The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Mark Weber Archive
Why Conservatives Can’t Win
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Conservatism certainly seems alive and well in America. For years polls have consistently shown that more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal. In recent decades both branches of Congress, as well as the White House, have often been controlled by Republicans – who generally regard themselves as conservative. “Conservative” Fox News has for some time been the country’s most widely viewed television news source. Rush Limbaugh, who proudly calls himself a conservative, has for decades been the country’s most popular radio talk show host.

But such influence is deceptive.

Over the past century, conservatives have drastically shifted their views, abandoning their stands on one issue after another, including Medicare, federal spending, Martin Luther King Day, and more. On any given issue, the “conservative” view of today is often the “liberal” view of ten years earlier.

When the Franklin Roosevelt administration and a compliant Congress were establishing Social Security during the 1930s, conservatives opposed it. Denouncing it as “socialist,” they pointed out that it’s basically a compulsory old age insurance program. They likewise resisted Medicare in the years before it was established in 1966, calling this federal program “socialized medicine.”

Today not a single prominent politician who regards himself as conservative dares call for dismantling Social Security or Medicare. To the contrary, conservative politicians assure voters that they will “protect” these programs. Conservatives likewise fought the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Although there is still some residual talk of repealing and replacing it, it appears that some form of the Act will remain in place. And just as they eventually accepted the once-despised Social Security and Medicare programs, conservatives very likely will come around to accepting some version of Obamacare.

Just what is it that conservatives want to conserve? One answer that’s often given is “freedom” – by which is usually meant “individual freedom.”

Well, if individual freedom is really important, those who call themselves conservative should be very pleased with the trajectory of the past century, because Americans today generally have more freedom and “rights” than those of earlier generations.

Consider life in 1930, for example – when nearly all Americans still regarded the US as a “great” country.

For one thing, employment and job opportunities were generally segregated and restricted by sex and race. Employment notices in newspapers appeared in separate sections, one for Men and another for Women. Women were effectively barred from a wide range of jobs.

There were no “gay rights.” Homosexual behavior was punished as a crime. Any suggestion that a woman might have the “right” to marry another woman, or a man another man, would have been regarded as offensive and absurd.

By law and custom, people of European ancestry could not marry persons of other races. In most states marriage between whites and blacks was a felony.

Abortion was not a “right”; it was a crime.

Americans could not buy groceries, tools or clothes on a Sunday. Stores across the country were closed on Sundays as an expression of respect for the Christian heritage and Christian sensibilities.

No one could legally order a glass of beer or enjoy a bottle of wine with a meal in a restaurant. The sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited throughout the country.

How many Americans today who call themselves conservative would prefer life in the “great” America of 1930 to life in the “liberal” USA of our era? Is “freedom” really the most important thing that conservatives want to conserve?

For Americans who call themselves conservative, the most admired president of the past century is Ronald Reagan. He made millions of his fellow citizens feel good about themselves and their country. Given his earlier career as an actor, it’s not surprising that he was known as the “great communicator,” and that so many people found his speeches inspiring and uplifting. He was probably the last American president who actually believed what he said when he assured audiences that this country’s greatest days are still ahead.

Reagan was a relentless critic of Big Government. When he was campaigning for the presidency, he pledged to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. He specifically promised to eliminate the Department of Education, along with other allegedly unnecessary and unconstitutional federal agencies. He criticized the federal budget deficit, and promised to balance it. He opposed making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday.

His policies as president were quite different. During the eight years of his administration, the number of federal government employees increased by about 324,000 to almost 5.3 million, the great majority of them in non-military work. Federal government spending under Reagan increased by 60 percent. The Department of Education was not eliminated; in fact, its budget more than doubled. The gross federal debt nearly tripled. It was during his presidency that US shifted from being the world’s foremost creditor nation to being the world’s greatest debtor nation. And in an act with consequences far beyond his lifetime, Reagan signed into law the bill to make Martin Luther King Day a national holiday.

The contrast between Reagan’s conservative rhetoric and his actual policies are perhaps not so surprising, given his record of approval for the overall social-political trajectory of twentieth century America. One noteworthy expression of that was his praise for President Franklin Roosevelt, whose liberal “New Deal” policies vastly expanded the power and scope of the federal government, and whom conservatives of that era understandably despised.

For Ronald Reagan, race was unimportant. Perhaps a better way to put it is that, for Reagan, along with most white Americans of his generation, it was an issue he preferred to ignore. As president, Reagan acknowledged that when he was young “we didn’t even know we had a racial problem.” That’s because non-whites were all but invisible in the country’s cultural, political and social life. Until the 1960s, white America preferred to pretend that non-whites did not exist.

As President, Reagan repeatedly proclaimed his vision of the United States as a universalist society. In his 1982 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, for example, he said: “I have always believed that this anointed land was set apart in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this great continent here between the oceans to be found by people from every corner of the earth who had a special love of faith and freedom.”

In keeping with this outlook, Reagan in 1986 signed into law the “Simpson-Mazzoli” Act, which legalized some three million illegal migrants – or, as they are now fashionably called, “undocumented workers” and “dreamers.” His amnesty of millions of illegal immigrants was entirely consistent with his often-repeated view of America as a color-blind nation that welcomes all those who “love freedom.”

The gap between Reagan’s rhetoric as a politician and his actual policies as president underscores the barrenness of conservatism in modern America.

In keeping with their distaste for confrontation and discord, conservatives have long tolerated the promotion of seemingly noble sentiments that have unpleasant long term consequences.

Emma Lazarus was a New York Jewish-American writer of the nineteenth century who is most famous for her poem “The New Colossus.” In 1903, a few years after her death, a bronze plaque with the poem’s text was attached to the base of the Statue of Liberty.

It concludes with the words:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

That final stanza was made even more famous when it was set to music for the 1949 musical “Miss Liberty.”

Has any prominent conservative ever voiced an objection to the sentiment of that poem, or protested its place at the Statue of Liberty? More than that, conservatives have supported policies based on the poem’s underlying spirit and ideology, which open the country’s doors to millions of “huddled masses” from other continents. Conservative Americans only seem to get upset when the “wretched refuse” of “teeming shores” arrive in their own towns and neighborhoods. By that time, of course, it’s too late.

This view of America as a land for everyone, regardless of race, ancestry, and so forth, was already vigorously promoted and widely accepted by the 1940s. During World War II, the official “Why We Fight” US government propaganda films proclaimed the ideal of America as a universalist society. In the decades since then, the mainstream media, Hollywood, school teachers and politicians have stressed racial, cultural and religious diversity as an ideal. President Bill Clinton, for example, in his 1997 State of the Union address, said: “We must never, ever believe that our diversity is a weakness – it is our greatest strength.” Not a single prominent conservative politician disputed or protested that view.

Conservatives are generally more willing than liberals or leftists to acknowledge racial realities, at least in private, but they are unwilling to do so openly. In public, conservative leaders applaud and support the same principle of “color blind” equality that liberals promote.

Each January, Americans honor, or are supposed to honor, Martin Luther King, Jr., on the anniversary of his birth. He is the only American who is honored with a federal holiday of his own. At one time, those who called themselves conservative opposed such a national holiday. That was understandable, given that it was liberals and leftists who had provided the backing that proved crucial in enabling King’s campaign to win greater political power, rights, and economic status for African Americans.

These days, conservatives talk very differently about King and his legacy. They now claim that he was actually a “conservative” because he pushed for the supposedly “conservative” principle of equal rights for all, regardless of race. Today no prominent politician, including those who call themselves conservative, would dare denounce him.

Beginning in kindergarten, school teachers across the country tell young Americans that we must all strive to live up to the ideal of racial equality proclaimed by King. That includes support for the range of programs, regulations and policies, which he promoted, that require discrimination against European-Americans. Politicians of both major parties accept or at least tolerate these “affirmative action” policies and programs, which are based on the notion that white Americans are collectively responsible for the legacy of discrimination and racism that, we are told, has kept African-Americans from achieving the goal of equality of income and achievement that even conservatives claim to support.

Educators and political leaders have for decades told us that success in the struggle for racial equality must be measured not merely by equality of opportunity, but by equality of results. As President Lyndon Johnson explained during the 1960s: “This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity … not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.” In accord with that outlook, Republican President Richard Nixon ordered federal contractors to use “goals and timetables” in hiring more non-white workers, even when that meant discriminating against better qualified white workers.

In an effort to win popular support while basically accepting the prevailing egalitarian- universalist worldview, conservatives misrepresent American history. One of the country’s most popular conservative writers and film-makers of recent years has been Dinesh D’Souza. Born and raised in India, he is regarded as an outstanding spokesman for American conservativism.

His latest film is a political documentary, “Death of a Nation,” that favorably compares Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln, and asks viewers: “Can We Save America a Second Time?” The film draws parallels between Democratic Party opposition to Lincoln in 1860, and Democratic Party opposition to Trump today. It also draws parallels between the program and outlook of Hitler’s National Socialist Party during the 1930s, and the program and outlook of the Democratic Party today. The film accuses the Democratic Party – both then and now – of racism and fascism. It also argues that the political left today unfairly and maliciously portrays conservatives and Republicans as supporters of racism, white supremacy, and fascism.

How accurate is D’Souza’s “conservative” documentary?

In late 1860 and early 1861, the southern slave states left the federal union to form the Confederate States of America, and a short time later the fighting broke out that began the American Civil War. In the years leading up to those events, the key political issue dividing Americans was whether slavery should be prohibited in the new western territories. Democrats in the South generally favored the expansion of slavery into the territories, while Democrats in the North, led by Stephen Douglas, believed that the issue should be decided by the voters in each new territory.

Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party firmly opposed any expansion of slavery beyond the states where it was already legal. But contrary to what D’Souza and many other conservatives suggest, Lincoln and most Republicans rejected political and social equality for African-Americans. When he was elected President in 1860, Lincoln and nearly all Republicans wanted to keep not only slavery, but all blacks, whether slave or free, out of the new western territories.

In the years before he became President, Lincoln repeatedly made clear that he opposed voting rights for blacks, and supported laws against interracial marriage. Both before and during his presidency, Lincoln made clear, again and again, his wish that one day slavery would be eliminated. But he also repeatedly expressed his hope that people of African ancestry would ultimately be removed from the country altogether. He supported plans and programs for “colonization” or mass resettlement of blacks in Africa or Central America.

“The enterprise is a difficult one,” Lincoln acknowledged in a June 1857 address, “but `where there is a will there is a way,’ and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

Based on the views he expressed repeatedly, and the policies he supported, Abraham Lincoln should be regarded, by today’s standards, as a white nationalist and a white supremacist.

Dinesh D’Souza, along with many others who call themselves conservative, seem to believe that white racial identity and politics are evil. In this, they agree with most liberals and Democrats. But if it’s morally wrong to hold white identity views, or to support policies based on white community interests, than it’s difficult to look back without shame at the views and policies of Lincoln and nearly all white Americans during most of the country’s history.

For prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D’Souza and Sean Hannity, the ideal America is a country in which race is as irrelevant as hair color or shoe size. For such people, it simply doesn’t matter if the USA, racially, resembles Brazil, India or Malaysia. But in the real world race does matter. It’s certainly more important than whether tax rates are high or low, or whether gun control laws are strict or lenient.

In which country would American conservatives prefer to live: in liberal “big government” Denmark, which has strict gun control laws, comprehensive state health care, and high taxes, or in Haiti, which has no income tax, no strict gun control laws, no state health care, and a government that interferes very little in the lives of its citizens?

Whether they regard themselves as conservative or liberal, most Americans prefer to live in neighborhoods and communities of people like themselves. And whether they think in racial terms or not, most white Americans prefer life in a society that is culturally Western and racially European.

As recent election campaigns show, conservative voters seem to be motivated more by what they oppose, fear or dislike than by any solidly grounded principles. Because conservatives embrace the same egalitarian-universalist worldview that liberals relentlessly promote, they have a long record of waging predictably hopeless rearguard battles against programs and policies based on that same outlook. But even as they lose the war, conservatives comfort themselves with occasional election and legislative victories – tactical successes that are essentially meaningless.

We hear a lot these days about “identity politics” – that is, political appeals and activism based on race, ethnicity or gender. Conservatives don’t like it. “Why can’t we all just think of ourselves as Americans?,” they lament. But “identity politics” is not a game. It’s serious, play-for-keeps politics.

In the years before 1776, when the 13 colonies along the Atlantic coast broke away from British rule, the great debate was really about identity: Are we British subjects, with loyalties to the British monarch, or are we a separate, American people? Virtually all the great conflicts of our age are really conflicts about identity.

Ordinary politics involves issues of day-to-day concern to most people, such as taxes, jobs, affordable housing and health care, entitlement benefits, and so forth. Appeals for votes in routine politics like that are based on the presumption that we all share the same basic outlook and interests, and that we’re all in this together as Americans.

While white Americans are still trying to play the traditional political game – that is, by pretending that race doesn’t matter – millions of other Americans are playing identity politics. While white conservative Americans keep playing “softball,” insisting that “We’re all Americans,” the serious contenders are playing “hardball,” the only game that matters in the long run.

Even though conservatives sometimes still win battles, it’s no wonder they are losing the war. They’re not even playing the same game.

Based on their track record over the past half century, conservatives are incapable of building or even defending the kind of society that nearly all white Americans really want.

If white America has a future, it won’t be secured by conservatives. It will be secured only by European Americans who reject “business-as-usual” politics and the familiar but ultimately irrelevant “conservative” and “liberal” categories, and who instead embrace a worldview rooted in their heritage, history and identity, and act forthrightly to defend and promote their own group interests.

 

This item is adapted from a talk given at a meeting on Oct. 20, 2018, in southern California.

Mark Weber – historian, author and lecturer – studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A). He is director of the Institute for Historical Review.

 
Hide 109 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “The great debate was about identity”

    I’d say that the conflict was about a distant metropolitan power enacting laws for the colonies which harmed the interests of the colonists and which they felt violated their rights as Englishmen. That was the essential nature of the conflict.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  2. @kerdasi amaq

    And that’s the essential nature of the conflict today. 99% of US counties voted for Trump in the last election. Votes for Clinton were concentrated in a few metropolitan areas that exert imperial dominance over the rest of the country. (Even in these “imperial counties” sizable minorities voted for Trump.) As is the case with any imperial system, race, ethnicity and religion all provide political fracture lines. The empire is broken and disintegrating. A breakup will occur. Whether it will be initiated peacefully and within some legalistic, constitutional framework or by civil war, revolution, or coup d’etat has yet to be determined.

    I live in a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, a “ground zero” for prog sentiment. I’ve noticed that close to half the strangers, with whom I interact, would most likely be described as “deplorables” by Hilary Clinton. When talk gets around to the sad state of what was once our country, I’ve taken to mentioning civil war or revolution as a possible solution. Ten years ago such a thing would have been unimaginable. Now I find that others are not upset by my words and often agree with me.

    • Replies: @Wally
  3. Mark G. says:

    This author seems to be trying to claim the U.S. had less freedom in 1930 than today and we were better off then. Overall government spending as a percentage of GDP went from 12 per cent in 1930 to 35 per cent in 2012. That is a better yardstick to measure overall economic freedom than whether or not you can order a glass of beer. If we were better off then, it would be because of that. The twenties was a period of rapid economic growth and low government spending and it was when we started to get away from that in thirties that we started to have problems.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Bruno
  4. We haven’t had a real Conservative President since Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt had an environmental ethos and was against much of the Corporatism we see today. The Repubs are not Conservatives…they are Fascist Globalists.

    If the you had another Teddy Roosevelt….Conservatives would win but the Repubs have also descended into Madness and care only for cheap labor and the raping of the environment. Repubs lose tons of votes because of their environmental destruction. Add to the fact that entire Congress is run from Israel and they are nothing but whores on both sides of isle….just a few slight differences. The REpubs are afraid of everything.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Mr. Anon
  5. Weber’s strongest suit in this important article is this message:

    Diversity is NOT our national strength.

    That progressive myth is a counter-intuitive Trojan Horse that is harming the long-term cultural, political and genetic interests of America’s founding stock: European-Americans.

    European history, European science, European exploration, European art, European literature, and European-derived laws (and peoples) have produced the world’s most dynamic, orderly, innovative, sophisticated, and livable societies. This includes the United States.

    It is time for European-Americans (AKA ‘whites’) to declare our identities as such. ‘White’ doesn’t cut it anymore. The word has been deliberately sullied.

    Strangely (and not by accident) the cultural status of ‘whites’ in America has been, and continues to be, demoted.

    Even the US census, for instance, categorizes white Americans (of European heritage) as ‘non-Hispanic whites’. That’s it. That’s who we are.

    Wow. ‘Non-Hispanic white’. You? Me? That’s who we are?

    What Jew thought that up this demeaning title for America’s founding core?

    Our skin is white and our race is Caucasoid but the time has come for us ‘whites’ to call ourselves ‘European-Americans’. This description reminds the world of our origins as well as our accomplishments.

    European-American identity will also allow us to more easily distinguish ourselves from Hispanics, not to mention overbearing Jewish identity which, curiously, allows Jews to assume white status (when it suits them) but MidEast origins whenever Israel (and global Jewry) needs it, which happens to be often.

    There’s a war underway for the soul of America. And it’s not between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’. Weber has put his finger on it.

    As European-Americans approach minority status inside the US, we Americans–whose ancestors hailed from England, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, etc–must assert our collective interests inside our rapidly-changing civilization.

    After all, it was the energy, courage and talents of European-derived peoples who settled America that created the freest, most dynamic, prosperous and science-driven civilization that’s ever existed. No small feat.

    Is our advanced, English-speaking civilization not worth preserving? Of course it is.

    In order for us to accomplish this legitimate goal, the race taboo in America that now disfavors European-Americans (and ‘white’ identity) must be lifted.

    White identity needs to come out of the closet and take its rightful place at the negotiating table alongside other intra-national identity groups such as Hispanics, Jews and African-Americans.

    The drive fo preserve one’s culture and kin is universal. This drive is especially keen among high-functioning peoples. This is self-preservation in action. It is not evil. It is a human virtue. And self-preservation can also be achieved without bloodshed or war.

    Borders must simply be respected and protected. And we must do the same for others. No wars for Israel!

    Too much diversity inside one nation is destabilizing, alienating, and polarizing. This is common sense and history talking.

    Race matters. It always will matter since temperment, intelligence and physical appearance will always matter. It’s that simple. All the various ‘minorities’ inside America understand this age-old fact. And this truism proves that European-Americans also have distinct political interests. Of course we do. It’s time we promoted them.

    As a fading majority, European-derived Americans realize that commonality–not diversity–is our strength. The rising political gridlock in Washington proves it.

