Conservatism Possible? | American Freedom News

  22. Viewed within the proper context of world history, America is actually a revolutionary concept in that it is an explicit creation of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment. What we call “conservative” in the American historical context is actually a very revolutionary idea that came about starting in the 18th century.

  23. I find it interesting that when Anton referenced the Lincoln-Douglas debate, he conveniently left out this statement of Lincoln’s:

    “I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

    Another thing that rarely gets mentioned when modern liberals talk about the abolitionists, is that— like Lincoln— none of them imagined the freed slaves living together in the same society with White Americans. Almost without exception, abolitionists— including Lincoln— expected that after being freed, Blacks would be repatriated to some homeland of their own, far from American shores.

    that is because— unlike the liberals of the 1960s— the liberals of the 1860s understood full well that integration would never work; and they understood why. Like Lincoln— and unlike modern “anti-racist” progressive egalitarians—they understood that the observed differences between Blacks and Whites were inherent rather than learned: grounded in biological— “physical”— reality.

    Z-man has suggested that our dissident-right conceptualization of life must be grounded in biological reality: in the scientific reality of human biodiversity, and the inherent racial differences which science illumines.

    Look at it in this way, the Declaration of Independence takes on a new light. I would suggest that— understood correctly— the Declaration is a distinctly race-realist document.

    Many modern liberal critics have condemned Jefferson as a hypocrite. “How could anyone who owned slaves”, they ask, “have asserted that “all men are created equal””?

    And they have a point: there does appear to be a contradiction there.
    I’d suggest that there are only a few possibilities:

    The first possibility is that Jefferson was simply not aware of the contradiction. That seems highly unlikely; as everything we know about him reveals him to be a brilliant man.

    The second possibility is that Jefferson was aware of the contradiction, but was indeed a hypocrite, who was perfectly content to publicly profess one standard, while living by another, contradictory standard.

    The third possibility— the one which I believe to be the case— is that Jefferson wasn’t including Blacks in his statement that “all men are created equal”. He didn’t believe that Blacks could be considered “men” in the same way that Whites were. Thus no contradiction exists between his asserting the equality of all men, and his owning slaves.

    And indeed, his observations regarding Blacks in his 1805 ‘Notes on the State of Virginia’ lend credence to this interpretation:

    “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

    This also explains why none of his compatriots at the time found his words in the Declaration to be contradictory or hypocritical: they all tacitly understood that the “all men” referred-@to were White men, Europeans, not African slaves.

    So that seems to be one of the starkest differences between older times, and present times: back then, almost all people were race realists. The reality of human biodiversity, of inherent racial differences, was accepted by all.

    Even the most radical abolitionists were also race realists: while abhorring slavery, their experience of Blacks had taught them the fallacy of the modern radical-egalitarian view that “the only difference between Blacks and Whites is the color of their skin.”

    Were they alive today, I expect they would be baffled by the insistence of people like Anton that conservatism is really no different from progressive morality regarding issues of race.

    “Not so!” they would say. “Race— biological reality— is at the heart of it all”.

    • There were a subset of holy roller abolitionists in the north, mostly in New England who wanted full equality for blacks. Who knows how many would have held to those beliefs if their own communities became 25% black overnight. Most of them had never met a black person, slave or free. People like William Lloyd Garrison or the people who ran Oberlin. That school is a good supporting point for the Z Man’s comments on radicalism. As the Wikipedia entry on it says, “It has been known since its founding for progressive student activism.” The issues change, the insanity doesn’t.

      • That has certainly been my experience: that the people who express lofty opinions of Blacks, have had little real life experience with them.

        Corollary to the saying that ‘a conservative is a liberal who got mugged’, we could add:
        ‘a race realist is a progressive who spent a couple weeks in the inner city.’

    • The great question [arguably the only question], for serious historians of serious American history, is this:

      Why did the Sanhedrin order co-tribalist John Wilkes Booth to enter Ford’s Theatre and assassinate Lincoln?

      I’ve heard all sorts of theories about Lincoln having been aware of a Rothschild plot to carve up North America, but, if so, then why didn’t Lincoln simply go to the Southroners, show them the evidence of the plot, and plead with the Southroners to give him the time necessary to fix the dadgum situation?

      What worries me is that the Sanhedrin – during their millennia upon millenia upon millenia entrances and forced exits from nation after nation after nation [numbering at least 109] – that the Sanhedrin had noticed the seductive power which the prospect of miscegenation cast upon the average shiksa [“Men invade, women invite”***], ergo the Sanhedrin would have long since begun thinking about miscegenation as a means by which to destroy the genetic stock of an host country.

      If that’s the case, if the Sanhedrin have been using miscegenation as a psycho-sociological seduction & destruction strategy for several thousand years now [rather than, say, a mere century], then Israel Zangwill’s “The Melting Pot” was not a radically brilliant cutting-edge insight into human behavior, but instead was Zangwill simply spilling the beans on what the Sanhedrin had been plotting since Egypt [and maybe even since Mesopotamia].

      If that’s true; if miscegenation is an ancient nation-destroying tactic in the secret sacred scrolls of the Sanhedrin, then Lincoln would not have been assassinated because of Rothschild anger & petulance, but rather because the Sanhedrin were terrified that Lincoln really would send the slaves back home to Africa, in which case the Sanhedrin would have lost the ability to exclaim, a mere century after Lincoln’s assassination, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner!!!”

      ***Credit CH/KoaN

      • If true, then the Frankfurt School’s subsequent 20th Century Lincoln-olatry would be an hyper-cynical psy-op designed to cover up the role of the Sanhedrin in having assassinated Lincoln in the first place.

        If they will poison millions [billions?] of children with MRNA v@xxines, don’t for a second doubt that they lack the cynicism & the nihilism necessary for assassinating a president but then turning right around [spinning on a dime] and beatifying that very same president.

        I don’t know that we goyim are psychologically capable of fully grokking that level of satanic cynicism & nihilism.

        Certainly we can witness it, and try to ponder it, and grudgingly accept the reality of its existence, but I kinda doubt that we can fully grok it.


        grok (grŏk)
        tr.v. grok·ked, grok·king, groks Slang
        To understand profoundly through intuition or empathy.
        [Coined by Robert A. Heinlein in his Stranger in a Strange Land.]

        • Agree, we are ever blindsided by such an alien mindset.

          Lordy, what I wouldn’t give for a mobile MRI scanner. Without doubt the neural pathways, whether by genetics or practice, are radically different. Thus the trauma conditioning, making us into them…batshit crazy.

          If not “crazy”, then, more like women, tribal thinkers ruled by the breeder backbrain:

          “Consensus is a woman’s mechanism of determining right or wrong, truth or falsehood, morality or immorality, good or bad.

          Objective truth means nothing to them.”
          -a 4chan anon

    • Another angle on the “all men”, clause in the DoI is that it was a political statement refuting hereditary monarchy in favor of republican self governance. It was a statement that asserted equality under the law that had nothing to do with materialist concerns. After that bit, he went on to cite numerous instances where the Crown had broken its own laws and thus legitimized a break with a government that made itself illegitimate by violating the law and placing itself above its own laws.

      It has nothing to do with race or material concerns.

