Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Conservatism, by definition, is unprincipled, anti-ideological pose that relies on rhetoric rather than dialectic. It was literally defined that way by the man who articulated American conservatism, Russell Kirk:

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

Translation: Conservatism is FEELZ.

Doesn't that explain a great deal about both the conservative failure of the last 60 years as well as their inept, rhetorical, fainting-couch responses to the rise of the Alt-Right?

The amusing thing is that they consider themselves "the hard-headed realists", but they don't even have an ideological foundation. Their intellectual movement isn't even built on sand! It's built on "a state of mind", something that is intrinsically malleable and subject to emotional manipulation.

Say what you will about National Socialism, but at least it was an ethos! Conservatism is intellectual nihilism, it is an ideological void.

If you are of the Right, stop calling yourself a conservative. It's absurd. Not only has conservatism failed to conserve anything, it was as doomed from the start as the atheists attempting to fight a religious war without a religion.

One can't win a gunfight without a gun, and one can't win a cultural war without an ideology.

So would it be accurate to describe Conservatives as 'Moderate' Progressives?

That appears to be an accurate description of what they've accomplished.The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

Aw, drat. This is true. It's too true. This is like stepping out of a jungle-filled, artificially heated greenhouse right into a pond with ice floating on top. This truth will hurt too much for many cuckservatives to accept the first few times they hear it.

Conservatism is FEELZ explains much. A lot. Everything? No wonder so many of them are White Knighting open-borders fanatics.

That's a reasonable description. I first noticed that pattern when someone said "Real conservatives believe..." and proceeded to list a bunch of libertarian talking points, many of which I disputed.

There's some value to be had in a system of thought that allows for a very wide variety of beliefs and practices and political preferences, but you still need a core (a la Christianity and the Creeds) of undisputed agreement.

Conservative still has a definition with religion despite the cuckservative counterargument. It means traditional. With regards to politics, many refer to Constitutional conservatism. In contrast to liberalism, which want a living breathing Constitution that changes with the time. The atheists are fighting religion as well. The liberals are fighting the Constitution. So the Conservative has principles (religion and Constitution), it's just not good enough to hold their ground.

As for the Alt-Right, Nationalism and Populism are fine as principles. I never thought they were that far from Conservative. The problem with the Republican Party is it adopted globalism and free trade as a capitalist principle. It forked into a monster of its own. I'm against excessive taxation and the tariffs can be described as such. Protectionist trading sounds very unionist. If Trump loses, Hillary will take the country into socialist leftist. I have no idea if she is truly anti-TPP as she now says, but it's likely she'll allow TPP to pass quietly in a Paul Ryan Congress.

FEELZ is a horrible basis for any sort of regulation or policy. No wonder the "conservative" movement has fallen apart like it has.

When I'm looking at my situation, I'm not basing it on how I FEEL at the time, I'm basing as to what my resources are and my ability to work through my issues. Must be the reason I swore off SSRIs, because I'm just tired of all the bullshit, and that's the furthest thing ever from a chemical imbalance.

I actually asked that same question on my now dead blog four years ago. What is a conservative? (Forgive the lack of hyper link I'm on my phone) http://landsharkattacks.blogspot.com/2012/05/so-what-exactly-is-conservative.html

Some background about Kane actually makes it more relevant to the virtue signaling post. It all started with her letting off black (d)politicians who took bribes on hidden camera when both republicans and D were offered outright bribes in a sting operation to vote along party lines they already supported, but she said IT BE RACCIST DAT only black democRATs took the bribe. Then other charges related to her dealings after that.

How skanky is KANE:

"And when Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy returned to the courtroom, she turned directly to Ms. Kane with a stern warning, her words slicing through the silence.

“There is to be absolutely no retaliation of any kind against any witness in this case, either by your own devices, from your own mouth or your hand, or directing anybody to do anything,” the judge said. She threatened Ms. Kane, who is currently free on bail, with immediate incarceration if she failed to comply."

The definition of conservative thought is so much meaningless garbage. Reminds me of a rant I read yesterday on LinkedIn from a guy in Tech begging sales people to drop the fancy, ambiguous, word salad job titles and just tell him what the fuck they are actually selling.

What do I want?I want steps taken to ensure that me and mine retain demographic hegemony over the nation.I want steps taken to prevent the use of loosely organized violence and intimidation to ethnically cleanse areas in which those like myself reside.Since equality before the law is obviously not possible, I'd prefer that me and mine receive the preferential treatment than the NAMs.I want the government to either favor or stop messing with Christianity as practiced by people like myself.Most of the rest is can be negotiated.

If you are of the Right, stop calling yourself a conservative. It's absurd. Not only has conservatism failed to conserve anything, it was as doomed from the start as the atheists attempting to fight a religious war without a religion.

Interesting thing about this is that back in the 90's a lot of Christians that I new identified themselves as conservatives and everyone loved Rush Limbaugh. Funny thing is, when I began to listen to him I realized that in the end guys like him were prophets for hire; no different than Balaam. People will always looks for prophets that tickle their ears and looking back on it, most of these guys were ear ticklers.

Is "ethnic nationalist," an honest term for White Nationalists, Alt-Righters, or Western Civilzationists, when they find themselves around Progressive company?

I fear I will become a Holey Target Board if I state that I'm Alt-Right or a White Nationalist. I fear SJW's would not only slander me at college, but also that my business would lose business after a slew of falsified negative reviews left by "Non-Partisan Warriors" shooting at their own side.

When asked, I tend to say that I'm a "conservative Christian" or an "ethnic nationalist." Saying, "I want all ethnicities to have the right to self-govern, especially my own," accurately describes my position and avoids much SJW ire

If not, "conservative" or "Alt-Right," is "ethnic nationalist" an accurate, dignified label to give yourself?

And how do you rank other terms such as, "historical realist," "racial realist," "Western civilizationist," or simply, "ethnocentric"?

Just as there were illiterates among those who fought to establish Western Civ, as well as pagans, heretics and pacifists, you personally do not have to have mastered (or even tried) personal arms, Christianity or classical thought...the key thing is that you value and defend them as the foundation of a civil society and encourage their practice.

Which further explains why Rod Dreher insists on publicly emasculating himself in every article he writes.

In defense of Dreher, I think this is worth reading:A Crunchy Con ManifestoBy Rod Dreher

We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.Culture is more important than politics and economics.A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.Beauty is more important than efficiency.The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.“Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

This is so true, and the Churchians on sites like Patheos and Est Quod Est and other religious blogs are some of the worst. They're like, if we talk bad about Trump, will you promise to hurt us last? All they really believe is in being liked and feeling good about themselves for doing so. But if someone tries to takes their liberties away, suddenly it's everyone's problem.

Leaving Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles out of that quote makes your point a wee bit misleading. That quote came from the "Ten Conservative Principles" which was all about the principles on which a given issue is decided. It is far more than just feelings. That said I agree that those who have been the leaders of the conservative wing of US politics, have allowed themselves to be trapped by their own feeling. But I would also say that they have adopted some beliefs that are damn close to a religious creed.

Yes, Kirk did produce some tenets for Conservatives, but they were primarily rooted in his own time and place, not true ideology. Ultimately, he called for tradition and adherence to what had gone before, but that is in the context of Western Civ, not worldwide.

1. Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience…political problems…are religious and moral problems…2. Affection for the proliferation of variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and equalitarianism and utilitarian aims of most radical systems…3. Conviction that civilized society requires order and classes. The only true equality is moral equality; all other attempts at levelling lead to despair…4. Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic levelling is not economic progress…5. Faith in prescription and distrust of ‘sophisters and calculators.’ Man must put a control upon his will and his appetite…Tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man’s anarchic impulse.6. Recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch for progress…”

R.L. Dabney said it in the late 19th Century: "This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader."

Is "ethnic nationalist," an honest term for White Nationalists, Alt-Righters, or Western Civilzationists, when they find themselves around Progressive company?

Yes. I always point out that in addition to supporting American nationalism, I support Zionism and the sovereign Red Indian nations. I usually prefer the term Red Segregationist, although I suspect Red Nationalist would be better.