    This is what Trump’s border wall is all about.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    , @turtle
  6. ” . . . that is, by pretending that race doesn’t matter – millions of other Americans are playing identity politics. ”

    I am not sure where you you live, but at no time have US citizens in either the republican, democratic, liberal, conservative or any other aisle pretended that skin color doesn’t matter. identity politics to skin color is main stage since the nation’s founding. And despite all the complaining is one established by whites.
    _________________________

    I am a conservative because it alines with how I think one should live life and how to best exist in society at large. That means being a conservative is a life style choice. And frankly, it matters not what skin tone, anyone of any color can live and adopt that lifestyle. The question is press in answered in the press. For those who consider conservative life, ideology, orthodoxy merely a strategy for winning political gambits, then perhaps what you get is what you describe — people who abandon traditional ethos for something more appealing to win elections. That’s when one should cease calling themselves conservative.

    I don’t have to be a black person to know the color issue is older than the country. It is convenient, it is preforged and takes little or no effort to sling it around, even dress it up to give it force. But if the issue is traditionalism: faith, family, and systems that aide a society to grow healthy platforms for freedom, fair play, and good order – respect and value for institutions that promote and protect the same – then skin tone is in reality inconsequential. Unless one lives in a society that structured itself around skin color regardless of its benign nature —

    Well, then skin color will matter. But that is the result of structuration – not something innate. I would like to the case that US citizens of any color are vying for anything different than what i hold dear as a conservative. The battle for conservatives as it with people of faith is a long one.

  7. KenH says:

    On any given issue, the “conservative” view of today is often the “liberal” view of ten years earlier.

    Ain’t that the truth. The conservative talking points of today were the leftist talking points of yesterday. In 10-15 years, possibly sooner, conservatives will be talking about combatting “white privilege” and hailing Barack Obama as a conservative icon in an attempt to stay relevant amidst the browning citizenry.

    In 2024 I can already see The National Review running an article titled “The conservative case for combatting white privilege.”

    When I started reading The National Review in 1992 it ran articles very similar to what one would find on sites like American Renaissance today and regularly wrote movie reviews detailing anti-white bias in Hollywood. It’s now a shell of its former self after the bloody purges of wrongthinkers starting later that decade and their need to virtue signal to the left. The one thing that hasn’t changed is their unwavering support fof Israel and the Jewish people.

    Conservatives used to regularly rail against multiculturalism, affirmative action and opposed homosexuality, but not anymore. They are now committed to making multiracialism and multiculturalism work (Dems R the real racists), have dropped opposition to affirmative action like a hot potato and greeted Trump’s support for LGBTQ at the 2016 Republican convention to raucous applause.

  8. KenH says:

    Conservative luminary (((Ben Shapiro))) recently said that “racists” should have their careers ruined. At one time those were the musings of deranged leftists and the SPLC and not to be taken seriously but if Benny has his druthers it will become mainstream conservatism.

    So Jewish “conservative” and Jewish leftist thought intersect at matters of Jewish group interest and translated from Ben’s jewspeak he’s saying that enemies of the Jewish people should be destroyed especially if they’re white and anti-semitic or refuse to accept the raceless nation the Jews are busily superimposing on America. Constitutional civil liberties and America’s long standing (until recently) tolerance of dissident views will just have to take a back seat to Jewish racial interests. This is (((Trotskyism))) and not conservatism.

    The Jewish influence on discourse cannot be understated. I’d like to dismiss soy boy Ben and his high pitched, feminine voice but there’s a lot of airheads in the Republican party and on the kosher right who listen to him and fancy him as some kind of advanced thinker.

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  9. nickels says:

    So conservatism means dismantling social security?
    Lol.
    Sign me up with AOC, then.

    Conservative = absolute Christian Monarchy and distributism or nothing.

    • Replies: @eah
  10. To mention the choice to engage in same behavior in the same breath as conservative orthodoxy as to support — to misunderstand conservativism.

    And I know of know conservative who embraces the community known as LGBTQ or whatever acronym is newly on its way.

    President Trump did not run as a conservative, and many of the refernces above are not about conservative ethos, but the strategy of the republican party to gain votes.

  11. Rich says:

    The author confuses “conservative” with “Republican”. Conservatives make up a plurality of the Republican party, but don’t in any way control it. The overwhelming majority of actual conservatives would happily return to the ethos of pre-WWII USA.

  12. Mulegino1 says:

    As G.K. Chesterton astutely observed: “Progressives exist to make mistakes; conservatives exist to prevent them from being corrected.”

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  13. And therein lies the fail. Whiteness is a genetic marker not an identity. It may have an impact as one is socialized, but other than that — it has no bearing on identity.

    The person to identity is shaped and molded by environment. A white child does enter the world and drift to ward GB, Russia, Germany, Poland. They don’t exit the womb speaking english, french or latin. That is all learned and negotiated creation of self.

    I think a look at the research of George Herbert Meade as delineated by Dr. Blumer makes a very sound case. One of the tragic aspects about our US polity is that it theoretically understands this, but have never deeply invested in it.

  14. @EliteCommInc.

    But that is the result of structuration – not something innate. I would like to the case that US citizens of any color are vying for anything different than what i hold dear as a conservative.

    Around 64% of blacks are born out of wedlock compared to 18% for whites. That’s different countries.

    Around six times the rate for criminal charges. Again, distinct peoples with different notions of socially acceptable behavior. And since you seem to be under the impression that this is all just a matter of ideation, maybe write your conservative ideals on a piece of paper and pass it around the hood. All the welfare offices, the juvenile justice, the extra policing, the armed security in schools, the social workers can be shut down as blacks adopt your impeccable logic.

    A lot of the conflict arises from vestigial white local governments enforcing their social norms on people who don’t think 300-pound men walking around high and shoving shopkeepers around to steal cigars for blunts should end up shot.

    “Hispanics,” more commonly Meso-Americans, tend to have lower rates of social pathology, at least, so long as they’re not running the place. Then their social pathologies are off the charts. They also copulate way younger and their males really, really do not like formal schooling, to their credit. It might be a refreshing addition to ornery Anglo-Celt culture, if we all weren’t locked in this crazed church-lady Prussian anthill, and if white men cared to marry 5 foot tall Aztecs. Well, there’s Jeb Bush and his ubermenschen offspring.

    Where do you think Diversity comes from? People have been drawing lines around themselves and marrying within their sub-group for millenia. They’re still doing it; OK Cupid has lots of data.

    Catalonians, Basques, Czechs, Slovaks, Norwegians, Swedes, Copts and Muslims, Pakistanis and Hindu, Igbo and Yoruba, all of Europe and the British Isles are testament to how Diversity is more than just skin color.

    This is like Boomer Conservatism, back when the place was near 90% white and “immigration” was the British Brain Drain. A lot of my peer group has that model still stuck in their heads.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  15. people who don’t think 300-pound men walking around high and shoving shopkeepers around to steal cigars for blunts should end up shot.

    That would include pretty much anybody who is not a nutjob: lethal force is the kind of thing that is supposed to be a last resort, not a mechanism to help scared weak little bitch pigs cope with normal parts of their work environment.

    What you described is petty theft and minor assault; even at their worst, the British didn’t execute petty criminals after the 1700s (they shipped them to Australia for a while).

    If Darren Wilson – the piss-weak scared little bitch who shot Brown – had been competent, Brown might have faced some prison time. Instead, he got shot 6 times (including twice in the head) and is dead. That’s another piece of evidence as to weak little bitch Wilson’s incompetence: he hit Brown 6 times, but he discharged his weapon 12 times.

    How come there was no video from Wilson’s squad vehicle?

    Wilson is a very good example of why it should be mandatory for pigs to wear body cameras, and for any evidence they give to be ignored unless it’s on video. The type of guy who wants to be a pig, is a guy who wants to wield the power of the system… but is too stupid to get into Law and too chickenshit to join the military.

    HBDers already know this: Pig departments select for stupid. There is a persistent claim that the pig cognitive testing correlates with IQ and that it equates to an upper-IQ boundary of ~110 and a mean IQ of ~104. This involves absolutely heroic assumptions about the link between their cognitive tests and IQ – assumptions that are at huge variance with the fact that most pigsties will accept a candidate with a GED.

    There has been at least one lawsuit alleging anti-high-IQ discrimination in hiring: Jordan vs City of New London (2000), an unreported case from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Let’s leave aside that the supposed-125IQ plaintiff – who was 46 years old when he applied to be a pig – went on to work as a fucking prison guard… so we can stipulate that a score of 33 on the test is not IQ125 (and also that Jordan’s not wired up right). Pig and prison guard are not the two best-available economic alternatives for an IQ of 125 (except if you’re a psychopath).

  16. @Kratoklastes

    NB – forgot to mention: the link to Jordan v City of New London starts with the appellate decision, in which the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court decision, which held that Jordan’s civil rights had not been violated.

    The initial decision is at the same link, lower down.

    The pigsty in question did not contest the material facts (i.e., they did not deny that they discriminate against people who score ‘too high’ on the cognitive portion of the entry test for their sty). They sought summary judgement of the case, on the basis that there was “a rational basis for the government’s conduct” – and the summary decision was in their favour.

    And while I’m here, another thing…

    It’s kinda weird that soi-disant ‘conservatives’ think that it’s hors jeu for ‘liberals’ to use social power to impose costs on conservatives – things like Brendan Eich’s ouster from Mozilla; James Damore’s firing from Google; Sargon of Akkad’s deplatforming on Patreon… and all that sort of thing.

    I’m not saying I support that strategy myself: I’m strongly agin it, because it’s extremely disproportionate.

    However there are some people who are so inconsistent that they also think that asymmetric, disproportionate infliction of harm is reprehensible if it’s SJWs e-mailing HR to get you sacked… but that it’s OK for a fat black petty criminal to be shot to death so long as the shooter has the right costume (and was a bit frightened).