      Why an uneducated dolt like me can articulate this and Conservatives can’t or won’t do it is a great mystery. Well, no, it isn’t. We all know why they won’t do it.

    • The line is not all men are equal. The line is all men are created equal. So what is the significance of that single word – created? I was taught that it meant the same act of creation is responsible for all of us being here. The act of creation was meant to be interpreted as God waving his mighty hand, but it could also be the sex act.
      All acorns are “created equal” in that they each have the potential to become an oak tree, but not all of them will fall on good soil or get enough water and sunlight. For every healthy oak, how many sickly saplings? For every Thomas Jefferson, how many Charles Mansons? For every Thomas Sowell, how many George Floyds?

      • “ I was taught that it meant the same act of creation is responsible for all of us being here. ”

        This is better, but still incorrect.

        At the time, the discussion among the Founders was wrt freedom and independence vs rule of aristocracy (in the immediate form of King George). In the DoI, men were equal in that they were not some men “born to rule” and some men “born to serve”. All men were equal wrt their “rights” under the law, and all had a “right” to pursue their ultimate attainment (the term “Happiness” being used here) using their God given (inherently unequal) abilities.

        Here is an excerpt from Jefferson’s writings which illustrate *exactly* where he stood when writing the Declaration:

        “… the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few, booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God…”

        To conclude that the Founders assumed all men to have “equal” abilities/talents is absurd and is simply a Leftist canard. No more that a fairy tale told to their dullard followers.

    • why were the nigs allowed to stay, after the war? serious question. seems like everyone wanted them gone…

      • kvh: “why were the nigs allowed to stay, after the war? serious question. seems like everyone wanted them gone…”

        As I’m saying up above here, yours is arguably the only question which anyone can possibly ask about American history.

        Why weren’t the Africans sent home?

        Who benefitted from the continuing presence of the Africans in this country?


        If you can answer the question of “Who-whom?”, then you can solve the historical riddle of “Why?”

        • The Black population was not sent home because there was little impetus to spend the money and political capital to send them home.

          First, the worse of the worse Blacks lived in poverty in the South, not the North. South lost the war, so screw them.

          Second, any annoying Blacks that remained were openly and legally discriminated against. This is called
          “segregation” which was legal into the 50’s.

          Third, many Blacks simply didn’t want to go and the early efforts at voluntary repatriation were failures. Liberia was set up for this effort. You’d have had to pass laws to round up and ship out Blacks. Given the political implications vs the rewards…

          Fourth, welfare was simply not a thing in those days, so impoverished Blacks restricted to ghettos was an acceptable “compromise” to shipping them out forcefully.

          Early 20th century industrialization shifted the racial distribution as Blacks moved up North to take factory jobs and then once again became a labor source of value so they were not going anywhere.

          I probably missed a lot here, but the gist is correct.

          • It is. We forget that the hypocrite Northern cities- DC, Baltimore, Boston- practiced legal segregation until 1964.

          • The freedmen were used as a bulwark against White Southerners. The Radical Republicans were explicit about it as they saw the freedmen as the way to maintain their grip on political power and make sure another rebellion did not take place. This worked only about a decade or so. If you dig around they were outraged about blacks moving to the North even before the Great Migration.

            Essentially, it was the same ticket to permanent power today’s Left envisions with the Great Replacement, which is just as likely to fail in a short period.

  24. Conservatism is a joke. Conservative organizations are filled with grifters, weirdos, power hungry control freaks, and homosexuals. They do not conserve anything because its members hold no conservative values. They’re just social clubs and vehicles for social climbers/grifters.

    At the moment, the only thing that we have is the Bible. I’m well aware of the friction between the Bible, race, and the Dissident movement. But there is nothing else that is currently viable. The Bible lays out a coherent moral framework as well as practical applications for individuals.

    Until something else, explicitly racial, is developed, the Bible is the best thing we have. Most Christians are not pro-white, but are anti-anti-white. We have no choice at the moment. My guess is that it will be replaced by something else in the future, though.

    • “organizations are filled with grifters, weirdos, power hungry control freaks, and homosexuals.” for a second there, i thought you were talking about christian organizations 😛

  25. That link to the Adams quote said, “Adams also wrongly asserts that ‘the practice of Slavery is fast diminishing.’ Rather than declining, slavery was growing in America. The 1790 census counted almost 700,000 slaves. According to the census of 1800, the year before Adams wrote this letter, that number had grown to almost 900,000.”

    That’s an increase of 29%.

    But the overall Census went from 3.9 million to 5.3 million, an increase of 36%.

    Another inaccurate conservative site.

  26. “Given the current demographic trends, imagine a continent filled with versions of Orania and then contemplate the ideology of a people who can maintain it. This is one lesson we can take from the founders. They tried to fashion a practical solution for their people at the time. The next founding will have to do the same thing, but for a different people.”

    It will be the next foundings, plural, with people who look and who think alike as the core populations. I agree these states, which are forming even now, largely will be ethnic-based and likely at war with one another from time to time at the outset; this is the pattern of history. Separations, de facto for the time being, will accelerate as the United States continues to grow weaker and poorer and unable to enforce its edicts and/or bribe everyone to stay in place. Once homogenous states are carved out, conservatism(s) of a sort only then will be possible because the nations will be largely race-based with common outlooks and ideologies with obligations on the various states to protect specific peoples. Conservatism is impossible in proposition nations because conserving a people is required before anything else can be saved. Jaffa was pushing water uphill as are the multiculturalists of today. The tyrannical behavior of today is an acknowledgement, albeit an unconscious one, that the current situation is untenable. The silver bullet sought in mass migration will turn on the shooter, too.

    The warmongering Judeo/Yankee Puritans with their ideological nihilism will be the hardest of the lot to hold together because they must be permanently on a jihad. The original Lincoln Cult had to prevent Southern secession because a clean break would have set off an exodus leaving alone a small Puritan core turning inward for an enemy rather than seeking one elsewhere. Simply look at the ghettos and colonies where the Puritans originally gathered; these were witch burnings all the way down. That these people control nuclear weapons is horrifying.

    • “It will be the next foundings, plural, with people who look and who think alike as the core populations.”

      Exactly right. While none of us will be around to truly see this come to a head, this is the only thing I see ahead. The worst part about not being around to see it is not being able to see the egalitarian leftists refuse to join their fellow whites and then being massacred by the hoards of black and browns they so vehemently worshipped. I’d give up all that I have to see that happen in real time.

    • “The warmongering Judeo/Yankee Puritans with their ideological nihilism”

      Exactly. This is exactly the mindset seen in Semitic, Arab and J*ish, societies. Continuous ferment and civil war. The influence must be exposed and negated.

    • “…with their ideological nihilism…”

      Stunning. No one has ever stated so plainly the foundation of eschatologists. They are rooted in catastrophe.

      Without doubt, this is an echo, a response, to the meteoric destruction of the Eden, the Ehdeen,the Garden land. The Fertile Crescent was turned into a desert.

  27. I agree Christianity is the only road forward, specifically Catholicism with it’s male dominated hierarchy grounded in a central, unchanging theist belief. Unfortunately most Americans understanding of Catholicism is at a 4th grade level. Forget Kanya West, try Bishop Fulton Sheen.