Leaving Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles out of that quote makes your point a wee bit misleading. That quote came from the "Ten Conservative Principles" which was all about the principles on which a given issue is decided.

No, it isn't misleading in the slightest. What is misleading is that Kirk listed 10 "principles" that, in most cases, are not actually principles. It is no more than feelings. Read the article more closely.

No, it isn't misleading in the slightest. What is misleading is that Kirk listed 10 "principles" that, in most cases, are not actually principles. It is no more than feelings. Read the article more closely.

The Conservative Foundation is the Constitution, which God Himself created to govern us.

The Conservative Foundation is the Constitution, which Englishmen living in North America created to govern Englishmen living in North America.

There, fixed it for you.

Evan McMullin understands this. Evan knows the Constitution is the most important document in the history of the world.

An odd view for someone who believes the Constitution was created by God Himself.

If we are governed by what God wants, then the most important document in the history of the world is THE BIBLE - the Word of God.

And that's leaving aside the fact that we are not even governed by muh Constitution any more, so muh Constitution is irrelevant and you are not going to fix or conserve a damn thing by Constitutioning Harder.

In defense of Dreher, I think this is worth reading: A Crunchy Con Manifesto

Whatever happened to Crunchy Conservatism? Is Rod Dreher himself even still trying to practice it? You would think if it were about principles rather than book sales it would be something worth doing for its own sake. But to answer my own question I think he's dropped that as a non-starter long ago and is looking around for the next opportunity. Maybe his Benedict Option retreat thing.

There at best a handful of conservatives who bother about the Constitution.Except to conserve the rabid liberalism of the Courts.Name any "conservative" that still thinks Abortion or Gay Marriage is still "unconstitutional".The conservatives only want to say they adopted the Constitutionalists when they need votes or donors.The NSA and the PATRIOT Act, and the various quagmires and destabilizations were "Conservative".When the Conservatives opened themselves up to the Neo-Conservatives, they lost any meaning, but they also dumped the Constitutionalists.You have a few loons like Glenn Beck who apparently still are in with the Bill Kristols and want to start WW3 who call themselves conservative, and somehow managed to change personalities and talk about the constitution. The founding fathers would be horrified that we are "nation building" to support the UN established secular socialist state of modern Israel.

Which succinctly explains why Conservatives were so easily led and fooled by the Republican Party all these decades. All you have to do is to gradually change their feelgood and you can get them to do whatever you want. They are the same as liberals. Progressives have agendas. The Alt-Right has an agenda. Liberals' and conservatives' goals are to satisfy that feelgood-- which they have been conditioned to satisfy in particular ways.

VD wrote:Is "ethnic nationalist," an honest term for White Nationalists, Alt-Righters, or Western Civilzationists, when they find themselves around Progressive company?

Yes. I always point out that in addition to supporting American nationalism, I support Zionism and the sovereign Red Indian nations. I usually prefer the term Red Segregationist, although I suspect Red Nationalist would be better.

Leaving Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles out of that quote makes your point a wee bit misleading. That quote came from the "Ten Conservative Principles" which was all about the principles on which a given issue is decided.

No, it isn't misleading in the slightest. What is misleading is that Kirk listed 10 "principles" that, in most cases, are not actually principles. It is no more than feelings. Read the article more closely.

They are methods. A conservative is not dogmatic. If one of your principles was a belief in free trade. A conservative holds to that, but looks to the past to see if free trade has worked, before he keeps free trade as a principle. That is not about feelings, that is a method of finding out what works

Conservative still has a definition with religion despite the cuckservative counterargument. It means traditional.

@11 Timmy3No. Conservatives are not traditionalists. Absolutely not.

Speaking as a Catholic, conservativism in religion means the same thing as it does in politics: feelz. And for the same reasons.

A conservative is fine with progressive policies if they feel right to him. If they don't feel right, he complains about them, but only temporarily.

In fact, conservatives react to traditionalist aims (for example, in Catholicism, dismantling the reforms of Vatican II or going back to the old Mass) in many instances with even more hostility than they do to progressive policies.

I see Russell Kirk's 10 Ten Conservative Principles as a little redundant t is really not 10, but over all is a great way to look at things. But my faith is in God not Russell Kirk. To a degree I see all 10 of his Ten Principles as valid. But only to a degree. I never let facts get pushed aside by faith in an essay

White nationalism is a dead end and unnecessary. Any sufficiently hardline eucivic program will by definition be "white" because minorities will not handle the g-load and Asians will not handle the religious component. The all-out assault on whites and Christians today, even though there is no formal white nationalist movement, shows this to be the case.

These guys have a good definition of conservative.https://theconservativetreehouse.com/about/. Personally I want the govt out of my bedroom, wallet, kitchen, laundryroom, garage, living room, & attic. I don't want to have to pay for Latrina's 21 illegitimate crack babies if I never touched her.

Maybe a race should, in fact, actually be proud of its dominance - instead of always apologizing for it.

Whites are only 8% of the world population, Asians are the only ones that come close to achievements. Africa can fit the US, Europe, China, India, & Japan within its borders yet has less achievements than tiny little japan http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2445615/True-size-Africa-continent-big-China-India-US-Europe-together.html

I see a lot of good in what he taught and what his actual followers still teach; the Paleo-Cons that is. Those guys understand that an ideology will become too rigid and will self destruct a good thing. Such as open borders actually leading to less liberty.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subject

isn't that odd? that looks almost the same as me pointing out that a 'conservative' in 1776 would have been loyal to the Crown or that a 'conservative' Hindu mother-in-law would be telling her son's widow to commit suttee on his funeral pyre.

as much as i like the estimable Mr. John C. Wright, Esq ( and i do like him quite a lot ), the plain fact is that he is blatantly wrong in his attempted definition of 'conservative'.

oh well, even blind squirrels ( that'd be me ) find a nut once in a while.

another thing to consider is this:you notice how the American practice of slavery was somehow the mostest, evilest thing everest? completely out of proportion to slavery / servitude practices conducted throughout the entire rest of the world and from time immemorial?

you know where that meme comes from, even though it is ludicrously stupid and blatantly false to facts?

the abolitionist Republican party of the 1850s.

that's right, it's the anti-slavery Republicans who provided the very rhetoric in the 1800s which is being used to excoriate them today in the 2000s.

how does that go?sow the wind, reap the whirlwind?God will not be mocked?something along those lines ...

8. Josh August 16, 2016 11:46 AMWhat is the ideology of the alt right?

i nominate the original Constitution, so long as we rehabilitate the understanding that the fact that not all Privileges are available to all Citizens does NOT mean that anyone's "Rights" are being trampled.

Nationalism. We are post-ideological as far as the old Left/Right divide. This is the national vs. transnational utopian era. It's why the transnational "conservatives" have little problem with their left-wing counterparts.

The most pathetic lot are the self-proclaimed High Priests of Constitutional Conservatism. Their dying outposts, like the execrable National Review, have become transparently fraudulent yet they claim principles that never existed.

In the Hegelian sense, conservativism has played the role of the thesis to the anti-thesis of progressivism.

Thus, every time these two sides wrestle with each other, the result is that conservatives have made a compromise in their positiosn, the thesis has changed weakened, where as the progressives only gain more ground, and remain what they were.

So, it was only a matter of time, after enough wrestling matches when the two would be indistinguishable from each other.

The past eight years and now this election year is that time. This is the final wrestling match, the final tap out, the final compromise where conservatism has become through its many compromises swallowed whole by its antithesis progressivism.

That may very well have been the role conservatism was meant to play all along. Hense the term cuckservative used to describe those conservatives who have aided and continue to aid those who wish to destroy them, whether it was knowingly or unknowingly.