    Just go through that process: try to hold both thoughts at once ->
    ⓐ SJW sends email to your employer calling you an antisemite or a racist or transphobic… bad, very bad.
    ⓑ High-school underachiever with a gun and a costume kills fellow untermenschnothing to see here: Darkie had it comin’ coz he was big and a bit scary.

  17. @Kratoklastes

    Brown was not shot because of petty theft and intimidation. Brown was on the attack against a uniformed officer. Brown crossed a line he never should have if he actually valued his life. The officer was in the right. It was not “asymmetric, disproportionate infliction of harm”, Brown would have committed murder if the officer didn’t stop him. Deadly force is proportional when used to stop someone from using deadly force or even “mere” serious bodily harm.

    • Agree: Mark G., silviosilver
  18. @Kratoklastes

    You don’t seem very well acquainted with the facts of the case.

    It’s very hard to take anti-cop ranters seriously when they distort the truth so blatantly.

    In pretty much every case of you’ve-got-to-see-this alleged police “brutality” outrage that I’ve come across, I’ve decided the cop acted more or less appropriately.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @EliteCommInc.
  19. @Kratoklastes

    Fake but true.

    At the hands of a pizza hut employee!

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/01/john-boch/think-progress-editor-criticizes-chicago-woman-who-defended-herself-with-a-gun/

    Note neither of these people were cops, and at least one of them was black (the chick who almost got raped, don’t know about the pizza dude).

    So it’s not just pigs but pizza hut employees as well.

    I may have ample complaints about law enforcement myself but this commentary wreaks of “He dindu nuffin! He wuz jus robbin da store and dat pizza hut guy shot him! He wuz goin to college!”

    Here the perps are white (well at least 2.5 of them):

    https://americangg.net/dead-criminals-family-complains/

    The grandpa thinks it wasn’t a fair fight.

    The truth is the cops are there to protect the criminals from the victims at least as much as the other way around. Without these piggies the penalty for most crimes is death. John Q Public doesn’t need a jury of peers to lack reasonable doubts before he shoots an intruder.

    You think the piggies are violent wait until you see what happens without them.

    http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=328851&CategoryId=14919
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3599035/Burned-alive-5-Lawlessness-got-bad-Venezuela-man-beaten-torched-mob-looked-like-criminal.html
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6152381/Vigilantes-Brazilian-town-lynch-Venezuelan-immigrant-accused-stabbing-local-painter.html

  20. @mark green

    Radical Center has an Asian wife and offspring. They spend time in Asia.

    • Replies: @Ace
  21. The conservative tries to conserve the status quo. The liberal demands change x. Compromise leads to one half x. The conservative continues trying to preserve the status quo, but the liberal has learned to demand 2x.

    • Agree: mark green, Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
  22. If we look to the nation’s founding the “conservatives” were the anti-federalists and the “liberals” were the big-government Hamiltonian Federalists. Both groups evolved–and vanished in original form. Democrats were the conservative party because they were more anti-big business and more for protecting traditional values (which included Slavery). Republicans were all about big business supported by big government. Recall Lincoln was a railroad lawyer before he was President and Lincoln supported pro-big business legislation like steep tariffs and lad give aways to railroads.

    Move to the 20th century and the Republicans have mislead Americans into thinking that their pro-big business agenda was conservative. It was not. Republicans wooed disaffected Southern Democrats (the real conservatives) after passage of the Civil Rights Acts.

    Today there is no conservative party at all. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the pro-big business agenda.

    A real conservative agenda would be Jeffersonian. It would be anti-big business, it would avoid foreign entanglements, it would be for steeply progressive taxes to avoid wealth inequality. Jefferson thought that vast inequality of wealth would wreck our system of government. A conservative government party would disfavor professional politicians. It would disfavor strong federal laws and prefer strong local laws–even if the dissimilarity of local laws hurt business.

    Perhaps the most Jeffersonian of moments in the recent past was the Southern Agrarian moment in the late 1920s early 1930s.

    A conservative party would favor strict environmental and zoning laws to preserve nature and to maintain the scale of communities. A conservative party would favor strong government planning because the wisdom of the community (and its values) would trump your choices.

    There are no real “conservatives” in today’s public sphere.

  23. utu says:
    @silviosilver

    I’ve decided the cop acted more or less appropriately

    I have seen several case where I had no doubt that that shootings by police wre not needed and not justified. Police can kill with impunity in the US. According to statistics only 0.35% policemen are convicted.

  24. “Not a single prominent surviving conservative politician disputed or protested that view.”

    Fixed it for you : Plenty of “prominent” conservative politicians have disputed plenty of liberal platitudes like The Magic Poem or “Diversity is our Strength” and were properly defenestrated by their own types.

  25. ababush says:

    “If white America has a future, it won’t be secured by conservatives. It will be secured only by European Americans who reject “business-as-usual” politics and the familiar but ultimately irrelevant “conservative” and “liberal” categories, and who instead embrace a worldview rooted in their heritage, history and identity, and act forthrightly to defend and promote their own group interests.”

    A kind of “Yellow vest” movement?

  26. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Wisconsin, Western Oregon, Western Washington, and the seat of the federal government are all lost, most likely permanently.

    Balkanization might still be practical. That was why 0bama started using HUD to seed low caste genetic filth in red states. “Finish up the left’s ‘Destroy Historical America’ project”. That or maybe a plague will wipe out all but european descended gun owner preppers. It’s about as likely.

  27. anon[378] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mark G.

    He also suggests that homosexuals were oppressed by the law back in 1930.
    Now, that was before my time, but I find it hard to believe.

  28. Jason Liu says:

    Conservatives just suck at fighting culture wars against domestic enemies. They don’t have the personality and skillset for it. Many don’t even recognize the enemies within, or are too distracted by potential foreign threats, or assume good faith in leftists and try to debate them rationally. They’re not as good at verbal or social attacks as the left. Many don’t realize they’re under attack until it becomes very obvious.

    Not that this is limited to America, right wingers are like this all over the world. I suspect its because the right is more “male” and therefore more oriented towards external threats than internal ones, and not as good at verbal and emotional manipulation.

  29. @utu

    It still is not very likely to happen. In a nation of probably 375 million people, things happen, but it’s a teeny tiny statistical blip, compared to number of individual contacts police have with civilians annually.

    We chose the right to keep and bear arms over having unarmed bobbies. My personal preference. When you have an armed populace, just like when you have soldiers in a vague war zone, you have, usually youngsters, with itchy trigger fingers. You are way safer around ANY US LEOs then you are around a bunch of young soldiers in a guerilla war. Black kid shoots a haji in Syria? “Unfortunate things happen.” Black kid gets shot because a LEO thought he saw a gun? “Systemic failure combined with racism”.

    blahWhatever, dude.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Chris Mallory
  30. anon[378] • Disclaimer says:

    Uniformed cops don’t carry guns in New Zealand, so Kratoklastes is probably used to giving them a bit of cheek.
    America must be a culture shock for him.

  31. @Kratoklastes

    You can do better than that. How would you treat a student essay which didn’t distinguish between a court determination of the legal issue whether a case against a defendant pleading a defence of self defence had been proven beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a jury (or was likely to be provable in the chief prosecutor’s opinion) and the use of monopolistic or oligopolistic power in the market to silence some political views?

  32. Pft says:

    Frankly there is no difference between the 2 parties except for superficial issues and appearances. No liberals or conservatives left, just corporate techno -fascists on the take.

    Obamacare was just a dusted off Republican plan from the 90’s. NAFTA was negotiated by Bush and signed as is by Clinton. Clinton balanced the Federal Budget. Republicans only care about deficits when Democrats are in office. Republicans in the 20th century used to be the peace party and favored a small military and non interference in other countries affairs , and balanced budgets. The only divorced Presidents have been modern day Republicans. Standards are slipping.

  33. @silviosilver

    And your more or less is the problem. Good grief either the officer acted in accordance of the la w or her or she did not.

    More or less means the citizen is not at fault. Because the standard for police conduct by the law has far more barriers to the state. That’s a bizarre standard — more or less.

    Just admit you are willing to give an agent of the state the benefit of the doubt. Despite the fact that you live in a country founded on distrust of state power and their agents – hence the revolution.

    More or less . . .

  34. @Mulegino1

    Thank you. The only worthwhile thing about this article was reading that quote in the comments.

  35. Bruno says:
    @Mark G.

    This answer to article illustrates how deep the conservative mind has been infected by the topics presented by the article.

    It’s true than on TV black, Latinos and Asians defend openly their races rights and only whites don’t do that. Converting the migration topic on a race topic would be nuclear. But the comments you read even here show the people are not willing to go this way

  36. Bruno says:

    Extremelly interesting historical perspectives. What are the causes ? Why are whites forbidden to express their ethnic interest when everybody else does ?Kevin McDonald hypothesis ? Or is there something else ?

  37. Franz says:

    A “real conservative” approach, Tom Jefferson-style.

    Let’s see:

    Bust up the interstate highways and high-speed railroads (only benefit Walmart and Amazon, after all).

    States rights absolutism: Right (duty) to evict anyone from any Sovereign State without visible means of support (Quite common under Eisenhower, and even in the 80s Colorado had a stop-check system for out-of-state cars containing people who might end up on the public dole. Perfectly legal.)

    Local content laws for food, clothing, durable goods: George Washington (among almost all the rest) was a total mercantilist and believed Americans should only consume what Americans produce. (Logical stuff excepted, say, bananas.)