    • Unfortunately, the reality seems to be that the male dominated hierarchy of the Catholic Church is rife with homosexuality.

      The record of Church payments to kids abused by Catholic priests documents how widespread this sickness is. And that only records those cases which have come to light; there are undoubtedly many more. But public records indicate that to date, the Church has paid out more than $3 billion in sex abuse settlements.

      By all accounts, there are Catholic seminaries which are homosexual enclaves; whose graduates are intent on concealing the full extent to which homosexuality has permeated the Church.

      I’m not sure how you can maintain the high opinion of the church which you express, with the sordid reality which these incidents reveal?

      • Their cope is that “the Church has been corrupted”.

        If the Eternal Church, protected from error by God himself (yes, that itself IS an unquestionable dogma of the Church: it cannot err), can’t prevent itself from turning into an international pedophile ring, how likely is it that it can save America?

        • “Their cope is that “the Church has been corrupted”.”

          Because it was founded by corrupt Jews to begin with.

      • I’ve seen screeds written a millennium ago that take it as given that the church is primarily an institution of homosexual pederasty.

        The world changes surprisingly little.

          • That is considered a “miracle”. Even you Karl, would admit to the miraculous nature of such occurrence. 😉

          • Partheo-genesis?

            More relevant is that Saul, Sanhedrin spy for the secret police, rooting out the location of the Apostles for execution, his scripts written by Flauvian clerks, said his sex drive was a curse, and he hated women…

          • [That is considered a “miracle”.]

            not really. also, wouldn’t you agree that part of the story was fabricated well after Jesus died? if his teachings truly had merit, there would be no need for all the supernatural fictions surrounding them. you’ll notice that Plato and Aristotle (not to mention Buddha and Confucius)are still held in high esteem all these millenia later, without the need for such machinations.

          • The miracles are not there to support His teachings. The miracles are there to support His divinity.

            Don’t know that much about Bhudda or Confuse us, but Plato and Aristotle never made claims to divinity of which I am aware.

    • “ Unfortunately most Americans understanding of Catholicism is at a 4th grade level. Forget Kanya West, try Bishop Fulton Sheen.”

      You are just cherry picking what you like and ignoring the much more massive volume of filth in that accursed church.

      It is telling you could only point to someone who died 5 decades ago, and not anyone alive today.

  28. What seems insidious is the way that Conservative Inc. use their grift to control the narrative for the definition of Conservativism. No matter what the subject is at hand, they find a way to undermine any semblance of a foundational conservative perspective.

    Here are just a few examples:

    ‘The Conservative Case for NATO

    ‘The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton

    Voting for Clinton? Feeding the NATO leviathan? These articles could be headlines in the Onion or the Babylon Bee, yet they are treated as a product of intellectual horsepower. Just more NeoCon & Conservative in Name Only (CINO).

    • I remember when Trump triumphed in 2016 talking about immigration and protectionism and some asshole like Larry Kudlow or Stepen Moore was on Fox exulting, “See? People really want tax cuts!”

      My teeth grind so much that I worry I won’t have any left.

    • That actually is the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic version of what the United States calls “conservatism” and the rest of the world calls “imperialism.” That falls short, too, because it also is an ideological jihad.

      • What America calls “conservatism” is what the rest of the world calls “imperialism.”

        Bingo! In fact, what the rest of the world calls “imperialism” is what America calls “leftism” as well.

        Left/right etc. are false dichotomies to create the illusion of debate, meaningful elections, etc.

        Interestingly, this Finkelthink was devised by a homosexual, Jewish Republican.

      • Schmitt did not attack the liberal powers because of their universalism but because of their false and nihilistic universalism.

        In The Legal World Revolution” (1978), Schmitt argues that a superlegality of progress was being used to construct an economic and technological world order beyond the territorial state. This allowed the victorious states to address themselves as representatives of an international community and to intervene according to their interests. “Universal, worldwide general concepts in international law are typical weapons of interventionism”

  29. Okay, I’m clicking through Anton’s speech, which, no surprise, is wordy. First, the guy really, really likes Strauss and Lincoln.

    He also seems to contort the founders’ thoughts to fit whatever he favors. Lincoln was a radical for being an abolitionist and causing the Civil War over the issue. No problem. If you dig around, you’ll see that the founders’ were totally fine with eliminating slavery if you had a majority of votes. Sure, they didn’t put that in the Constitution, but they talked about it.

    Immigration. The founders talked about needing more or less immigration depending on the circumstances. The fact that they put “free white persons” as who should be the immigrants in the Constitution doesn’t matter. That’s not really what they meant.

    It’s really quite odd because Anton isn’t that far from where we’re at.

    Boom. I hit the sweet spot in the speech. Anton says traditionalism is “love of one’s own.” Now, us simpletons would assume that he means love of one’s own people, but that’s not what he means. Anton’s says the “founding is our own.”

    Everyone’s own. His own. Descendants of the original settlers. Blacks. The recent Salvadoran immigrant. The Indian guy working at the gas station. Apparently, the Jewish guy was dual citizenship.

    Anton’s argument had a chance in the 1980s, maybe the 1990s, when America’s demographics were very different. But now, it’s hopeless.

    It never dawns on Anton that other peoples won’t see America’s founding as their own, that they won’t put the founder’s principles ahead of their own kin, that they naturally want to be ruled by those principles.

    Anton descends from a different people than the founders, yet he loves and embraces their principles, so he just assumes that all other peoples not descended from the founders will feel the same way. He’s wrong.

    • It’s as if Anton looks around at the cultural pogrom being waged against all things representing foundational America and says, “This is Fine.”

      Zman hit the bullseye on the topic of Natural Rights. They are not natural in the sense that all cultures and civilizations embrace them. No, they are a product of Anglo-Saxon civilization, and can only exist within that framework.

      • It’s unfortunately that there’s so much Anton bashing going on. He’s so close to being on our side, but he can’t make the leap.

        He’s hoping that falling back on the Founders will give colorblind CivNats the backbone and moral authority to fight back against the Left. It’s not a crazy idea.

        But what if the Left simply rejects the Founders as evil racists and misogynists. Or what if the Left twists the words of the Founders to fit their goals, much as Anton does.

        Anton wants a halt (or severe reduction) to immigration, so he appeals to the Founders who, according to him, said that we the citizens get to decide who comes here. That’s his moral authority to say “no” to more immigration, his amulet against being called a racist.

        But the Left will simply call the Founders racists and thus anyone who follows their rules racist. According to the Left, the Founders created a racist system to benefit whites. Why do we have to listen to anything the Founders said, they say.

        What does Anton say against that?

        Nothing, because the Founders were, in fact, racists. Bless their hearts. They did have a people defined by blood. Anton doesn’t so he has no defense against the racism charge.

        In fact, he is racist. He wants a society based on Anglo-Saxon principles. That’s racist. It’s also a wonderful society. But Anton can’t force himself to admit this and thus is lost.

        • The problem Anton is having is something he inherited from American conservatism and that is the need to prove that his preferences are anchored in something the Left will accept. Imagine if the issue is ice cream rather than immigration and he said something like “I think vanilla is the best because as Strauss once said…” You would rightly think he is insane.