@41 - agreed. The brand is damaged. The New (neo?) conservatism is like the New Coke - it tastes awful - just like Pepsi.@34 - Thanks for the restatement. I'd add English Common Law with Greco-Roman. The Roman legal system also works, but the stronger form was the Constitution which derives from the Anglo-Saxon traditions though between the Roman Empire reaching Britain and the Roman Church and St. Patrick, St. Andrew etc, it also has Roman roots.I'd also add Nationalism, but not the mirror of magic dust. It is a return to in-group preference from the local church up to the Nation-state. The evil of multiculturalism and cuckservatism is they say the Mosque next door is equal if not better than the church you've been going to whose original building was constructed in the early 1800s. That Raqqah is your "sister city". That South Dakota ought to be turned into California or New York. Then you get to the nation and lack of nationalism.I've noticed this subsidiarity in its correct form now that I'm outside of the discordia.I'm more focused on my church and city - the others are rivals our highschool should beat, but it is a friendly rivalry.There are differences between all the high-plains states, but I prefer mine to them.Nationalism - to the extent I feel it, is only regional. I find enmity to the left coast, and the Wall-St-DC masters, Short of La Palma and Cascadia Fault going off, I don't know how I can be loyal to that. But I think it will literally sort itself out.

"Conservative" in 2016 is just what "liberal" was in 1996. Probably 20 years from now if there are still "conservatives" they will be opposing polygamy with "two people", i.e. gay marriage will by then be the "conservative" position.

"Conservatism' and "tradition", etc. are just a sea anchor that prevents the ship from drifting too fast, but it's still drifting. Ask "conservatives" about Affirmative Action for women, or whether women should vote, see what the "conservative tradition" tells you.

I'm describing myself as a realist, who lives in reality. That means a man who has his genitalia cut off is still a man, and he doesn't get to compete in the 800 meter women's footrace. That means a group of people with a median IQ of 85 can't be expected to produce large numbers of doctors.

Not because of color of skin, but because of content of cranium.

There's precious little left to conserve. That's reality, and I'm a realist.

I wonder if we can convince the Red nations to get off the reservations there and give them back Manhattan and the east and west coasts.

You need a border to have a country. It's much easier when you can tell who belongs on which side. Chess doesn't work when there are black Rooks on the White side.

If Conservatism had a center, the Tea Party would not have appeared, and they were co-opted mainly by being convinced they were conservatives and that good little conservatives vote with certain policies.

The Conservative Foundation is the Constitution, which God Himself created to govern us.We have us a Mormon, folks!Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? The Constitution is a treaty of federalization between several small polities seeking to band together without losing their identities and sovereignty. It has clearly failed its purpose.

Evan McMullin understands this. Evan knows the Constitution is the most important document in the history of the world. That is why he will win my home state of Utah.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha ha ha hah hah

Heh

That's a good one. McMullen is there to throw the race to Hillary. That's all. Even he knows it. I'm not sure what he's being paid to throw away any political ambition he ever had and make himself a laughingstock on the national stage. Maybe he had no political ambition, or maybe he's honestly stupid enough to think he looks smart and clever and strong.

Do you see what your perverse ideology can do to an otherwise decent man?

In defense of Dreher, I think this is worth reading: A Crunchy Con Manifesto

He wrote some pretty words that made him have good feelz. Then he moved into an Arts & Crafts era house and had more good feelz. But really, CrunchyCon turned out to be just a collection of poses, gestures, etc.

Dreher has some real cognitive dissonance, and his issues with depression don't help one bit. I don't see his Benedict option as an option, either, it reminds me of the Old Believers in the Russian empire. No matter how far they retreated into the forest, or mountains, or even taiga, sooner or later someone found them.

VFM #7634 wrote:In fact, conservatives react to traditionalist aims (for example, in Catholicism, dismantling the reforms of Vatican II or going back to the old Mass) in many instances with even more hostility than they do to progressive policies.

Case in point: Cardinal Sarah's recommendation to implement ad orientum worship again at Advent. The Novus Ordites had a fit and a half. It'll be interesting to see what comes of this, to be honest.

The problem with the "conservative" or "progressive" label is that it really hides what is underneath. Progressivism is just a code-word for anti-white ethnic nationalism. Because it is a form of nationalism, it has a very cohesive and consistent ideology: What is good for X?

Conservatism, then, is just a code-word for white ethnic nationalism, but most conservatives don't understand or believe this, but progressives actually do, which is why progressivism reacts so negatively to conservatism. Basically, conservatism should be a platform that bases its policies on what is good or bad for white people, to counter the bad intentions against white people that progressives have.

"It was an absolute act of God. We're talking about places that have literally never flooded before," said Anthony "Ace" CoxIn other words, not coverable by flood insurance and regular insurance excludes floods. Screwed.

Forecasters said one reason was the sheer, almost off-the-charts intensity of the storm....

Some areas, such as the town of Zachary, received more than 2 feet of rain in a 48-hour period that ended Saturday morning. Another hard-hit area, Livingston, got nearly 22 inches over the same stretch.This is hurricane-intensity rainfall from a "normal" storm system (now in E. Texas as I write this). This phenomenon was PREDICTED by climate scientists as a result of greenhouse warming. Warmer air holds more water. This means that more rainfall evaporates before getting to the ground, so more storms yield little or no net rain. It also means that rainfall which does reach the ground comes in greater amounts and intensity.

We are just seeing the beginning of this, and it will build to catastrophic levels if we don't switch to nuclear power in a very big way.

It's been a few years since I read Russell Kirk, but I remember it reminded me of Edmund Burke. "Conservatism" more as a praxis, a way of thinking or a practice. So long as it includes a real skepticism of human nature, in Christian terms a clear-eyed recognition of the fallen state of man, it is workable.

The problem is as always in the details. Burkean conservatism gave way before John Stuart Mill's more idealistic world view. Kirkean conservatism couldn't stand up to the Buckleyite world view. Humans can't be perfected, but that hasn't stopped the various Marxists from trying to do just that, making omelets all over the world and leaving a mountain of broken eggs behind.

I'm starting to label myself as a realist, because that's what happens when I Notice some aspect of reality. Girl Marines cannot function as part of a squad, it's easy to Notice this, and tranny marines are only a liability no matter what the high priests of SJW madness say.

There's other things I Notice in reality. Such as the futility of "conservatism" over the last 20 years. "Reaction" looks backwards to the previous problems that led to where we are. Realistically there's no way to go back to the 19th century culture on any large scale, but I can see those who like the Amish want to try.

I think liberals and conservatives simply use a separate set of feelz to justify their beliefs. Liberals love to think they're intellectually superior- which is why they infest the university system and embrace the global warming dogma. Conservatives like to believe they're morally superior which is why they embrace churchian dogma and throw stones at Trump.

That Alt-right is ethno-nationalist because it must be ethno-nationalist.Don't think what you've seen in Milwaukee isn't a form of ethno-nationalism. When they are saying "Get Whitey" meaning something likely to be fatal, it is stupid not to respond. You aren't going to undo the ethno-nationalisms on the left (La Raza is another) by anything but playing the same game. I say this pragmatically, not on principle.

It was nonconformist white anglo-saxon (and some -celtic) protestants that created the Constitution. That is historical fact. There were intellects, perhaps even smarter ones in France and they ended up in horror.

The number of constitutionalists of color is well under 5%. You also find it more toward northern and western Europe among whites. Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, and Greeks are very few. Even if you go to libertarian gatherings, you don't find diversity - you don't find many women.

This is data. Statistical facts.

Perhaps once Christendom is restored and a strong fortress somewhere, we can invite others who prove they have already converted in, but things are so tenuous now that - as Vox points out - moderates are the worst enemy because they will leave the gates open for those who are moderate between their moderation and the rabid SJWs, so you end up converged in a version of Zeno's paradox.

Blood is thicker than water. We can fight our instincts or go with them. One is that people who look alien almost always act alien. And we see appearance is becoming tribal. Those are choices. The Booker T Washingtons were wearing fine suits and listening to great music. The Gangsta's of today have formed their own subculture. As has the Hispanics - Cinco de Mayo.

Interesting that in the movie and by the description, the Morlocks were ugly and the Eloi were pretty. It is very hard to imagine a Sci-Fi or fantasy story where the evil army is made of Adonises and Aphrodities, and the side of good is made of uglies. Star Trek had to keep reinventing uglier foes. The Klingons in the original were brutish. The Jem-Haddar were reptilian. You occasionally have the "appearances can be deceiving" episode, but even the original "friendly angel" ended up being unmasked as ugly. Beauty is to some extent in-group, and we have trouble seeing truth and good in the ugly, or lies and evil in the beautiful.