    Show me a conservatism like that, that rebuilds solid communities that make conservatism possible, you got my vote. Till then, like the Southern Agrarians, you’re just pissin’ in the river.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
  38. Realist says:

    If white America has a future, it won’t be secured by conservatives. It will be secured only by European Americans who reject “business-as-usual” politics and the familiar but ultimately irrelevant “conservative” and “liberal” categories, and who instead embrace a worldview rooted in their heritage, history and identity, and act forthrightly to defend and promote their own group interests.

    Agreed. And if White America doesn’t have a future neither does America.

  39. @Kratoklastes

    Why are ignorant, hate-filled anti-Whites so uniformly incapable of understanding the simple point that Brown was not shot because of his strong-arm robbery of the store, or because he was walking down the middle of the street, but because he attacked Wilson?

    Is is because their virulent, unreasoning anti-White hatred blinds them to the obvious facts of the case? Or because of their worship of the Teevee as God, and their determination to accept whatever narrative it feeds them as equivalent to divine revelation?

    Just curious.

    Hatred and disdain for the differently-cognitively-abled is not only “ableist,” but “racist,” btw — you really need to be more tolerant.

  40. eah says:
    @nickels

    SS is just a tax — no one, no matter how much SS tax was paid, has any inherent right to any level of benefits, or any benefit payments whatsoever — courts have ruled definitively on this — Congress can change the law re SS tax and benefits at any time — it is purely a cash flow system: either there is enough tax revenue to fund benefits or there isn’t — to make it into some kind of political ‘Holy Grail’, as if there are no alternatives, is absurd.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @schrub
  41. @KenH

    “The conservative talking points of today were the leftist talking points of yesterday.”

    Indeed,

    Below, Republican, “conservative” Mike DeWine in action in his FIRST day as Ohio Governor. Just a few years back, this stuff would be cutting edge “progress” coming out of California.

    “DeWine, a Cedarville Republican, signed an order re-stating one put in place by former governor John Kasich late last year. It is an anti-discrimination policy for state government that includes protections against discrimination based on gender identity or expression. The order also prohibits discrimination based on “status as a parent during pregnancy and immediately after the birth of a child, status as a parent of a young child, status as a foster parent…. State Sen. Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, an openly gay woman, said the family-friendly employment policy is a model and ‘is truly the right thing to do.’” https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dewine-signs-executive-orders-after-taking-office-what-are-they/aoYBpTbii9lPfIdtdhr6FO/

  42. “Why Conservatives Can’t Win”

    Conservatives can’t win for the same reason that the Washington Generals can’t beat the Harlem Globetrotters — they’re not supposed to. Winning is not their job.

    Just look at the latest Steve King witch hunt — “conservative” Republicans falling all over themselves to appease the NYT, and to demonize King, for the “crime” of suggesting that perhaps the (((media))) narrative was going a little overboard in excessively, unrelentingly demonizing Whites. Hey, it’s not as if Whites are the GOP’s core constituency, or anything…

    Meanwhile, we’re treated to the comically hypocritical spectacle of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and (of course) the ADL/ AJC/ Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and innumerable other Jewish ethnic activist groups — which exist for the sole purpose of advancing specific tribal interests — bleating at length about how “immoral” it is for an elected representative to actually stand up for his own people, even implicitly. There’s been no word from AIPAC yet on the moral status of more aggressive advocacy on behalf of one’s tribe.

    https://congressionalhispaniccaucus-castro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/chc-chair-condemns-rep-steve-king-s-racist-comments
    “Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Castro Condemns Rep. Steve King’s “Racist” Comments”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/12/iowa-republican-steve-king-white-supremacy
    “Congressional Black Caucus wants action against Republican Steve King”

    https://capac-chu.house.gov/press-release/capac-chair-judy-chu-statement-calling-republicans-take-substantive-action-against
    “Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
    CAPAC Chair Judy Chu Calls On Republicans To Take Substantive Action Against Congressman Steve King”

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/01/11/jewish-groups-slam-republican-congressman-steve-king-over-white-supremacist-remark/
    “Jewish Groups Slam Republican Congressman Steve King Over “White Supremacist” Remark”

    Interestingly, the narrative for the recent NYT attack appears nearly identical to this one laid out in an ADL press release published in Mother Jones back in October — just with a couple of alleged quotes and a few more details added to lend an air of verisimilitude.

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/steve-king-anti-semitic-adl/
    “Anti-Semitic and Offensive”: Jewish Watchdog Group Slams GOP Rep. Steve King

    It doesn’t matter how pro-Israel you are — and Steve King is very pro-Israel — if you’re not actively anti-White, you’re not an (((acceptable))) conservative in the current year. You’ll be subjected, as King is, to constant attacks as a so-called “not-see”/ “White supreemist”/ “racist,” and all kinds of other dog whistles for anti-White hatred.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  43. The Dutch Republic was admired by most foreign visitors for, among other things, such as well regulated markets, the social security systems, widows, children, poor, old people.
    Seldom it is explained that these social security systems were not philantropy, but political survival.
    The Republic was ruled by merchants, the navy was no problem for them, admirals seldom overthrow governments, the merchants owned the ships

    But the army was a problem, in times of peace army commanders often get the idea that they should rule.
    The Republic of merchants had hired an aristocrat as army commander, a most unusual situation at the time.
    So in times of peace the army was seen as a threat, to be disbanded as soon as possible.

    Alas, the consuquence was that, if there was no army, who could protect against insurrections ?
    There were insurrections, the Dutch word ‘bijltjesdag’ reminds us, the tool of the shipbuilders was a bijl, small axe, every now and then Amsterdam had insurrections of these men, using their bijltjes as weapon.
    So preventing insurrections was of the highest importance, thus social security systems.

    Nothing particular in history, Roman emperors kept the masses quiet with free bread or free grain, and amusements.
    These ‘amusements’ also had as function to make the Roman citizens fear the barbarians.

    USA conservatives also do not want insurrections or revolutions.
    Putin, the present barbarian ?

    Sometimes I wonder if anything ever changed in history.

  44. Hope the check doesn’t bounce from the Soros guys. Just another America hater with lousy paper.

  45. @Lars Porsena

    Now the family of one of the deceased criminals is complaining. They don’t believe it was fair that Peters was allowed to defend himself with an AR-15 when the criminals were only armed with knives and brass knuckles.

    Madness all over the world, it seems.
    We had the Henriques case, someone from a Caribbean island, making the impression of being a terrorist, shouting ‘I have a gun’.
    Three policemen tried to arrest him, he resisted violently, he died in the fight, a neck grip.
    Dutch police is not trigger happy.

    For three or so years his relatives sued the policemen, without success, and tried to get the names of the arresting policemen, ‘in order to be able to grieve’, or something like that
    During the whole period the policemen were suspended.
    People like this, in my opinion, do not belong in the type of society we have, or had.
    They did not get the names, nor could they see them in court, but I fear these policemen will live with fear for several years to come.

  46. @utu

    You have no doubt.
    If three masked men had entered my house with obvious criminal intentions, I suppose I would not hesitate to shoot them all.
    Not with the intention of killing them, but simply to protect my family, my house and myself.
    A burglar takes risks, three burglars take a lot of risk.

  47. onebornfree says: • Website

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    Regards,onebornfree
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  48. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Come on ! Reagan was an actor , and the department of propaganda of the Regime told him what to say .

  49. @Grace Poole

    Cohen opens with the assertion that Zionism is NOT racism.

    What IS zionism, according to Professor Cohen, (then) “one of the foremost experts on contemporary Judaism, has resigned from his position as tenured professor at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion?”

    Excerpts from transcript of above video:

    [MORE]

    “I’m an American Jew who made aliyeh, who moved to Israel in 1992, I spend 2/3 of my time here and the rest in Israel, I consider myself a zionist and I have since I was a teenager.
    Zionism is the national liberation movement of the jewish people.
    National
    liberation
    movement.
    First of all, zionism says that You know what, we’re a people. We’re not just a religion, we’re not a faith, we’re a people.
    Those who think we are a faith are influenced by western , frankly American conceptions of what it means to be jewish, but even in America and all around the world, jews regard themselves as a PEOPLE, or in Greek, an ethnos, which is a people, or in Hebrew, as am Israel, the people of Israel, and as such we are a national -like group.
    Maybe you don’t want to use the word National, I do, but we’re national like group that has a religion. and let’s be honest, we’re about the most secular religious groups in america. we’re about as religious as our unchurched christians. so we’re a very strong group but it’s clearly — we’re strong not because of our religion, we’re strong because we see ourselves as a nation.

    Do zionists see themselves as “nationals” of the United States, where Cohen, himself, lives “1/3 of the time?” Does he vote in the USA or in Israel, where he is a “national” in residence 2/3 of the time?
    How about the legions of Jewish people, who may or may not be “nationalist Jews with their own language, culture” who hold critical decision-making, influencing, and money-spending positions in the government and institutions of the United States of America – nation? If their passion for Zion is so compelling, what are they doing in USA?

    This is the core of the Esther conundrum — at the time Esther and Mordechai took pains to subvert the Persian government and kill more than 75,000 innocent Persian civilians, those same Persians had pledged their financial and political support for Hebrews — Yehud — to return to their own “homeland.”
    Why didn’t they go?
    Why did Esther, Mordechai, and thousands of other Yehud elect to remain in Persia, living off the fat of the land and largesse of the Persian people, and killing them when those uppity Persians got tired of being host to Minnie-the-Moocher?

    [Cohen:] . . . a normal nation lives on its own land with its own culture and its own language , and that’s how the early zionist movement started.
    . . .

    [O]ne thing that all zionists agree on are these three principles:
    One, Jews are a nation;
    Two, we have to be liberated by having our own homeland and we have a right to our own homeland like other groups have rights to their homeland, and
    Three, we’re a movement

  50. Anonymous[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @eah

    But if you are fit , and if you want to work past 65 , past 70 , depending of your work , the Government will not permit it .