          Conservatism is always about proving to lefty that the motivations behind their preferred policies are in tune with progressive morality.

          • It is insane. The need to please others long has been recognized as a psychological disorder. Anton, and he is a far less extreme case than other self-described conservatives, simply cannot say “you are wrong” because it would result in friction, so he appeals to authority to isolate himself. This is why the United States arrived at this dismal place.

          • Yep, and thus they are lost because the progressive morality is that whites are inherently evil, their ancestors created an evil (because it was racist) system and that whites perpetuate that system today to maintain their dominance.

            In the end, Anton along with all conservatives still believe that we live in the Age of Ideology when, in fact, we’ve moved on to the Age of Demographics.

            Like Sailer and his silly charts, Anton thinks that he can win over the Left with words and ideas and showing them how incredibly the Founders’ principles were. Because he “doesn’t see race,” he focuses only the principles, which he believes were so wonderful that sooner or later, they’ll win over the Left.

            The Left most definitely does see race, so they look at the Founders as people – white people. That’s as far as they Left needs to go to reject the Founders’ principles.

            Basically, Anton brought a debate podium to a gun fight.

          • isn’t Anton – like most “conservatives” – just a big ole pussy? isn’t that really the root cause of their conflicted behavior?

        • Citizen,

          You nailed it: Leftists will never embrace the Founders, because the Founders were indeed racists; or, perhaps more accurately, race realists. Along with being genuinely “sexist”, “homophobic”, “transphobic”, etc.

          So that is ONE thing that the Leftists have gotten (kind of) right; though not in the way they’re imagining.

        • [Leftists will say] the Founders created a racist system to benefit whites.

          To which the proper response is “Yes. What’s your point?”

  30. On top of us not having any deep cultural roots, there are very few ties that bind this polyglot nation. Your normie white conservatives, and a handful of non-whites, hold on to this “conservative” claim of us being a nation of people loyal to classical liberal ideas. However, it seems to me that the most common draw for people immigrating to America was a desire for “a better life,” (i.e. materialism and nice stuff). This is especially prevalent amongst today’s migrants. These people would have migrated to a Christian or Muslim theocracy, or a dictatorship if it offered better opportunities.

    For this reason, as I’ve expressed here, I don’t necessarily believe in the demographics being inevitable. I know z doesn’t believe in “the collapse,” but a severe economic event seems inevitable. Many of us believers in “the collapse” have a more broad definition, and not necessarily total societal collapse and a zombie apocalypse type of scenario. With today’s reckless economic decisions, we will see something like the Soviet collapse in the 1990s or the Great Depression. What happens in this event? Many of the new Americans that came here for “a better life” simply pack up and leave, maybe home, maybe to the new global hegemon for work, who cares. People become a lot more practical in harsh conditions. Instead of little Orania’s peppered around, maybe there’s large scale self segregation, like what happens in prison.

    • I think there is a chance for a voluntary exodus for the very reasons that you state. However, there are two variables to consider that could prevent it from happening.

      1. The Regime is providing welfare benefit privileges to migrants and its preferred constituents while expediting our dispossession. If the economic calamity happens they may still be able to provide them and even add rifles, grenades and a place to fight under the Rainbow Banner.

      2. The 3rd World’s fortunes rise and fall with ours. When our food and fuel prices skyrocket theirs do too. Maybe China or an India/China alliance will step in to that gap. They have their own populations to satisfy however.

      I was doing some learning about Nordic/Germanic solstice this year and came across a religious person’s site. He pointed out that anybody saying they are inventing anything new in the realm of ideas should be greeted with great skepticism. When I was in college Western Civ courses there was never once a mention of Jerusalem as a part of the roots of The West. In fact, in one course, an Israeli student was adament that Christ was Greek, there was no way in eternity that he was Jewish. This student went into great lengths to argue this and it was emotionally charged rejection of the miscegenation of Christ/Christianity and Judea.

      This Athens/Jerusalem thing is a recent invention. I suspect a scholar could do the digging and find that this talk originated with the special relationship and a need to legitimize turning away from the natio-centric founding American foreign policy to the whichever-tribe-can-control-foreign-policy post WWII foreign policy that seems heavily tilted to favor Jerusalem/Tel-Aviv over even New England.

      We are a Greco-Roman-Nordic/Germanic people and culture. We are of the frost and forest, not the desert. It is interesting to see the feminized mind of these separatist civ nats. Their enemy, our enemy, is telling them in no uncertain terms that race is the be all end all to proximity to power, that their race is bound for extinction in this Regime and they are still desperate to show that race doesn’t matter. What someone above said is genius, “They are bringing a podium to a gun fight.”

      It is too bad. I think they are on our side, but they can’t bring themselves to lose any more friends.

      One last note. I included in my gifts to family books from TWPP to help them and their posterity re-discover our people and our identity. In those gifts I included notes of intention. In them, I stated our demographic decline from 90% to 57% and the fact that their children are at 45%. It shocked and sobered them. Perhaps we all should lead with this fact and then choose any one of the thousands of quotes from the genocide promoters. In my experience it is very effective.

      Also, here is an interesting round table on Caesarism by the New Founding folks that includes Anton in the round table.

      It is inevitable that our factions will join and that 2050 + Athens/Rome/Germania/Scandinavia will become the rock, and the “but the proposition”, and “the desert and the forest” voices will be ignored or splinter off. It is inevitable because our survival is dependent upon it and because the groups they are so desperate to please don’t give the first of many f***s about anything but genetic origins and complexion.

      • The rhetoric of “Jewgreek”-as-ideal, as the only acceptable West, the only Whiteness that’s unWhite enough not to wither under the judgmental gaze of history, descends from Derrida—from some of his weirdest and most obscure work. I doubt any conservative/”conservative” who promulgates it knows its provenance.

        It came to America mostly via John D. Caputo, whose “The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida” is probably the wildest obsessed fan diary ever published as an academic treatise. (Probably. The academy has degraded a lot since then.) If I remember right, the text that his thesis (Jewgreek good; Greek bad) most relies on wasn’t translated until years later.

      • The “Athens and Jerusalem” is from Ben Shapiro’s book.
        & No I didn’t read it, I just know where this phrase comes from

    • Great point about the clinging to the founding ideals. Even The Framers discussed how hard it would be to have something more than a tiny minority of people committed to the ideals. All of the study and debate over the form of government was to put together a system that could withstand the fact that most humans are not noble enough to want to live the ideals of liberty.

      Ben Franklin said as the ink dried, “Congratulations! You have a Republic, if you can keep it.” I think what he really was saying was, this won’t last very long my friends.

      P.S. I am now using The Framers in place of The Founders. The reason is the Framers framed the propositional nation construct whereas the Founders sailed the oceans, set up toeholds of civilization and founded and built the towns and cities from east to west. I think that distinction is going to be increasingly important to how we anchor things in 2050, when the long dead letter is finally discarded as an eloquent but very heavy ankle weight.

    • “The collapse” is a pretty loaded term, but it’s most basic meaning a collapse of state power, not so much a collapse of social order. In the particular case of the North American continent in the 21st century, the “collapse of America” might be better called “bypassing the US federal government’s practical authority.” This is already well underway and will continue. The first question is whether the federal government can reform itself and become an authority worthy of submission. The second question is whether there will be any sort of continental authority at all. In the meantime, immigration (particularly high-skill immigration) will decline and reverse as the government becomes increasingly able to bribe foreigners to come, stay and support the federal government. This trend is also starting, too.