This is like the Capitalist "invisible hand". They are simply greedy, but not in the sense of the sin of Avarice. They simply want to be paid for services and more for better. Not noble, but set the game up that way and you will get a lot of robust commerce.

I'm sure if we split off into ethnic enclaves, and there was a white one that would be zero-welfare, Christian, Constitutional 1825 America 1.0, and others would be the land for innercity blacks, others for La Razaland, that the ethnic minorities in the white areas would move out, in effect self-deport. Maybe there would even be a Feminiland.

Progressivism is used for anti-white ethnic nationalism by non-whites, but progressivism is a northern European white ideology. White nationalism is attractive because it would succeed by physically removing a lot of the anti-white forces, but it would not address what made white people become, for instance, pathologically altruistic. It wasn't the Jews who did it, they merely adopted progressivism, but the Yankees were born into it, molded by it.

White nationalism is attractive because it would succeed by physically removing a lot of the anti-white forces, but it would not address what made white people become, for instance, pathologically altruistic.

@86 RoundtineThe best we can hope for is that the portion of Europeans who are pathologically altruistic get bred out over the generations, whether by race-mixing, nonwhite adoption, or otherwise failing to reproduce.

By definition, Conservative means Traditional. So to say Conservatives are not Traditionalists, this means something entirely different.

I also think its a mistake to muddle the meaning of a conservative in terms of religion just because of politics. To say conservative react with hostility to traditions means by definition they aren't conservative.

I'm not a Conservative or a Conservative apologist - that said, Kirk's claim is more nuanced than the author is allowing. Kirk's ''anti-ideology'' position was/is the Thomist/Platonist claim - it owes also to De Maistre, and arguments by Americans that invoke De Maistre axiomatically fail because American Catholics have long been mired in the fruitless enterprise of trying to reconcile their Theological commitments with American Constitutionalism.

Kirk is claiming that reason is the means by which Man can apprehend, interpret, and implement Natural Law - and furthermore that Man's rational soul separates him from the beasts that populate Creation - in no small measure - by affording him an ability to instinctively discern the Good, the just, the moral, from what is beastly, what is evil, what transgresses God's law.

''Ideology'' in contrast claims that ethics, law, politics is a form of ''science'' that has nothing to do with instinct, custom, preference or human aesthetic judgment.

The normal person - according to the Conservative - for example finds things like sodomy and abortion to be instinctively disgusting, abhorrent, immoral. The ideologist claims that these instincts are ''irrational'' and thus have no credibility in determining what is ethical, what is good, what should be tolerated, etc. In this way, the ideologue renders judgments that are totally abstracted and remote from the actual human experience - instead, he relies upon axioms that are at-base anti-human.

Kirk is saying that the Conservative is abiding the will of God - so he doesn't require an ''ideology'' - K goes a step further, even...suggesting that, historically speaking, ideology itself is a revolt against God/Natural Law - the ideologue requires an ideology precisely because his enterprise is assaulting reason, morality, and common sense itself.

Let me clarify that I do not agree with Kirk and I am not a Conservative - I'm a National Socialist. However, it is important to state Kirk's position accurately. He is probably the only worthwhile ''conservative'' author that America ever produced.

I don't think you understand. Conservatives are trying to preserve humanity and human ways of thinking and doing. Ideologies are not part of that. They are untethered rationalism. They are also fairly new to human history. Hume recognized this, being close to the original mass ideological movements of humanity and called it "madness" and was truly puzzled by it.

And what would this have to do with Republicans and conservatives of the past 40 years or so? Nothing as they are neo-conservatives, which is an ideological movement. They have been and are, full of ideology.

You wonder how they could possibly be hard headed realists yet lack an ideological foundation. You aren't grasping the most basic distinctions between conservatives and ideologues.

Now ideology in service of hard headed realism is another story, but that isn't really ideology.

By definition, Conservative means Traditional. So to say Conservatives are not Traditionalists, this means something entirely different.

I also think its a mistake to muddle the meaning of a conservative in terms of religion just because of politics. To say conservative react with hostility to traditions means by definition they aren't conservative.

@89 Timmy3Okay, let's try this again.

A conservative feels uncomfortable with the progressives' latest premises and causes, but accepts their earlier ones, and in fact adopts and defends them against the traditionalists, often more passionately than they oppose the progressives.

A traditionalist wants absolutely nothing to do with anything the progressives have proposed and implemented, and wants to go back to before the progressives started fvcking with things.

Not to derail the discussion with a tangent - but I believe its worth noting that Kirk very much tried to distance himself from the (Reaganite) establishment. He didn't identify with Republicanism or ''moral majority'' Conservatism. Its been a while since I read him, but IIRC I believe he made the point in his later years that it was immoral to vote in American elections because doing so was tantamount to Muscovites showing up to vote for Brezhnev.

E. Michael Jones seems to have inherited Kirk's mantle in American discourse - Jones is a much higher caliber thinker in many respects but it seems clear that both aimed to position themselves as the standard bearer of American Catholicism in ''Conservative'' discourse.

One doesn't need to praise, respect Kirk, Jones or any other scholar but its not right to lump them in with the PNAC crowd and act as if they share common cause and character with the likes of William Kristol.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but when so-called conservatives throw up their hands in disdain for our current political choices and announce they're going off to practice and purify conservatism instead, they're doing Rod Dreher's Benedict Option thing whether they call it that or not. That Benedict Option thing isn't necessarily just about religion, but it's always about hiding out off to the side somewhere safe while others do whatever needs to be done.

"succeed by physically removing a lot of the anti-white forces, but it would not address what made white people become, for instance, pathologically altruistic. It wasn't the Jews who did it, they merely adopted progressivism, but the Yankees were born into it, molded by it."

Of course you would address it. You address it by hanging the pathologically out-grouping Yankees until they are all dead. This will worm the outgroup gene from whites.

It's the same process as executing your violent members of society. Do that often enough over a long period of time, and people become less violent and less outgroupy.

but it's always about hiding out off to the side somewhere safe while others do whatever needs to be done

A clam was sitting out in the sun when suddenly a snipe flew down to peck at the clam. Suddenly the clam slammed the shell shut, gripping the snipe's beak in between. The snipe said, "If it doesn't rain today, and it doesn't rain tomorrow, I shall see a dead clam on the beach." The clam said, "If I don't open today, and I don't open up tomorrow, I shall see a dead snipe on the beach." While they were still grappling with each other, a fisherman passed by and netted them both.

VFM #7634 wrote:A traditionalist wants absolutely nothing to do with anything the progressives have proposed and implemented, and wants to go back to before the progressives started fvcking with things.The prohibition of abortion in the USA was a Progressive initiative, taking matters which had been left to the family and midwives and putting them under the "scientific authority" of the fledgling AMA... which had only recently admitted that hand-washing was essential to avoid spread of infection from patient to patient.

White ethno-nationalism is the simplest, easiest path, but it isn't white is right, it is that the civilization of the western Christians brought us the ideas of natural law, human rights, science, and technology. There were other empires, but Constantinople, the British, and American empires stand out as something objectively desirable.

The enemies are the ones saying white is wrong and are being totally irrational about it and - here is the key - you can't reason with them. It is a rhetorical trick. If you like indoor plumbing with hot and cold running water instead of Cholera and Typhus, get with the whites.

You will be hard pressed to find constitutionalist or libertarian blacks, I can name three, and two, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are from before I cancelled my NR subscription. This means if you try for anything else, you will be inviting moderates in and trying to convert them before they cause too much damage. Same for Asians who tend to be conformist rather than principled, and retain their own ethno-nationalism. Name any Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. who writes about the founding fathers and the constitution. Or from India (maybe Jindal if you sift enough, Dinesh DeSouza? - but even Indians are more like dark-skinned Europeans and the language family is called "indo-European").

There is no Black or Asian "Milo". The closest I can find are Diamond and Silk, and they are allies, but they are a pro-Trump phenomenon more than a wider cultural one so far. I think they would be welcomed as another set of allies, but because they are still black but pushing white standards. We can invite people to our celebration and they can celebrate with us.