    Our society is dying of old age .

    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
  51. They can’t win because these Conservative faggot CUCKS voted to import the highly racialized nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc……….They are FAGGOT CUCK LOCAL REPUBLICAN PARTY CLUBHOUSE GRIFTERS……Congressman Peter King from Seaford Long Island is an example of one of these malodorous creatures…….

  52. Sean says:

    The elite don’t need the common people now, and technology will only add to their redundancy. Only a war could alter the terms on which the ruling class dictate the direction of the country.

  53. Miro23 says:

    Ordinary politics involves issues of day-to-day concern to most people, such as taxes, jobs, affordable housing and health care, entitlement benefits, and so forth. Appeals for votes in routine politics like that are based on the presumption that we all share the same basic outlook and interests, and that we’re all in this together as Americans.

    It’s obvious that Americans don’t share the same outlook and interests – notably the Zio-Glob elite vs. the Deplorables, and that’s apart their private MSM stirring up the ethnic feuding.

    While white Americans are still trying to play the traditional political game – that is, by pretending that race doesn’t matter – millions of other Americans are playing identity politics. While white conservative Americans keep playing “softball,” insisting that “We’re all Americans,” the serious contenders are playing “hardball,” the only game that matters in the long run.

    And the most serious identity hardball players are American Jews seeking their tribal advancement. They don’t believe for a moment that “race doesn’t matter”.

    If white America has a future, it won’t be secured by conservatives. It will be secured only by European Americans who reject “business-as-usual” politics and the familiar but ultimately irrelevant “conservative” and “liberal” categories, and who instead embrace a worldview rooted in their heritage, history and identity, and act forthrightly to defend and promote their own group interests.

    And IMO the essential first step to reestablish that heritage, is to arrest, interrogate, put on trial and execute, those responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11. The American public should know every detail of that treason. Who planned it, who cooperated, who covered for them and get (from the government and MSM) a detailed account of the whole thing.

    Of course, The President, Congress and the US system of justice are 100% incapable of taking that step, so they are illegitimate in the most basic way. They don’t represent the interest of the US public and don’t have any right to power.

  54. The elephant in the room is the Zionist control of the U.S. government and their drive for a Zionist NWO which has driven America to communism in every way since the passage of the Zionists privately owned and unconstitutional FED and IRS and these two vehicles have been the base on which stealth communism is been injected into America and totally defeats any conservative policies that have been put forth since 1913!

    If anyone doubts that America has been under communist Zionist control read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @redmudhooch
  55. The author is correct in pointing out Reagan’s phony conservatism, but is wrong when he claims we have more freedom today.

    Reagan was no fiscal conservative, which seems to be what most “conservatives” want, but he was a political conservative which means he was very much for the status quo, i.e., big government exists to enforce the will of the hoi oligoi against the preferences of the hoi polloi.

    His claim about increased freedom today is wishful imagining at best. Realistically we don’t even have the freedom to choose between buying inflated, virtually worthless, “health” insurance and going “bare.” He should try to start a business sometime; if he had any brains he’d soon see how much “freedom” is left.

    Check this;

    “Men haven’t got the freedom today that they had when the Constitution was written. The men in the West had a great deal of freedoms more than the men in the East who copied the traditions of Europe.
    In that time, men could go into their own business. They could follow farming and they could do this and that.”

    -Jeanette Rankin, interview, about 1977

    Rankin, running as a Republican Progressive, was the first woman voted to congress and was the only congressperson to vote against US entry into both world wars.

    Note: Even at that, the constitution, in fact, was written for the benefit of the money bag class. It was a huge link in the chain around our necks.

    • Replies: @Ace
  56. Teddy was a dandy and a showman fraud similar to Reagan (and Trump). Any conservatism was political (i.e., for the status quo) and not at all fiscal. His “trust busting” rhetoric did not apply to the trusts of his supporters, but to the trusts of his political rivals, I believe.

    I said, “No, there is a great difference. Taft is amiable imbecility. Wilson is willful and malicious imbecility and I prefer Taft.”

    Roosevelt then said : “Pettigrew, you know the two old parties are just alike. They are both controlled by the same influences, and I am going to organize a new party ” a new political party ” in this country based upon progressive principles.

    – R. F. Pettigrew, “Imperial Washington,” The story of American Public life from 1870 to 1920 (1922), p 234
    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=amiable;id=yale.39002002948025;view=1up;seq=7;start=1;sz=10;page=search;orient=0

    We can all bet that any progressive rhetoric issuing from his mouth was nothing more than vote getting jaw-jaw, just like Reagan’s, Trump’s and all the rest.

  57. wayfarer says:

    Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power, have in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

    Why Nationalism and a Unified Country Terrifies Wall Street.

  58. Wally says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Of the counties, Trump won 2700, Hillary won 400. If not for a few big cities, where Democrats have done their best to make ‘minorities’ dependent on government, Trump would have openly won the popular vote by a landslide.

    And now we have seen strong evidence of voter fraud indicating that Trump DID win the ‘popular vote’ as well

  59. It is well to keep in mind that all political terms become meaningless over time through fraudulent usage, and that politicians will say anything to get into and maintain power.

    No matter the labels or the rhetoric, in the end, we always get continued political conservatism, more fiscally conservative rhetoric, less fiscal conservatism and less liberty.

    It should be clear that the name of the political party in power is far less important than the particular regime’s financial and banking connections.

    …and that the “permanent government” continues to rule regardless of the party nominally in power.

    -Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy

    This first appeared in World Market Perspective (1984) and later as a monograph published by the Center for libertarianStudies (1995).

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/murray-n-rothbard/wall-street-banks-american-foreign-policy//

    Rothbard was correct. It should be clear, but it never will be apparently.

  60. Z-man says:

    Good American Conservatism fails because it is corrupted by the Zionist/NEOCON Cabal.

  61. Wally says:
    @DESERT FOX

    What’s laughable is how the neo-Communists try hide their Communism by distancing themselves from the very word ‘communism’. ‘We’re Socialists’, they say, as if that is different. Not.

    Yet, as mentioned, their founding document is The Communist Manifesto.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
  62. @niteranger

    See my comment#58 (though the # may change in this thread) in reply.

  63. I’m not one that believes in diversity is our strength and all that. Its pretty obvious people live better when they’re with their own. But with the current capitalist ruling class, their political puppets, and their outright hostile divisive media, there is really no point in us plebs complaining about one another, when we all share a common enemy. Maybe we should first work together to get rid of our common enemy, then we plebs resolve our issues with each other. As it stands right now you’re just playing into their hands when you spend all your time fighting each other instead of fighting them. Identity politics is a tool of divide and rule used by the ruling capitalist class against the working class. It should be rejected by all middle/lower class people, no matter which race.

    You should realize by now that your capitalist overlords don’t give a fuck about your country, your race or your culture. You’re just as much a n!gger to them as a Somalian, no more special than a Mexican. More profit is all that matters under this system and ruling elite. Period. No matter the cost to you or your family, if war is what it takes, so be it. If exporting your well paying middle class jobs to the 3rd world is what it takes so be it. If importing the 3rd world to “your” country is what it takes so be it. If taking more from the lower classes is what it takes to maintain their lifestyle, they’ll take from you until you have NOTHING. Period. Globalism is just the latest stage of capitalism you fools.

    Fighting with the other slaves solves nothing, changes nothing. This is exactly what clowns like Trump, Clinton, Bush or obama want. Anybody still playing the red team vs. blue team game is a dupe. Both parties serve the same master. Partisan hacks like D’Souza, Hannity or Rachel Maddow, all work for the same war profiteers, capitalist elite, international banks.

    Go listen to Farrakhan, he’s a black nationalist, he believes blacks would be better off separated from whites, just as the alt-right believes. Boxer Muhammed Ali held the same sort of views. What I’m saying is maybe blacks and whites, browns should stop fighting with each other, since most of us hold the same views, and work together to rid ourself of the common enemy of all civilized humanity? I’m sure most of the latinos fleeing their home countries would appreciate it if our capitalist overlords would stop murdering and pillaging their home countries, so they could stay in them. Same with Africans and Middle Eastern Arabs, I’m sure they would love for our evil psychopathic leaders to stop bombing/droning the shit out of them, stealing their shit, so they could stay home where they are.

    Thats all I’m saying. stop letting them play you, its the same crap they do to the Muslims and Africans, turn one group against another, then the Muslims or Africans waste all their time killing each other, while the elite are robbing them blind. Not that hard to understand. All of us, left or right, white or black, should reject this divisive crap and focus on the common enemy.

    The New Deal—which as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a charter member of the oligarchic class, said—saved capitalism, was put in place because socialists were strong and a serious threat. The oligarchs understood that with the breakdown of capitalism—something I expect we will again witness in our lifetimes—there was a real possibility of a socialist revolution. They were terrified they would lose their wealth and power. Roosevelt, writing to a friend in 1930, said there was “no question in my mind that it is time for the country to become fairly radical for at least one generation. History shows that where this occurs occasionally, nations are saved from revolution.”

    In other words, Roosevelt went to his fellow oligarchs and said hand over some of your money or you will lose all your money in a revolution. And his fellow capitalists complied. And that is how the government created 15 million jobs, Social Security, unemployment benefits and public works projects. The capitalists did not do this because the suffering of the masses moved them. They did this because they were scared. And they were sacred of radicals and socialists.