  31. I have to say, while I totally get that the obsession with “the party of Lincoln” is weird, I find it far more disturbing that “conservatives” seem to worship Martin Luther King. One can at least view Lincoln as a mid19th century, contemporary politician who wrestled with the issue of the day. Even if you disagree with the decisions and outcomes. MLK, otoh, was a legit subversive who was being funded by communists and whose speeches were written by, ummm, people who have an eternal bone to chew with white Christians.
    MLK was the antithesis of “conservative”. It’s bizarre to watch these people fawn over him.

    • The black activist is another example of the phenomena z is talking about with g conservatives being in the shadow of the left. In MLKs day, I’m sure conservatives then yearned for black activists like Booker T Washington and WEB Dubois, while saying MLK was radical. Today, conservatives pledge allegiance to MLK while denouncing half wit radicals like Ibrahim X Kendi. 30 years from now, Kendi will be embraced by conservatives, while they denounce the radicals calling for white enslavement.

    • Only rewinding US history to Lincoln is a bit of necessary (From Jaffa’s perspective) pilpul. Post-Lincoln Jaffa can craft a non-racial, credal, civic nationalist narrative inclusive of all, and most important to Jaffa – (((them))).
      I like Anton, but his obsession with Jaffa reminds me of a Marxist friend who went to Cornell and Columbia, who cannot unlearn the nonsense pumped into his head. He’s too in love with the vision his (((professors))) laid out.

  32. We’ve been steeped in the acid of liberalism for so long now, are there enough entrepreneurs willing to take the chance of creating a genuine conservative, reality based alternative that many more would be gladly willing to join? The cancer of fantasy based egalitarianism must be wiped away. Far too many simply will not acknowledge things as they observably are – hoping beyond all hope that the utopian city on the hill will come to fruition if we just try a little harder…

  33. When Obama and the uni-party were passing the affordable care act, I remember pointing out to conservative friends that the ‘gender transition’ coverage was not only troubling but disturbing and disgusting. They all said “yeah, it’s weird, but no one is actually going to do that.” That was in 2010, not that long ago. In retrospect, it was just another piece of the grand plan all along. Slowly at first, then all at once.
    Conservative leadership are gate keepers. Conservative voters are clueless.
    If they can’t see it by now, there is no hope for them.

  34. Germany is younger than the US, but I don’t think anyone would argue Germans are a younger people than Americans— if they even think Americans are a people. It’s easy to forget how new this place still is, because of how big and powerful it’s become.

    Maybe it’s kind of like how the Holy Roman Empire was German. The US is a successor state to the British Empire, with the Enlightenment as its religion— it’s not America just yet. Germany took almost two millennia, because of German infighting, religious strife, and outside forces opposing the creation of a new great rival. Sounds familiar, although I wouldn’t go so far to say it’s the same thing happening here, but I could see the US breaking into several smaller states and perhaps reuniting down the road. Who knows. On Z’s terms, that might be when a right wing politics based in tradition and custom becomes possible.

    • Australia seems to have a much stronger sense of self.
      Maybe because it had less diverse immigration or there was no revolution. Its sense of identity was not grounded in ideology but normal history.

      Canada is the counter example because ,again, no revolution but they seem to have been dissolved quicker than the US. I wonder whether they had an ideological view of their history to allow the French to tolerate being ruled over by the British.

      An ideological view of your country is the flaw that leaves you open to perpetual revolution . Every day one has to re-interpret the sacred texts to explain exactly who you are and how you are. A series of paragraphs determine your right to exist as a people. This means academics and lawyers and how they parse texts define your nation.Constant battle.

      • A few reasons for Canada:

        1. Multi-culturalism had always been an issue, even before mass 3rd world immigration. This was a result of the French-Canadian and WASP (Anglo-Canadian) divide that has existed ever since the country was a colony. There was also the issue of Catholicism vs. Protestantism. This seemed to be a perfect framework to suddenly “open up” to multi-cult of the whole world starting in the 1960s.

        2. Smug belief among Canadians, especially Boomers, that Canada (and Canadians) are superior to the USA. Americans are racist meanies that hate immigrants, while Canadians are super duper nice and tolerant people with big hearts, who welcome immigrants. And of course the whole world looks up to Canadians and sees them as wonderful and enlightened people. They feel really good about themselves being open to immigrants.

        Much of it is delusion and inaccurate but that’s what they believe.

        Result: Those “super nice” white people have managed to erase themselves from the country in one generation, and created the first fully Globohomo country.

        Cities and metros (Toronto/Vancouver) are almost entirely foreigners, homosexuals, Boomers, and a few young whites “enjoying the city life”. Not a great sign for the future here.

        There are still some younger whites around and having kids, but ironically they tend to be more like “Americans”. They live in small cities or the boonies, and have almost no power over either Boomers or foreigners. The future belongs to those who show up, and being “nice” is not a winning strategy.

        • One big difference contemporary Canada has with the United States is the provinces never seem to be at odds with the central government. There was a time when Alberta or Quebec, for instance, would engage in mild conflict with Ottawa but that days seems long gone. Any ideas on why that is, if that observation is in fact true?

          • Alberta and Saskatchewan just signed “sovereignty” bills, allowing them to ignore the federal government. Trudeau’s latest gun grab provoked this, but it could be applied to many areas. The banned guns are now legal in Alberta again.

            Yukon and Manitoba, as well as Saskatchewan and Alberta said they won’t enforce any gun bans.

            Quebec is refusing to take any more “immigrants” as the rest of Canada is getting flooded. They also banned hijabs, turbans, and crosses from public places, which is illegal but Trudeau won’t criticize them.

            Lots of good stuff going on, but long term it won’t matter much because of immigration and demographics. Quebec’s ideology is racially motivated (although they still welcome French speaking African and Arabic immigrations “if they assimilate”) – but the true intent is clear. Alberta is just the usual Con Inc. race blind crap.

            It’s basically a race to flood every corner of the country with Indians before any pockets can come up with a way of stopping it. Outside of Quebec, most white people are not even aware that this race is taking place.

            Quebec is at 82% White, and 99% White outside of Montreal. It is probably one of the Whitest entities on the planet. They also have a generous welfare state and encourage births. Keep an eye on that one.

            Alberta is ~60% white and dropping fast, in 10 years it will be a permanent leftist majority like the rest of Canada, unless they separate now and shut the borders.

    • Germany is younger than the US? News to me. Unless you’re only counting the period after reunification.

  35. This is the issue, for sure. All those guys more or less on the conservative side who want to get back to the Constitution – tattoos that say “We The People,” I’ve seen it, boys, for real – mean getting back to something after the War of the Rebellion.

    But that’s the problem, isn’t it? The original Constitution was such a piece of useless junk that it wasn’t even a century before half the original founding states decided to kill their way out of it. Great system, boys.

    But we have a serious problem. The idea of many little separatist towns here and there cannot be anything except a bloody, brutal experience. The fanatics who are our enemies cannot react otherwise – see, well, Lincoln, for a salient example. These little enclaves would have to be so terrifying to their, uh, countrymen I guess, that they could be left alone to prosper.