Even we today are pantomiming the earlier greatness of Christendom. We don't really recognize or understand it. The Churchians are a Cargo Cult, going through the motions, but adding their bizarre portions like name it and claim it. There is so much noise and fakery and illusion that it is hard to see the true. At best we can repair and reassemble the mechanism and see if it will still function. Only once that is accomplished can we see if it can be made to stamp western civilization onto others.

There are people who see China rising. But even here I should note even if there was a mass conversion in China, it would be an eastern civilization and would not create the original Christendom. Latin America knew Christ longer than the North in the form of the Catholic Church, but didn't create it either, and I can make a similar prediction. I have some thoughts as to the structure, but the individualism and "rights of Englishmen" won't be there. They won't call it cronyism, or see it as evil but both will become stratified.

We also forget that when England and America held the torch, the other countries still could look there and try to imitate it and begin to adopt the practices. The Constitution is open-source. But it only runs on people with an independent, self-sufficient, and strong morality streaks. That is why it appears to be failing. We've put diesel in the gasoline tank.

If the .alt right can come up with an ideology and an workable plan to make a state that flows from that ideology it can be a potent political power and very possibly replace the Conserve-Nothing "conservatives"

That however is a way off and not guaranteed to happen before the civil war

why its so troublesome is largely the collapse of common moral capital.

We don't have common religious capital so we can't use that and the more Libertarian or Trad Con parts don't socket well with the Fash or outright NS parts

I'd say generally though the .alt right agrees on different peoples and races being different and needing their own lands/separation , economic nationalism of some kind , non interventionism and stable families, nuclear or extended. Its salted with a general sense that cultural Marxism and economic Marxism and cronyism have to go.

In other words Pat Buchanan 1988 modernized.

Everything else is still in the discussion phase though and that is a lot.

Getting to an actual plan that can be made to happen preferably before the civil war or after it though is a way off.

Its doable though and the new posterity may last a hundred years or so before it too grows rotten.

Good question. Do we need one? Instincts, processes and positions seem to suffice.

INSTINCTS

As rightists, we place moderate weight on all five moral spheres as elucidated by Pinker -- harm, fairness, group loyalty, authority, and purity -- whereas leftists prioritize harm and fairness, deprecating the other three.

I believe that the Alt-Right is also strongly influenced by the Jacksonian code of honor: self-reliance, respect (demanded and given), equality (as opposed to castes), individualism (with familial self-sacrifice), risk-taking (e.g. entrepreneurialism), and courage. (I think that Mead's list could be improved, but it suffices.)

PROCESSES

The Alt-Right has developed rapidly through the masculine mode of truth-seeking that is natural in the manosphere. Vigorous disagreement is the norm, and at the same time, assertions have to be backed up with more than just rhetoric or feelz. The scientific method and systems thinking are particularly favored.

I personally think that the Alt-Right would do well to define itself as more of a method than an ideology per se, since the correct answers may change with the questions asked; which is to say, with our circumstances.

Good luck defining an ideology that delivers one-size-fits-more-than-one permanently.

We know that a ruling paradigm can work for long periods of time when a society is very homogeneous, but as we note constantly, even "white" in America is a stew of the various nationalities that immigrated to North America over the last 400 years.

The first step toward sanity is to recognize the value of SMALL polities of people who are very much like each other. Until the Washington DC boot gets off everyone's faces, and entities no larger than states begin to drift in the direction most preferred by those living there (or still living there, once people begin to gravitate toward similar and away from dissimilar), it will be difficult to flesh out what works for the various sub-tribes of Americans (American as defined by "the kind of people who predominantly are responsible for what people LIKE about America.") Productive, rule-following, low propensity for violent crime, relatively high(er) propensity for educational and work success, low time preference, etc.

I still think "being an American" is a privilege, not a right. Those who insist on committing violent crimes should be exiled. I don't much care to where, but for sure, anyone with a claim to citizenship elsewhere should be sent there, no matter what, and if they return it should be Open Season on their heads, with a reward (dead or alive.)

I'd rather see each state in the Union have its own hereditary monarch, such that the King enjoys the fruits of "his people" but only in proportion to his ability to keep them voluntarily inside his kingdom. A little healthy competition between monarchs for the productive might finally provide the right incentives for people, while eliminating the ability for most people to ever rule would keep their dirty mitts out of the circle-pickpocketing of politics.

Yes, Josh. Seriously. "Conservatives" should believe the Constitution, but they abandon it on race. They should honor tradition, but they go gay for invasion.

So, right now, you are going to have a very hard time excluding anyone (except cuckservatives and progressives) from membership in the alt-right. Anyone who stands for gun rights, is in favor of Christianity, and admires classic scholarship in even a semblance of intellectual favor, is in. Western Civ is alt right. That is pretty much it for now. It'll crystalize as it goes, right now it is still primarily an allied reaction to the Cuck-Prog Axis. Ted Cruz was, at best Neville Chamberlain, and it is likely that there is a Papa Joe in leadership within the alt right coalition...but that doesn't matter right now.

I respectfully disagree. The lack of ideology cannot be the problem, since the explicit delineation of principles in the U.S. Constitution has been no defense against its perversion into a weapon of Empire wielded against the People & States. Rather, instincts and processes are proof against sophistry, and conservatism only had the former.

@10 There's some value to be had in a system of thought that allows for a very wide variety of beliefs and practices and political preferences, but you still need a core (a la Christianity and the Creeds) of undisputed agreement.

Paul lays out that there is room for conscience-based values that may differ from others with-in Christianity - such as circumcision, "unclean" meat, drinking, and probably even purity rituals. You are free to abandon these, but those who feel that these would cause a guilty conscience are free to practice them. It is a "feelz" accommodation to the original conservative Christians.

However, you are right. It is anchored firmly in the solid absolutes of the basics of the Christian Gospel which unites all the differing factions.

The lack of ideology cannot be the problem, since the explicit delineation of principles in the U.S. Constitution has been no defense against its perversion into a weapon of Empire wielded against the People & States.

Is an ideology really analogous to a governing document/legal instrument, though? You obviously are correct that the constitution bears little semblance to the principles it enumerates. The "ideology" behind it still persists but is retained only by the individuals it governs.

Rather, instincts and processes are proof against sophistry, and conservatism only had the former.

Mr.MantraMan wrote:I thought Dreher's latest was worth reading, about some shrink telling his side they are authoritarian and telling them to back off a bit, of course rod cucks it up a bit

If that shrink is not a Jew, then that would be a counter-example against my hypothesis that the dishonest, emotional, knee-jerk rhetorical linkage of nationalism with authoritarianism is a stereotypically Jewish verbal tic. Having written that, I'm now going to go find who you're talking about... googlegoogle...

Oh look, he's talking about Jonathan Haidt, who was "born in New York City ... to a liberal Jewish family." My hypothesis remains undisconfirmed.

@81 One minor point: "Places that have never flooded before" (in the US) are almost all classified as Zone X by FEMA. Flood insurance through FEMA is available there, usually quite cheaply, though most people don't consider buying it.

I thought Dreher's latest was worth reading, about some shrink telling his side they are authoritarian and telling them to back off a bit, of course rod cucks it up a bit

While his romantic monasticism makes him hard to take seriously, Dreher at least sees the handwriting on the wall. Dreher does fall into the trap into accepting the use of the word "authoritarianism" when what is meant here is "reaction." But, Hitler.

@86 "Pathological altruism" is a relatively recent phenomenon among whites that was nowhere to be found in the systematic displacement of Native Americans, the conduct of the slave trade, or World War I, just to name a few examples. Its rise coincides neatly with the growth of mass media.

Were-Puppy wrote:Did you type this from one of those chemtrail spewing airplanes?Maybe if you'd read the news of 5 years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/15/climate-change-rainfall

"A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, and globally water vapour increases by 7% for every degree centigrade of warming."

"It is likely that in a warmer climate heavy rainfall will increase and be produced by fewer more intense events. This could lead to longer dry spells and a higher risk of floods."