    • Agree: niceland, Miro23
    • Replies: @Anon
  64. schrub says:
    @eah

    If the government pension systems like social security start failing, (which they, in fact, they soon will based on current actuarial tables) where exactly will the government then get the additional money needed to keep them afloat and stop rioting in the streets?

    Remember all those IRAs (individual retirement accounts) and the 401Ks and 501Ks T that the government went out of their way to push, supposedly for our benefit.

    And you believed them. Your desire to save on taxes overcame your common sense.

    These funds are trillions of dollars very low hanging fruit. I predict that a Democrat controlled congress along with a Democrat president will be more than happy to freeze these assets for those who can’t prove a dire need (or maybe that you aren’t one of those evil white nationalists). You won’t necessarily lose, de jure, this money, you will merely lose, de facto, the use of it.

    This happened in Argentina many years ago. Financial accounts of the middle class and well to do were seized by the “socialist” government and they remain frozen today. The Argentinians who had enough influence to have had prior knowledge of this seizure quickly got their money out of the country before the seizure. You can see them today making their annual trips to banks in the UK or the USA to stock up on hard cash for their living expenses for the coming year in Argentina.

    Take a hint from the Indians (i.e. not Native Americans). There is more gold contained just in Indian owned jewelry than is held in the vaults of the five biggest national central bank holders of gold COMBINED.

    • Replies: @eah
  65. 21st century wire has a good article on the matter. Worth reading the whole thing.

    Why Inciting Emotions and Playing Political ID Games are Counterproductive

    https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/01/18/why-inciting-emotions-and-playing-political-id-games-are-counterproductive/

    It’s a playbook that is timeless, few are able to dominate many by segregating humanity into encampments. This simple scheme of dividing the public has evolved over time; what started with color, gender and religion has burgeoned into a paradigm of perpetual schisms where artificial constructs are created on a regular basis. It has gotten to the point where people say what they are for minutes before they say their names.

    The creation of these imposed identities serves a purpose beyond just manufacturing differences. Each time a subgroup is generated, people in those subgroups are also convinced that their pains are not the same as the pains felt by others. Demagogues are then empowered by the establishment and given megaphones to whisper separable grievances and condition us to have antipathy towards others who don’t belong in our cliques. Supposed activists and advocates are propped up by mainstream media and given platforms to inject antipathy and incubate sectarianism.

  66. @Wally

    So Adolf was a communist? That hated communists?
    I thought he was fighting the capitalists Wally.
    Wally, I’m convinced more every day you and many here are sock puppets of the establishment you claim to hate. Your worship of ZOG puppet Trump gives you away. MIGA! Not good!

  67. utu says:
    @blahWhatever

    Tiny blip? No, we are talking about approx. 1000 killings by police every year. This is about 50 times higher rate than in Europe.

    Syria? Being better than Syria is good enough for you?

    Most of the 1000 killings could have been avoided if police was better trained and had better defined rules of engagement and was not unconditionally supported by people like you.

  68. @FvS

    laughing.

    obviously someone that has no idea what a conservative is.

    • Replies: @FvS
  69. Agent76 says:

    June 19, 2016 America’s One-Party Government

    Today’s United States is a more realistic version of the type of society that George Orwell fictionally described in his allegorical novel 1984.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/19/america-one-party-government.html

    Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party

    Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today’s world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature.

  70. @KenH

    “The Jewish influence on discourse cannot be understated…”

    The disease of political correctness that has infected Western “Culture” is the deadliest plague since the Black Death. Now Western culture is all about NIGGERS and their VooDoo ways: Tattoos, piercings, rape, profanity, blasphemy, sexual degeneracy, murder, theft and mayhem. The NIGGER, spurred on by their Jew masters, have made our world a toxic waste dump. Jews and their Morlock followers need eradication NOW.

  71. @blahWhatever

    I choose to have an armed populace and unarmed cops.

    Police in the US have proven over and over again that they are unfit to be allowed any weapon while on duty.
    Government employees do not have rights, they have granted privileges that We the People can remove from them.

  72. @DESERT FOX

    If anyone doubts that America has been under communist Zionist control read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.

    I thought it was Globalists! So its communists now? Are they using directed energy weapons to scramble our brains, turning us into globali…..I mean communists Desert fox?

    You folks are something else, I gotta stay out of here. Its like an infowars and breitbart twilight zone. Keep your story straight!

    Heres you New World Order folks, and they ain’t communists. Sorry

    Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  73. Anon[382] • Disclaimer says:
    @redmudhooch

    There is virtually no difference between Islam and Jews in terms of how they see White gentiles. In fact, both religions stem from the same root and have practically mirror theologies and aggressiveness toward non-members.

    Monotheism, itself, is nothing more than theologized genocide-justification for racial out-groups. It implies the elimination of all other gods, a notion that when decoded from its thinly veiled esoterism implies the elimination of all other peoples. It differs markedly even from trinitarian theology.

    In short, you cannot trust what any Muslim says and they often are in league with their Jewish brethren. This is an open secret. For example, Israeli is much close with Saudi than it is the USA. Israel is twenty percent Muslim and not twenty percent Christian for a reason.

    In your video, this Islamist is shifting what little blame has been able to stick to Jewish American influence and attempts to place it with Whites. A ridiculous notion in a nation in which we are attacked from every angle, with zero open group power of which to speak.

    His words reminded me of this recent article in Al Jazeera, in which a Jewish-Israeli author attempts to blame Zionism on White Supremacism and casts Jews as Zionism’s victims.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/zionist-fallacy-jewish-supremacy-190108202804743.html

    Their lies have no moral nor rational limits. But we knew that.

    Isaiah 60:12

    For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  74. turtle says:
    @mark green

    The key phrase is “Western (i.e., Western European) Civilization.”
    Skin color, or other “racial” distinguishing characteristics, are irrelevant.
    The historical *FACT* is that light skinned Europeans are mostly responsible for what we, as a species, are today.

    Tomorrow may belong to the Asians (who knows?) but the shining light which guides us must always be impartial inquiry into observable facts, and the implementation of such knowledge in the service of mankind.

  75. Mr. Anon says:
    @niteranger

    We haven’t had a real Conservative President since Teddy Roosevelt.

    Nonsense. Roosevelt was a (self-styled) progressive and an exponent of empire.

    The last Conservative President we had was Coolidge. The last President we had who had any real conservative instincts was probably Nixon, although he didn’t govern by them.

    • Replies: @Anon
  76. @Anon

    Israeli is much close with Saudi than it is the USA.

    And the value set of European Americans. (h/t Mark Green ) is much closer to that of Persia/Iran, the quintessential Aryans.

    • Replies: @Anon
  77. @utu

    1000 people out of 375 million IS NOTHING.

    Medical mistakes kill a half million a year, 1/6 of all deaths in the US.

    I will take owning guns and nervous young cops over no guns owned by anybody but state and criminals. I do not believe you understood my post.

    “People like me” are very unlikely to be shot by LEOs, and do not see a crisis.

    I have been arrested eight times and was never abused in any way, nor ever in fear for my life. May have been intoxicated, but I didn’t do anything stupid. When is the last time you were in fear of an imminent death by cop, besides never?

  78. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Achievements of President Ronald Regean

    Greatly expanded affirmative action
    Amnesty for millions of illegals
    Appointed Sandra O’Connor who became a pro affirmative action liberal judge
    Presided over the transfer of manufacturing from the USA to China.

    Achievements of Governor Regean

    Used governors legislative office to lobby for legalization of homosexuality in California
    Used governors legislative office to lobby for legalization of abortion with Drs approval in California years before federal Roe vs Wade
    Fought Cesar Chavez who was anti the importation of illegal Mexican farm workers and fought to enact laws that only Americans and green card holders be hired instead of illegals.

    Whether White Nationalist or fuddy duddy anti abortion conservative I don’t see why any White or conservative can possibly think well of Regean

    Anti abortion idiots are better called ECWMs
    Enablers of colored welfare moms

  79. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Grace Poole

    Persians and other Aryans have diverged a lot since some of us went west and north and the Persians went south 8,000 years ago.

    Between Israeli Armenian and Persian corrupt crooks whose national mottoes are lie cheat and steal there’s no difference. Commenting from the West coast Persian colony, Anon 257

  80. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Nixon a conservative, section 8 created the Hispanic affirmative action race by executive order appointed EEOC administrators who turned “ do not discriminate against qualified blacks to must discriminate against the best qualified Whites. Nixon disbursed millions to ultra liberal legal foundations and other liberal NGOs. School bussing hordes of black savages to civilized White schools was at its worst under Nixon.

    Nixon carried out and vastly vastly expanded LBJs war on poverty programs which were jewish created and directed wars on Whites in job discrimination and destruction of White neighborhoods and schools

    Nixon also opened the US to the hordes of Chinese students in our universities computer coolies in SV and squalid Chinatowns all over the country.
    Nixon began the transfer of American manufacturing to China.

    The 3 most anti White presidents were LBJ, Nixon and Obama.

  81. Thomm says:
    @FvS

    White Trashionalism is a left-wing ideology. The economic views of the ideology are wholly left-wing, so the ideology is left-wing.

    • Disagree: apollonian
    • Replies: @FvS
  82. @redmudhooch

    The line of credit ( juice extracted from plantation nigger white people in America i.e. -taxes) that is the lifeblood of borderless transnational corps. was obliterated in an orgy of bad derivatives in 2008. The remedy was the socialization of bad debt to be absorbed by the plebes at the behest of the DONOR CLASS.

    Communism is the idiot global banksters vs the disinherited, propertyless masses via GRAFT to their odious carbuncles in government.