    That is, these enclaves would be more like the structure of a Mississippi plantation in 1830. An island of Whiteness in a sea of blackness, made safe by the pitiless efficiency of a killer elite.

    • Speaking of Mississippi, that’s one place where no coastal cloud baizuo would be caught dead. It is already left alone. Even the clouds who are willing to migrate to the hinterlands like Idaho and Tennessee don’t dare to go that far. There must be a lesson in it. Perhaps it’s just the lesson that old memories take a long time to fade. Maybe some other states need a movie with Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe to scare the cloud people away.

  36. You hit the nail on the head with this essay. American conservatism is an ersatz and ad-hoc affair. The various European conservatisms are rooted in “blood and soil.” And in many cases hearken back thousands of years. They go beyond words and philosophy to the very unconscious essence of a group of people with genetic proximity and old traditions and customs. Who cannot be moved by the inscription, “Dem Deutschen Volke,” on the Reichstag? US “conservatism” cannot compete and comparison would be invidious. A corollary of this is that US conservatism is ill-equipped to deal with the various radical movements and fashions.

  37. it may be that it is not possible to form a cohesive society from multiple source countries. “whose” conservative traditions would AINO conservatism be based on? breaking up AINO would be a good way to hive off the progressives and make them live (or not) by their own means, instead of being a parasitical class.

    • Don’t you think, Karl, that there would be some separation even among the White population. It’s already true that there are sections of the country where the Germans settled, the Scots-Irish, the Cavalier English, the English Recusants, and so on. The idea of federalism is not a bad one – hell, even the Spanish have a fairly advanced idea of regional autonomy.

      • yes, definitely. that’s what i as alluding to by using “whose”; the myriad European home countries for the aggregate white population of AINO. having all the brown regions nearby might actually get them to co-operate for a change 😛

  38. So white-euro Americans will have to form a new framework to survive the coming demographic change? The change is real but what forms constitutionally or politically has yet to be really envisioned.

    Maybe we should look for guidance following the example of the jewish diaspora in Europe. How we survive in enclaves surrounded by a different people. A people some of our fellow whites actively brought in for certain purposes.

    • The only reason those Jewish people survived at all was by the favor of the Kings who protected them

  39. One piece of the past that might still be useful to future conservatism is Frederick Jackson Turner’s “Frontier Thesis.” The “frontier” will of course have to be mental or cultural (or, God help us, “cyber”), not physical, but the underlying concept is sound.

  40. This is why any real Right in America will have to be based in Christianity. You’re right that America has no real native Rightist philosophy. But what we do have is deep roots in Christianity, which can be revived far easier than any other native Rightist philosophy can be created. Pagan LARPers, Hitler fetishists, and Derbyshirean chart-wranglers can scoff all they like, but old-school, fire and brimstone Bible-waving is the only alternative to liberal egalitarianism that has any purchase within the American soul. Andrew Torba is right about Christian Nationalism – it’s that, or a drag queen’s high heeled boot stamped on your face, forever.

    • What are your plans for people like me who respect Christianity but find it entirely unpersuasive, both intellectually and spiritually? I don’t mind a harsh answer from you; Lord knows I’ve meted out a lot of harsh prescriptions for others on this site.

      I guess that you guys vastly overestimate the number of people who are really inspired by Christianity but let’s say that you win. I would choose being a dhimmi in a Christian theocracy over the filth that we live in now.

      • All people die …. At least for now …/s. It seems Christianity at first addressed that basic concern.

        At times it seems our culture has gotten so unhinged is that en mass we’ve walked away from a stabilizing answer to that problem.

        I don’t think that “we just go back to ashes” really does it for a people.

        • I do believe that out here amongst the remnants of the working and lower middle class, there does exist some vestige of another ethic. I can’t see it too clearly, and it seems to me that I just don’t quite fit up against the contours of whatever it is. As an outsider here — and one who inserted himself into what is apparently a foreign culture — I don’t really fit in neatly.

          Though I’m nothing really out of the ordinary, in the world most of us commenting here experienced, in this place I’m embarrassed to be something of a unicorn to the folks.

          In the little town I moved to, there is literally no one like me. I spent 40 years on the close outskirts of a moderately sized western city — a place once “traditional”, but now given over to purple-haired, rainbow-flag lunacy. But there was and is there a strong “counter-culture”, and population with an education, (apparent) interests and experiences like mine. They were then (and remain at a distance) my people.

          Out here, in this forgotten town in a remote corner of middle America, I’m almost like some alien being; I don’t think they know what to make of me.

          As to culture out here, there is something going on, it’s just not apparent to the outsider. On Christmas Eve, I saw people carrying gifts and food unloading at the small, worn old houses for a holiday celebration. There are four functioning churches in this small town. All have respectably sized congregations for such a small place. Most houses, even those kind of run down, seem to have someone there who works, as evidenced by the white work truck with equipment bed or tool box, and often a business name displayed on the doors. And it’s not unusual to see a relatively new pickup or car in front of a house that would have been tagged for demolition in my former, long-term home.

          And there are children here …. quite a few. Two children in a family is un-remarkable; three not uncommon. I’ve even seen four in a couple of cases while at the closest WalMart — 26 miles away.

          The women in general seem content in this role as “birthing people (/s)” for the new generations. True, there are lots of tattoos, but the kids seem pretty orderly, and immediate repercussion is at times administered in public (and protected by state law). One even sees somewhat more upscale, classier female models paired up with beefier, hard and dusty-looking working-guy types — kids and all.

          I get the impression that they are functional and relatively happy families imbedded in something now obliterated in our urban and suburban, credentialed, analyzed and medicated modern culture.

          Early last fall, I grabbed a copy of the local (large geographic area) high school sports team update. I felt like I was looking at team and cheerleader photos from a 1953 yearbook. Pretty much a monochromatic affair. At most, there might be one or two in a team or cheerleader photo either black or hispanic. I’ll admit at first it gave me a shock, so unusual was it to my experience.

          Anyway, I don’t know for sure what it is or what’s going on here, but it seems to be working for these people.

          What I see, though, suggests that there’s something deeper remaining out here. These behaviors are like tracks in the woods telling of something unseen, going on, something that leeched from the larger culture in all those years spent in my former home.

          Many do still fly the American flag. But I also saw a woman this morning with an NRA sticker on her Nissan (not GOA!), and a confederate flag placard overlaid with her name at the front plate position. They do seem to recognize military service as a good (no howls of protest please, they just don’t know what’s happening there). They are also generally very polite, strongly supported Trump, and regularly vote over 80% Republican.

          They also volunteer nothing to me about the current state of our culture and plight of our nation. Something I said to the taciturn furnace man earlier last week resulted in him saying there were some people hereabouts who did not like what was going on. He also did state that most people around here own guns. And that was it.

          I sense that something is going on out here — that these people likewise know ill-events are in the offing.

          But I also know that, as our “leaders” are mostly hive creatures, or quietly support that agenda, they have no one to show them the way.

          • Great comment. Very observant and insightful. Thanks for taking the time to write. Your comment clicked something within me and I realized that I have seen the exact same thing throughout my travels in Canada, but never put distilled it into writing before.