Curiously enough, I'm experiencing an extended dry spell just as Louisiana is having unprecedented-in-history floods. If we'd been using uranium instead of coal for the last 40 years, this wouldn't even be an issue today.

Do not reply to thread derailer. Do not reply to Atheist thread derailer. Do not reply to Atheist thread derailer that has to make every thread about his favorite obsessions.....Aw, fuck it....."

Mr Rations,Why is it that every time a Global Warming conference is cancelled to absurdly horribly cold weather, we are reminded that "Weather Is Not Climate" but every time there's a catastrophic weather event (including blizzards and freak snowfalls) it's due to Global Warmening?Now, let's see the proof that the air in the middle altitudes (where the water is carried) above the Gulf is warmer than normal for August. Oh, right. You don't have any. But "is consistent with" means the same thing as "proves." Because you're a moron.

Remember when Hurricanes used to hit southern states with some regularity? Yeah. How long has it been?

Its not so much ''altruism'' as it is an innate individualism and a concomitant 'live and let live' ethos that is deeply ingrained in the White cultural mind and is probably a feature of deep evolutionary-psychological development that was wrought by development in a (basically) sparsely populated arctic climate in which social life was centered on a nuclear family unit and politics developed along the lines of loose confederations. Kevin MacDonald penned some interesting material on this in ''The Culture of Critique''.

The problem with Whites isn't that they're ''nigger lovers'' or pathological altruists (although some are, the majority are not). The problem is that the White man assumes that Blacks, Browns, Orientals, etc. think like he does. He doesn't realize that non-Whites (with the exception of some highly developed races like the Japanese) have no meaningful concept of the individual, are entirely primitive in their awareness of self and conceptual horizon (particularly of social relationships) and that they will always follow a zero-sum and collectivist trajectory vis a vis race relations/politics even when its totally self-defeating to do so.

For people of my generation, the OJ Simpson verdict was I believe somewhat instructive - it was bizarre to the uninitiated to see Negroes behaving as if the trial was a football game and the primitive tribalism that took hold of their simple minds. Mind you, I didn't begrudge them for not caring about the victims (a race traitor prostitute and a Jew) but it was incredible how childlike their sensibility was about the whole thing.

Whites - even stupid ones - simply don't think that way. Its the way people think who are a millenium behind on the evolutionary ladder as it were.

Why is the Constitution viewed as some kind of sacred scroll by Conservatives?

The Conservative tradition in the USA - such that it exists - was basically Hamiltonian; Hamilton and John Jay made a point of objecting to the existence of a written Constitution on principle; its proponents were men like Jefferson who, not coincidentally, lionized the Jacobins.

Senor RationalThe prohibition of abortion in the USA was a Progressive initiative, taking matters which had been left to the family and midwives and putting them under the "scientific authority" of the fledgling AMA...

130. Mr. Rational August 16, 2016 6:02 PMIf we'd been using uranium instead of coal for the last 40 years, this wouldn't even be an issue today

take it up with the Lefties and the Greens.

whether anybody here believes that AGW is a 'thing' or not, NOBODY HERE had a goddamn thing to do with preventing you from building a reactor every other block.

we're fine with nukes. i mean, if you avoid obvious stupidity like designing your spent fuel cooling pool 5 stories up in the air and then plopping your construction down right in the middle of an earthquake + tsunami zone.

Thomas777 wrote:Its not so much ''altruism'' as it is an innate individualism and a concomitant 'live and let live' ethos that is deeply ingrained in the White cultural mindBy "White" I assume Thomas means "Anglos".

Otherwise this is self-congratulatory jive. Anyone who has stepped foot outside the Anglosphere would know this isn't the case.

: and is probably a feature of deep evolutionary-psychological development that was wrought by development in a (basically) sparsely populated arctic climate in which social life was centered on a nuclear family unit and politics developed along the lines of loose confederations. Kevin MacDonald penned some interesting material on this in ''The Culture of Critique''.

The social importance of the nuclear family is a relatively recent "thing". Try looking at extended family for a locus of civilization(or even polygamist "unions") if you want to go that archaic.

:The problem is that the White man assumes that Blacks, Browns, Orientals, etc. think like he does. He doesn't realize that non-Whites (with the exception of some highly developed races like the Japanese) have no meaningful concept of the individual, are entirely primitive in their awareness of self and conceptual horizon (particularly of social relationships) and that they will always follow a zero-sum and collectivist trajectory vis a vis race relations/politics even when its totally self-defeating to do so.

tz @86 - "the ethnic minorities in the white areas would move out, in effect self-deport."

Would they, though? Or would they figure if they hung around long enough being miserable, some soft-hearted white would starting handing out buns at the church door. And soon, the seeds of the welfare system would be sprouting again. "But look at them! They're POOR! They're SUFFERING! We have to help them! We have to do something!" I think it's like the Z-man says; blacks will always come trailing after whites, even though they hate them, because they know that there's no other reliable place for food and stuff.

I'm going to call that Noticing instead of Realism. You could make an argument that the former is the praxis of the latter; but everyone likes to think he's realistic, so it isn't meaningful as a declaration.

Aeoli Pera wrote:To be clear, the alt-right only pretends to have an ideology, but they are ideological pragmatists at heart.

I like that. I don't think the Alt-Right even needs principles as such, so a self-negating list works for me. This is what I have so far:

Clearly, there's room for improvement. As with Mead's description of the Jacksonian honor code, I get the sense of both overlap and gaps (especially the former). I suppose that in mapping the human condition, it's too much to ask for the mathematical ideal of spanning & disjoint, but I think it could be crisper.

I'm talking about America and Americans - and the White Man in the New World and his culture. A Protestant culture, founded and sustained by national groups the overwhelming majority of whom originated from a territory in Europe collectively smaller than the territory of Texas.

This is fact - its not ''self congradulatory''. Nobody is talking about the proud tradition of polygamy in Chechnya or the Dacian heritage of palm-reading and extended family cohabitation in common Yurts when they speak of ''White'' culture. They're talking about America and racial dynamics therein - I didn't think this needed to be explicated.

Either you're autistic or you're recent immigrant stock (or European) and looking for reasons to proffer obtuse and off point rebuttals.

Yeah, ''White'' people in Chechnya don't behave like the White tribe in America - I understand that. It also has nothing to do with the topic.

And SJWs are magical thinkers. And the inevitability of global warming is necessary for the inevitability of "social progress" (r-selection), therefore it must be true.

Curiously, this may follow from my contention that clever sillies lack understanding of causality, relying entirely on pure association. I think the example I used before is the belief that nationalism caused Hitler and, simultaneously, Hitler caused nationalism. If the association pathway in the brain goes both ways without pruning one or the other (via cognitive dissonance), then each concept produces the other.

To be even more precise, they wholeheartedly pursue the feeling of winning. That is, the feeling of being identified with a class of people that has recently subjugated or destroyed another class of people. It's the will-to-power ethos.

I don't see how it would be possible for an athlete or musician to confuse time's arrow. My family was not well off, but I still grew up playing soccer and piano. Those people must not have had what I consider normal experiences.

The essence is utopian statolotry, the worship of power through national harmony. The ideology is subject to change in order to accomplish this vision.

That can't be it if it is to succeed long term. Utopianism always carries the seeds of its own destruction.

How about:

Nationalism expressed in defiance of globalism, which is a form of imperialism - Secure Borders - Economic Sovereignty - Political SovereigntyConstitutional integrity.Privileged position of CitizensElevation of the family unit to Privileged Status.Direct DemocracyFree Netflix

The essence is utopian statolotry, the worship of power through national harmony. The ideology is subject to change in order to accomplish this vision.

That can't be it if it is to succeed long term. Utopianism always carries the seeds of its own destruction.

It won't succeed long-term, only Christianity can. The alternative is a pyramid society death cult.

Utopianism fails because it's taken out of the Christian context. The element of eternity is absolutely essential to culture because it is the the answer to the question "where am I going?" Other relatively successful religions try to answer this with reincarnation, volkgeist, transhumanism, etc.