  83. FvS says:
    @Thomm

    White nationalism itself has no economic ideology inherently attached to it. However, many white nationalists may share certain views on economics and politics.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  84. The problem with “conservatives” is that they’re little more than pro-business sycophants; notice the meltdown they had after Tucker Carlson critiqued market fundamentalism. For them, as long as they get tax cuts, that’s all that really matters. When it comes to culture wars, their hearts just aren’t in it, the rhetorical attacks on SJWs notwithstanding.

    At the end of the day, they don’t actually believe in conserving anything.

  85. FvS says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Do conservatives want the same things as Democrats? If no, they should be white nationalists.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  86. apollonian says: • Website
    @FvS

    Real Patriots Are For Freedom, Hence Free Market–Death To Socialism, Which Is Genocide

    What?–WHY wouldn’t good patriots like WNs want freedom?–like original founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al. Hence real WN would want free-market–which is actually “capitalism,” but which has been made a dirty word, a “buzz-word” nowadays, due to the morons who ape the Marxist prop. “Crony”-capitalism is diff. fm classic capitalism.

  87. @FvS

    Just nonsense.

    Skin color is nothing to political ideology. Otherwise, whites would all be conservative by tend to their genetic pigment.

    But as is clear, there are plenty of liberal whites: feminists, those who choose same sex relations, those who support murdering children in the womb, open borders, no nation at all as libertarians . . . if in fact whiteness was by genetic code of superior intelligence, morality, conservative ethos, christians — then by the very determination of code to whiteness, would also stem the previously referenced traits but as is clear the nation over — whites are not by determination of skin – conservative.

    • Replies: @Ace
  88. eah says:
    @schrub

    failing

    What you mean is that SS has a cash flow problem: SS tax revenue is not enough to pay benefits — and this will get worse — but per what I said, this can be dealt with in a number of ways, eg raise SS (or other) taxes, reduce benefit payments, or “quantitative easing”, aka printing money (I say nothing about the political feasibility of these, or the consequences).

    And you believed them.

    People who took advantage of eg IRAs and 401-Ks made the right decision — what will happen in the future w/ these programs, or the asset pools built up by people taking advantage of them, I cannot say — re any (hypothetical) government action, the courts would have to rule (the US is not Argentina).

    Personally, I think some kind of “quantitative easing” is the most likely stopgap remedy for the cash flow problem of SS (and other ‘entitlement’ programs) — and it will be sold that way: as a stopgap, or temporary remedy that will spare the economy the shock of tax increases and people the pain of benefit cuts while the government figures out how to ‘fix’ these programs — the question is how will the dollar be affected? — initial reaction of the financial markets will likely be negative, but not dramatically so: there is simply no alternative to the US dollar, and none in sight — after that it will be ‘ho-hum’, and everything will return to normal, as after and during the earlier QE — today no one gives a damn what’s on the Fed’s balance sheet.

  89. @The Anti-Gnostic

    Diversity is more than just skin color.

    Skin color is the absolute least interesting aspect of differences between different human sub-species and population groups. Unfortunately, for the unobservant idiots of the world it’s often the only thing they notice. We live in a world of dull witted children who, upon observing an English Mastiff and a Mexican Chihuahua next to another can only discern a slight difference in size and nothing else, “One big, one little.”

    I’m at a point in my life where I’m so fed up with stupid that I can’t look at a television, listen to a radio, or spend any time out in public. There are probably YouTube videos of me out there – I’m the guy screaming at an imbecile an average citizen, “How the hell do you even manage to breath? You can’t read, you can’t follow the simplest monosyllabic single action instructions, and your shoes are on the wrong feet you retarded monkey!”

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  90. Cleburne says:
    @Franz

    I agree 110% with everything written here.

  91. Three points…

    White Christian Americans would prefer neither Haiti nor Denmark, for the first is a shithole and the second would qualify to be a nanny-state with state control on gun rights.

    How is a man, who most likely descended from unwitting converts, who themselves were converted most likely by the descendants of the unwilling marranos in Portuguese Goa (D’Souzas) and who even now continues to be called by his hindoo first name (Dinesh) be considered a bona fide conservative?

    And Reagan was a product of the tinsel town and later on molded by the Annenbergs of the then popular TV Guide fame… how do you expect a man, who was nurtured and promoted by the cosmopolitan crowd, to be a classical conservative and look after the interests of the majority?

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  92. Republicans have the false assumption their party, along with its founder good ol’ “honest Abe Lincoln” were all about upholding the constitution and individual rights when nothing could be farther from the truth. If you want the true history of the republican party and Abe Lincoln I suggest you read the works of Alan Stang who states: “Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has lost its way and gone wrong. It has diverged from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn’t go wrong, it didn’t go left.

    It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.”

    https://www.menofthewest.net/republican-party-red-start/

    • Agree: apollonian
  93. @Ozymandias

    Which is why “compromise” is not desirable when one side is right and the other is wrong.

  94. @Anonymous

    The government will not permit it? I thought there were laws AGAINST age discrimination.

  95. Anonymous[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @KenH

    I do like Tucker Carlson for his critique of the elites in “Ship of fools.”
    His Christian faith informs us when he sermonizes against judging
    people by their skin color. Here in Central Florida blacks and whites
    take their faith very seriously and yet, Church attendance is
    segregated voluntarily. What that means is anybody’s guess.

  96. @utu

    “Most of the 1000 killings could have been avoided if police was better trained and had better defined rules of engagement”

    This much is true. I thought Tasers were supposed to be a substitution for deadly force… what happened?

  97. @Reuben Kaspate

    White Christian Americans … How is a man, who most likely descended from unwitting converts, who themselves were converted …

    Erm, your lack of self-awareness is showing my friend. You do realize that us honkies aren’t desert people? That our ancestors were sold the Jew messiah cult by camel buggerers? That somehow we have been more successful than any other sub-species of man despite this 2,000 year old boat anchor tied around our necks?

    We lost Rome due to the Jew messiah cult, it remains to be seen if we will yet lose America and Europe, but my money is on “yes”.

  98. anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:

    another Unz article reaches out to the 3rd rail of US politics to spark a sensible debate; where else do you find such stuff in good company? kudos again, Ron!

  99. @Kratoklastes

    it’s hors jeu for ‘liberals’ to use social power to impose costs on conservatives – things like Brendan Eich’s ouster from Mozilla; James Damore’s firing from Google; Sargon of Akkad’s deplatforming on Patreon…

    Ok, so “hors jeu” is the technical term for that sort of thing.

    “Youtube just deleted my channel”

    “Why?”

    “Hors jeu”

  100. @Lars Porsena

    Poe’s law. 4chan photoshop, or real.

  101. @Kratoklastes

    it’s OK for a fat black petty criminal to be shot to death

    Criminals, poor schlubs just can’t get a break. Sigh.

  102. Sparkon says:

    My TV operates only under strict gag order. I can’t stand the babble, so mute is the default setting. I can show closed captioning, or not, usually not. Occasionally, I unmute for a minute or two. This morning I glanced at NBC’s Meet the Press. I don’t much care for Chuck Todd, who is vaguely obnoxious, but I noticed from a graphic that he was talking with Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz Cheney, 3rd ranking House Republican. I amused myself with the sudden curiosity if she perchance might possess daddy Dick’s signature flapjaw with the side-diving lower lip, so I decided to give a listen…

    CHUCK TODD: But you know what some will say? There’s always an ISIS. There’s always an Al Qaeda. They’re just going to change their name. So it means we’re always going to be there. What do you say to folks that think that no matter — that your definition means, we’re always going to have troops in the Middle East?

    REP. LIZ CHENEY: We have to fight them there, so they don’t fight us here. And the definition of victory in the Middle East, the definition of victory in Afghanistan, in Syria, is that we don’t have another 9/11.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-january-20-2019-n960731

    “We have to fight them there, so they don’t fight us here…The definition of victory…is that we don’t have another 9/11.”

    Brilliant!

    You can always count on Conservatives to come up with a good plan. Well, it’s good for somebody, but probably not for us.

    The right way to disassemble Cheney’s specious logic and deconstruct her sophistry is to appreciate the fact that fighting them there is likely to stir up –no doubt already has– all kinds of long-lasting hatred against the United States that could easily fuel passions to exact revenge far into the future due to the severe damage and loss of life inflicted on quite a few nations by our bombastic but blundering military with their wonderful bombs.

    And so we get the best enemies money can buy. Gare own teed.

    Well, maybe one fine day, somebody somewhere somehow really will “Give Peace a Chance” but that would probably raise Conservative ire for being, you know, too Liberal.

    • Replies: @dimples
  103. Ace says:
    @jacques sheete

    How did the Constitution favor particular business or moneyed interests?

    And am I, a conservative, in favor of the status quo now? I never knew.

  104. dimples says:
    @Sparkon

    REP. LIZ CHENEY: We have to fight them there, so they don’t fight us here. And the definition of victory in the Middle East, the definition of victory in Afghanistan, in Syria, is that we don’t have another 9/11.

    But wait! The alleged hijackers were mostly Saudi Arabian, America’s ally!

  105. Ace says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Whites may differ on various political and economic issue but, to a man, they all choose to live where there are the least number of blacks and Muslims. Hispanic areas not so much.

    Whites who seek out black and Muslims areas for their residence are in the Rachel Dolezal category of dementia.

    When things get the least bit more tense, the liberal whites will discard their stupid beliefs eo instante. Fortunately, the poisonous beliefs of liberals and progressives will fall away from them as soon a the fairy tale of the Fed, unlimited debt, and globalism goes up in smoke. The arrival of Solzhenitsyn’s “pitiless crowbar of events” will solve a boatload of problems for white.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?