            I hinted at it in my comment above – I have seen exactly what you are describing in the boonies and in small towns/cities.

            I am a city man, but whenever travelling I make sure to stop in small towns, taking detours along the way, and observing. I enjoy eating at different local spots – some good, some bad, but always very White.

            Wherever I go in these places, there are “hill people”, visibly of working or lower class status, that come out of the woodwork, and seem to just be hanging out, no matter where they are. They have multiple blond kids. They are not always attractive (sometimes they are), but seem to have no problem meeting each other and fornicating. As you mentioned, there appears to be some level of economic activity since they are driving vehicles (often pickup trucks) and the nearby houses are maintained, not always well, but always to some extent. Plenty of random little businesses around. Lots of camo, smoking, and tatoos.

            They seem relatively happy, content, and normal. God knows where they get their life path from – every single thing tells them to do the opposite of what they’re doing. Perhaps it is like some kind of genetic track, they’re simply shutting down and reverting to their biological programming. The “Aryan” spirit coming out? Hard to say exactly what it is, but it’s a bit different. And it’s different than the Christians. But then again, where do you or I get our energy? Simply from God, from the ether around us.

            They do not talk politics at all (and barely talk to outsiders). But you get the feeling that they might sense that not all is well, some sense of unease. And perhaps they might have some other, well concealed thoughts behind their cloak of silence.

            Dumber, yet more perceptive. The third eye can sense a great deal of things without even needing to look – if you’re willing to open it, and theirs is open, maybe without even realizing it. But they see things, and they see things for what they are. Sometimes they see me. I don’t need to talk to them to read their minds, but they do a good job of hiding their true thoughts behind the “dumb self”.

            Hard to say what it means, but it seems like a relatively new thing. The sense got stronger during the COVID-19 pandemic, where these people simply detached from everything and reverted to their programming.

            I would love to help them and guide them. Almost like I’m cut off from who I’m supposed to be, and the people I’m supposed to be with. The high IQ stock may have drifted away from them over time into the city meat grinders.

            Anyways. Gotta keep on rolling. No matter what.

          • For B125:

            Thank you for the comment. I would add (akin to your statement about helping them) that they have a big problem in this culture that wants to eradicate them as useless eaters. That is, to maintain whatever it is that organizes and drives their culture, they do need …. elites (how I hate that word — too imprecise).

            No culture or people can survive without that group that puts the effort into developing and maintaining the mythology, the “story” that gives substance to who and what they are. Their accomplishments, story and heroes / villains need to be built, kept alive in the collective consciousness, and defended against those who would destroy them.

            Unfortunately, that role was depopulated when nearly the whole of our intellectual and creative classes dyed their hair blue, stampeded left and offered their (and your) kids up for sacrifice on the alter of trans-righteousness.

            Meaning and Purpose — without those alive and forceful, they will eventually be absorbed. And the LEFT — the progressives or whatever they are, and their ruling overlords, live to do exactly that.

            We’ve got to get a fight going on the cultural front.

      • Same as it ever was. Your public support is encouraged, but not strictly required. You can’t talk against it, and there is cooperation between Church and state, as they lend legitimacy to each other.

      • > What are your plans for people like me who respect Christianity but find it entirely unpersuasive

        That’s pretty simple. Abide by and respect Christian traditions. Don’t practice or promote blasphemy, sodomy, or usury, and actively and publicly oppose those who do. Stop focusing on your personal preferences and instead sacrifice your ego for the good of future generations.

        • That’s more merciful than I was expecting, thanks. Maybe I’ll see you there someday.

          I’ll abide and obey. I may not be a believer but I like and respect lots of Christians and if you guys win then I will play by your rules.

      • High trust societies, Christianity, Western Civ, they all co-evolved. They are interdependent. To a large extent, they are synonymous. Their interrelationship is why they were all able to be perverted by the same force, progressivism.

        But now we are so far post-Enlightenment, it’s absurd to think the near future holds theocracies like envisioned by Bova or whoever that nut was that wrote the Handmaid’s Tale. It probably never was possible after the Reformation, the Anglican church and the various “official” Lutheran churches of Scandinavia proving the point. Ecclesiastical power is no more.

        Thing is if you are a decent type chap, and we all know what that means, you are not only tolerated in that order, you are welcomed.

      • Things that prodded me (an avowed atheist once upon a time) to take a closer look at Christianity:

        * It’s the foundation of Western civilization, so it follows that civilization’s enemies would want it gone

        * If the worst people in the world hate it, it has to have something going for it

        * The worst people in the world are religious too. The West has a choice before it – to organise itself under The Cross or the rainbow flag

        * You’ve sensed the satanic undertow in the culture, I’m sure. Take a tumble down that particular rabbit hole and you’ll quickly learn that we’re ruled by psychopathic luciferian pedophiles. They believe in their god. Fervently.

        * There have been a number of defections from ‘The New Age’ of late, notably an ex-psychic called Doreen Virtue (world famous). The Bible is pretty clear about divination and all that claptrap. That sh*t opens portals. Same thing with psychedelics (

        * All cultures have traditions pertaining to spiritual warfare – there’s something out there and it ain’t friendly

        * Take a closer look at the spazz-out over Graham Hancock’s recent Netflix series. Cultures the world over have flood stories, and most if not all of them speak of giants. Something existed before that cataclysm that someone doesn’t want known. Read Genesis 6 and the Book of Enoch.

        * Christianity has been almost wiped out in the West, entirely by design. WHY?

        * The serpent tempted Eve, not Adam. A cursory glance at the state of modern womanhood tells its own story

        There are a lot of barriers for the modern mind to kick over before real faith is found. I’m no exception, it’s difficult. Go medieval. The worst people in the world hate that period with a spittle-flecked fury you can’t help but notice. As with most things, their demonic convulsions often point in the right direction.

        I hope this will give you some food for thought.

      • What to do with the likes of you in a Christian Nation?

        Dhimmi, but no jizya required. Basically do not cross Christianity in public, do what you do in private. Probably not too different from how it has always been under most Christian nations.

    • When Kanye West is a leading figure in Christian nationalism, I think you have a lot of work to do to make that concept workable. That and you need to address why Christianity failed as a foundation for the American Right. It is not as if conservatives ignored Christianity. They warmly embraced it with most of the conservative leaders being openly faithful.

      • That many Christian nationalists like Fuentes just positively gushed over Kayne was tough for me to watch, and I never cared for Fuentes. Intellectually and psychologically, Kanye is similar to Hershel Walker.

      • I’d hardly call Kanye West a “leading figure in Christian Nationalism”. The whole Kanye Affair was just another example of Clown World’s endless search for objects of a Two Minutes Hate. The two minutes seem to have passed, the news cycle has moved on, and everybody is moving on to the next thing.

        As for addressing past failures, you’re absolutely right. No restoration movement ever succeeds completely, nor should it. We don’t want to be like the restored Bourbon kings, who “learned nothing and forgot nothing”. But that could be said of anything that might serve as the basis of Rightism – or of any alternative to Clown World liberalism at all. Yes, we need a serious conversation about past mistakes and how not to repeat them. So let’s have it – but let’s not say that such a thing is a lost cause.