To understand what I'm talking about, listen to Ravi Zacharias' series on culture "If the Foundations Be Destroyed". There's a good summary here, but you'll want the bigger context. Everything else you need to know about culture and winning the culture war follows by implication.

Incidentally, the unifying element of fascism and socialism is secular utopianism. Idealogues of both teams hate Christianity with an undisguised fervor.

Utilitarianism was meant to replace morality, socialism was meant to replace charity, totalitarianism is meant to replace accountability, and the myth of progress is meant to replace eternity. It's all rather fascinating.

Widely Headgash wrote:Mr Rations,If you would consume your rations of education, you would not be this obtuse.

Why is it that every time a Global Warming conference is cancelled to absurdly horribly cold weather, we are reminded that "Weather Is Not Climate"That would be because it was unseasonably warm somewhere else at the same time, which is in tune with the prediction that atmospheric circulation patterns are being disrupted. Not long ago when the Midwest had near-polar cold, the north slope of Alaska had rain with temps in the 50's.

but every time there's a catastrophic weather event (including blizzards and freak snowfalls) it's due to Global Warmening?Not every time, but when you have a substantial fraction of a ton of snow dumped on every square yard of an extended area, the air carrying the moisture had to be warm to allow it to happen. Very cold air carries little moisture, and even large depths of snow in cold areas do not weigh much. This is why much of Antarctica qualifies as a desert, receiving less than 2 inches of precipitation per year.

Now, let's see the proof that the air in the middle altitudes (where the water is carried) above the Gulf is warmer than normal for August. Oh, right. You don't have any.It was carrying enough water to dump more than 2 feet of rain on substantial areas of Louisiana; res ipsa loquitur.

Remember when Hurricanes used to hit southern states with some regularity?Changing atmospheric circulation patterns have something to do with hurricane paths too.

bob k. mando wrote:take it up with the Lefties and the Greens.Believe me, I have. Most cannot handle the cognitive dissonance, and green blogs use the banhammer VERY liberally to preserve the purity of their echo chamber (and the revenues from their gas-industry donors).

Whether anybody here believes that AGW is a 'thing' or not, NOBODY HERE had a goddamn thing to do with preventing you from building a reactor every other block."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

If I could sit down with The Donald, I'd try to interest him in a fix for the energy problems of New York City and the USA in general. There are some very interesting things coming up that could change a lot of stuff for the better, and they would certainly help MAGA.

Dr. Mabuse wrote:would they figure if they hung around long enough being miserable, some soft-hearted white would starting handing out buns at the church door.Not if the people handing out bus tickets got there first.

SciVo wrote:the inevitability of global warming is necessary for the inevitability of "social progress" (r-selection), therefore it must be true.Chaotic weather makes things even harder for those who plan, which may favor r-selection. I would rather keep things relatively predictable, TYVM.

I don't see how anyone could consider a nuclear economy as utopian. France, Ontario and Sweden practically have them already, and it's only solved the very narrow set of problems it's capable of addressing; Oslo's rapefugees rape on.

Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions.Thou shalt defend the Church.Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

THAT is what I always though Conservatism WAS. I was very wrong, whatever that is, it's so far to the right even Neonazis look at it with suspicion. Kinda makes you proud.

Aeoli Pera wrote:Utilitarianism was meant to replace morality, socialism was meant to replace charity, totalitarianism is meant to replace accountability, and the myth of progress is meant to replace eternity. It's all rather fascinating.

I don't want to sound too crazy, but one gets the impression that the world is ruled by an evil, superintelligent, transdimensional psychic octopus. Or possibly a squid...I'll get back to you.

Widely Headgash wrote:Or you could be full of shit. Show us the temperature. Oh, right, you can't because it hasn't changed.Business Insider quotes NOAA to that effect:"We are in record territory," a letter from the National Weather Service in New Orleans read. The letter was prompted by the NWS launching a weather balloon, recording near levels of atmospheric moisture....That near record-breaking moisture build-up is caused by overall warmer surface temperatures, since warm weather makes it possible for the air to be filled with water vapor — hence the heavy, soaking storms, according to NOAA. And that opens the door for more floods down the road.The evidence is there, but you deny it as much as SJWs deny the proof of Black criminality.

Widely Headgash wrote:Or you could be full of shit. Show us the temperature. Oh, right, you can't because it hasn't changed.It has changed. Quote with link in next comment to try to fake out the filters.

Widely Headgash wrote:Surface temperatures are not the issue and you, of all people, know that.What part of "a weather balloon, recording near [record] levels of atmospheric moisture" didn't you understand?

I'm going off-line now and expect to be on only sporadically for the next 6 days, and will probably take some time to catch up afterward. This thread will be closed by the time I can return to it.

1) In what way is it better for weather, climate, whatever to be in all macro respects the same now and in the future as at some point in the past?2) What is that point in the past?3) If the weather is being changed mostly (> 95%) by forces other than human activity, then do you think humans should still interfere to keep it from changing overall in a macro sense?4) Why is Mars getting warmer if humans have nothing to do with its climate?

The mental gymnastics you apply to your answers will be inversely proportional to the extent I believe them.

1. People have a right to what they have earned and the government does not have a right to take it away and give it to other people.

2. The family is the most valuable social institution. Things like no-fault divorce and gay marriage are damaging to this institution.

3. The government has no part to play in the family other than, perhaps, recognizing marriages.

4. Anyone who steals, betrays, defrauds or takes a bribe is ineligible for public office.

5+. Most of the Bill of Rights (the actual Bill of Rights--not what modern courts have made out of it).

That's a lot of points for an ideology that doesn't exist, isn't it?

As to conservatives relying on rhetoric instead of dialectic, that's pretty rich coming in a post that is entirely a rhetorical attack:

1. Pretending that Russel Kirk gets to define conservatism just because you like what he said about it.

2. Referring to conservative failures of the last 60 years as if there were any chance that such a small minority who were so much of a threat to all the people with power could have been more successful. Conservatives were not even a majority in the Republican party. No conservative has been nominated by the Republican party since Ronald Reagan.

3. Your constant repetition of the phrase "conservatism failed to conserve anything". You know very well that conservatives never claimed to be conserving anything. This is a purely rhetorical play on words, a meaningless phrase that has the feel of a clever accusation.

156. Mr. Rational August 16, 2016 11:05 PMMost cannot handle the cognitive dissonance, and green blogs use the banhammer VERY liberally to preserve the purity of their echo chamber

yeah, i know.

we've been gigging these Watermelons ( Green on the outside, Red on the inside ) about the fact that we KNOW that they are lying about the environment because they will not permit nuke plants since the 1980s when they first started pushing AGW.

Mr. Rational wrote:SciVo wrote:the inevitability of global warming is necessary for the inevitability of "social progress" (r-selection), therefore it must be true.

Chaotic weather makes things even harder for those who plan, which may favor r-selection. I would rather keep things relatively predictable, TYVM.

Ah. No, I mean yes, but it makes things even more harder (please forgive the inelegant phrase) for those who don't plan. Aeoli Pera correctly perceived what I was getting at: an unconscious misapprehension by those who operate on pure association; that ice ages cause K-selected conservatism, and that's evil, and the arc of history bends toward justice, so the opposite must be happening.

(If you're right, then it's an unfortunate coincidence that you're being discredited by association with an agglomeration of dishonest, cultic, anti-white, transnational authoritarians, who have their own reasons for wanting it to be true.)

Aeoli Pera wrote:SciVo, the alt-right only cares about winning. Everything else is a means to that end. Please note I'm not moralizing, just describing.

I don't think that's true, or rather it can't be simply true. If it's true as a statement of principles, that could only be the case within the context of certain instincts as I described above. If we just wanted to win for the sake of winning, then the current establishment already showed how to do that.

Aeoli Pera wrote:I don't want to sound too crazy, but one gets the impression that the world is ruled by an evil, superintelligent, transdimensional psychic octopus. Or possibly a squid...I'll get back to you.

The general consensus is a vampire squid, if you don't make the map/terrain mistake.