      • Christianity “failed” after nearly 2 millennia of succeeding wildly beyond the success of any civilization before or after.

        When any organization has a process or system in place that leads to success, and then — gradually — after no longer following the process, the results start falling away, the fault is not in the process, but rather in the failure to correctly follow that process.

      • Is Christian Nationalism even a real thing? I have never heard of the term until about a year ago. Suddenly everyone was a Christian Nationalist. The term was being used as a perjorative by the media and was simultaneously adopted by the circus performers like Kanye.

        Sort of like White Nationalism, it came out of nowhere.

      • Protestant sects are self immolating. Home for the solstice and can see my Christian parents who moved to a liberal enclave and joined a congregation moving rapidly to self destruction.

        Howard Zinn on the bookshelf along with other social justice titles that are anti-white. Many new age affirmations that are antithetical to Christianity hanging on the wall in place of Bible verses. Talking about mystical experiences that sound more like pyschedelic new age BS. Saying things like, “Our African mother is … and our African father is …” That one got a harsh rebuke and a hopefully loving lesson in the white genocide being perpetrated against us. We are not African. Our father is Odin, Jupiter and Zeus. That induced a shock before the demographic realities lesson was given.

        “Be EVER-EXPANSIVE: By being in an ever-expanding state and growing intellectually, emotionally & spiritually you’re identifying with the universal mind.”

        “Be RECEPTIVE: The universal Mind is ready to respond to anyone who recognizes their true relationship to it.”

        These are two of many that have replaced the Bible in the home. Perhaps in 1971, it would have been more appropriate for Nixon to have said, “We are all New Age hippies marching to extinction singing Kumbaya now.”

      • The problem is that in Christianity everyone has a soul, even the blacks. Even if you look back to the Conquistadors as being the “based” kind of Christianity, they still banged all those squaws and bred themselves into becoming Mexicans.

        Paganism may be a silly LARP, but in that model only Vikings (and possibly Klingons) get into heaven.

      • zman: Until Christian nationalists drop the literal interpretation of Paul’s words (“There is neither Jew nor Gentile etc. . . .) they will remain as useless as civic nationalists. Until Christian nationalists can acknowledge that someone of an alien race or culture may be a fine person but is not and never can be an American of European heritage and thus unsuitable for their neighbor, let alone their son-in-law, they are inimical to my future.

        Claim we are all equal before God, or ought to be before earthly law – fine. But just as no two individuals are the same, no two races or cultures are the same. Like unto like. Noah wasn’t told to load his ark with non-binary zebras to mate with trannie gorillas. And no, heaven is not teeming with billions of diverse people all happily crowded together like the churchians’ imaginary perfect earthly worship hall.

      • “That and you need to address why Christianity failed as a foundation for the American Right”
        Because Buckley purged “anti semites” from NR after WWII.
        Limited government moves left.
        It moved left in Rome and America.
        Monarchy is the best humans can do given their flawed nature.

      • Calling Kanye the leading figure in Christian Nationalism is like calling Neil Degrassi Tyson the leading figure in science. Just a made up celebrity looking for 2 minutes of fame highlighted by TPTB to discredit the rest.

        There is a reason competent proponents of ideas that frighten TPTB never see the light of day.

    • Christianity is universalist and color-blind by nature. Which is what made it so popular. It is certainly rooted in the swarthy white realm and is the default religion of the European people. But Christianity will always bend towards diversity so if it’s an ethnostate you want, Christianity cannot be the prime focus.

      Unless you can fashion a whites-only Christianity somehow but that’s highly dubious, and kind of heretical. The Mormons tried that, but nobody takes them or their Teutonic Jesus seriously.

      • I don’t know what world you live in to say such a thing as, “Christianity will always bend towards diversity.” For almost its entire history, it has been defending itself from literal armies of diversity. It’s just absurd, I’m afraid to say.

        • Marko isn’t wrong. John 3:16 is a long way from the seed of Abraham. Get dunked, wine becomes blood, bread the body. That’s a radical change that opens the door to magic thinking.

          • I don’t follow. I don’t think science is the be-all-end-all any more than I think Scripture is. It’s Hebrew history and Jesus’ sayings transcribed by people who may or may not have known Him, compiled and canonized by the church generations later. No person, no institution, no tradition, no ideology, no scripture, no education, no individual life has all the answers. Even Jesus couldn’t make Himself understood. Mystery is, to some extant, baked into the cake.

      • Weird how there’s no real evidence of Christianity “bending toward diversity” for 1965 years after it’s founding, when the elites who wanted diversity had all stopped believing in it.

      • Excuse me sir! But doesn’t Christianity have a thing called “missionaries” and these people try and convert non-European peoples, at the Pope’s or the denomination’s blessing?

        In the Middle Ages they were at Kublai Khan’s court. They wanted to bring Christ to the Aztecs. They were all over Africa. Christianity, as we know it, has been all about the kumbaya, brother.

        (This is not to disparage Christianity. I myself am Orthodox.)

        • What does that have to do with diversity? I can work to convert the pagan Rus, the Bantu, the Aztec, whoever, because it is what I was told to do and because it is good for them. Doesn’t mean I think we should all share an apartment.

          And this viewpoint was exactly that of all Christendom until the day before yesterday.

          • I just don’t understand how a religion could be evangelical yet segregated. You let enough people into the club, you’re going to get diversified. “Invade the world, invite the world” is a favorite phrase around here, but it could easily be applied to evangelism: “convert the world, invite the world”. Why do you think Jews are so picky about who they let in?

            On the ground level, different Christian peoples may not readily mix, as is human nature, but in religious practice an Ethiopian Copt is more my “brother” than a German Buddhist is.

        • Yes, but at some point missionary work changed from converting savages to Christianity *over there* to “let’s bring them *here* whether they convert or not”.

          I wonder who was behind such a change?

          • Then he misunderstood what universalism means in Christianity (or was deliberately mislead on it).

            The only thing universal in Christianity is that salvation is open to all who accept it. That’s it. That’s the universalism. I don’t see how that opens up diversity any more than saying water is the best beverage for you and every human can drink it if they so choose. That others have twisted it to use for whatever purposes does not invalidate it.

    • I am a Christian but the problem with Christianity can be seen in progressivism.
      Progressivism came out of christianity, it’s a perversion of it, but it has its roots in christianity.
      Padrick Martin had a good essay over at Identity Dixie about Christianity published on Christmas Day.
      Yes, it’s possible to build again on a spiritual foundation of Christianity, but only if we do not ignore the teachings of Paul on how a church is to be organized and to respect the Heirarchy that Paul prescribed.
      These same principals within Paul’s teachings can be applied to our human government and other organizations within our societies.
      This includes women are not allowed to be outward leaders in the organization of the church, women have roles as supporters and mothers but not our leaders, also sexual deviancy is to remain sexual deviancy and those who practice it are to be placed out of the church, and finally that the tribe that Paul belonged to cannot be allowed to rule over Christians.
      Christianity can provide a framework for a stable society but only if the heirarchies and limitations within christianity, specifically Paul’s epistles, are respected and followed.

      • Paul claimed churches should have both Jews and Gentiles so he is out. That is wrong. Its diversity and of the worst kind really.

Comments are closed.