Just as a side note, I'm contemplating how even an intelligent expert in social psychology (such as Jonathan Haidt), who knows damn well that Authority and Group Loyalty are separate moral spheres, could let his Rationalization Hamster conflate the two. My preliminary hypothesis is that itinerant peoples -- such as Gypsies, Jews, and immigrants -- are incapable of even perceiving the authoritarian/libertarian political axis in any meaningful way.

This requires elaboration. Ordinary authoritarianism is, of course, the infringement of liberty and exercise of control. As I try to imagine how the herp derp of "eeek! muh open borders!" could possibly be substituted for that in anyone's imagination, clearly that would be the case if you only feared pogroms, not serfdom.

A corollary would be that if an individual uses authoritarianism to refer to serfdom, not pogroms, then he must have put down cognitive roots; he must not have an itinerant mentality, and may even be a patriot.

What is the ideology of Progressivism? They apparently have one, while neither Conservatives nor Alt-righters do; so maybe the latter two can learn from the former.

I don't know what the ideology of Progressivism is. I've never thought to ask about it. Much like Justice Potter Stewart regarding hard-core pornography, I only knew it when I saw it.

In my effort to reach the minimum standard of Wikipedia knowledge I only got more confused. For example, trust-busting politicians and opponents to H1B visas have more in common than not. Yet the first is a Progressive, and the second is a racist.

GreyS wrote:Progressives have agendas. The Alt-Right has an agenda. Liberals' and conservatives' goals are to satisfy that feelgood-- which they have been conditioned to satisfy in particular ways.

I think GreyS has the sense of it. Progressives--as you would recognize them on the street--have an agenda that includes ethnic restaurants, fresh beats and endless theories about helping people darker than #D6AD85. Alt-righters--as you would recognize them on your Twitter(TM) timeline--have an agenda that includes white people, radical free speech and endless theories about people darker than #D6AD85.

Conservative by definition is unprincipled if and only if by 'principled' you mean adopting a French Revolution style ideology in place of religious faith, and worship of Caesar as the source of salvation rather than Christ.

What Kirk and the other early Conservatives said, and put across quite clearly, was their rejection of the frame of mind that sees human society as a machine to be made according to the Utopian blueprint of an intellectual.

The conservative sees society as an organism, which change either happens naturally and slowly from within, unnaturally from within, as with a disease, or violently from without, as a wound.

Those who view society as machine are social engineers. They regard people are parts, and any part which does not fit on the blueprint must be removed, reshaped, or destroyed.

A mechanic has no reason to wait or loiter: there is no growing season or gradualism necessary.

How anyone with a straight face can announce that the party seeking to conserve and promote the principles of the Constitution, our unique way of life, our Western civilization, and the Christian faith by definition have no principles should be more principled in his use and abuse of definitions.

An ideologue is one who defines his religion according to his politics, and dismisses as unchristian any man who disagrees with his theory of race relations.

An ideologue has contempt for his fellow man and uses propaganda rather than reason to persuade them, holding them to be swine who cannot be persuaded.

An ideologue is one whose ideology eats up his life, and everything becomes subservient to it. He becomes, in the terminology of our host, totally converged, and unfit as a friend, as a master, as an employer, as an ally, as a man.

For the ideologue, politics trumps everything. Any lie is permitted if it helps the cause. No principles are above or outside the ideology of the ideologue because the ideologue defines his principles by his ideology.

Conservatives object to ideologues.

The moment establishment conservatives objected to Donald Trump on ideological grounds (I am looking at you, George Will, you lying sack of worms), they betrayed the founding principle of conservatism, which is, that politics does not trump everything.

A principled conservative would have listened to Mr. Trump's speech this week on national defense and immigration policy, recognized that it is in keeping with all pre-1960 immigration policy, in keeping with the constitution, in keeping with common sense.

In other words, a principled conservative, if he lived up to the principle that politics is not everything, would have seen that Mr. Trump's non-conservative stances on other issues were less important than the conservative principle of a return to sanity and a return to national sovereignty. Above all, a return to sane border control policy, war policy, immigration policy.

A principled conservative would have disavowed the Never-Trump movement as the work of ideologues, whose concern for ideological purity trumps their willingness to do what is needed to conserve the nation from destruction.

Ideologues do not like conservatives, and conservatives do not like ideologues.

It is based on a fundamental difference in our mutually exclusive views of mankind:

We conservatives regard all men as equal in the eyes of the law, hence unequal in life, and all equally prone to sin and temptation.

We believe the common man has enough common sense to mind his own business, and vote his own self interest, provided the matters open to voting are strictly defined: two wolves and one sheep do not get to vote for whose for lunch.

The ideologue regards the elect as superior to the reprobate, ergo possessed of the right to radically re-engineer society against the common man's will for the common man's good.

John Wright wrote:Conservative by definition is unprincipled if and only if by 'principled' you mean adopting a French Revolution style ideology in place of religious faith, and worship of Caesar as the source of salvation rather than Christ.

What Kirk and the other early Conservatives said, and put across quite clearly, was their rejection of the frame of mind that sees human society as a machine to be made according to the Utopian blueprint of an intellectual.

The conservative sees society as an organism, which change either happens naturally and slowly from within, unnaturally from within, as with a disease, or violently from without, as a wound.

Those who view society as machine are social engineers. They regard people are parts, and any part which does not fit on the blueprint must be removed, reshaped, or destroyed.

A mechanic has no reason to wait or loiter: there is no growing season or gradualism necessary.

How anyone with a straight face can announce that the party seeking to conserve and promote the principles of the Constitution, our unique way of life, our Western civilization, and the Christian faith by definition have no principles should be more principled in his use and abuse of definitions.

An ideologue is one who defines his religion according to his politics, and dismisses as unchristian any man who disagrees with his theory of race relations.

An ideologue has contempt for his fellow man and uses propaganda rather than reason to persuade them, holding them to be swine who cannot be persuaded.

An ideologue is one whose ideology eats up his life, and everything becomes subservient to it. He becomes, in the terminology of our host, totally converged, and unfit as a friend, as a master, as an employer, as an ally, as a man.

This idea rejects the Leftist paradox of solipsism that asserts that truth is personal, hence truth is optional. Believing truth is optional is called political correctness.

The second idea is that it is virtuous to be virtuous.

This reject the Leftist paradox that says virtue is situational, relative, and subjective, such that all vices must be tolerated and celebrated. Believing it is virtuous to spread vice is called toleration.

The third idea is beauty is beautiful.

This rejects the Leftist paradox claiming the ugly and absurd is beautiful because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is to say, not beauty. This is called subjectivism or absurdism.

The fourth idea is the reason is rational. It rejects the Leftist conceit that all man, nations, and races have different standards of logic and reason across which no communication is possible, and therefore no grounds exist on which to make rational arguments across boundaries. This is called multiculturalism or polylogism.

The fifth idea is that monogamy and the sexual roles implied thereby, is romantic as well as useful, good, and virtuous. This rejects the Leftist obsession with sexual perversions being laudable, or more absurdly, being innate God-given civic rights rather than abominations. The Left uses several names for this: feminism is predominate.

The sixth idea is that it is self evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, which they secure by the erection of forms of government that take care to diminish, insofar as possible, the danger from government itself. This is called limited government, republicanism, or having an armed populous. It opposes the Leftist paradox of claiming that totalitarianism will bring liberty. This is called lunacy.

The final idea is a belief in the Supreme Being and the salvation of Christ. We believe God is God. The Left believes Caesar is God, History is God, Sex is God, Race is God, anything and everything is God, except for God. This is called secularism, or satanism, depending on how far Left the Leftist rot has spread.

I can show in a methodical and step by step fashion the interconnection between these seven ideas, and anyone can show that these are not matters of sentiment or mere emotion, but are the outcome of applying unemotional logic to the basic questions of what is real and what is not.

I don't mind if anyone badmouths conservatives for our various and multiple failures, follies, and weakness, but in the name of Christ and all that is holy, please do not fall into the SWJ tactic of merely making up strawmen, making up nonsense, making up lies about us, and turning on the Two Minute Hate.

Besides, if conservatives are as weakminded and silly as you say, all you need to do to convince us is have your ideas promoted in the public eye for a few years, and we will mindlessly follow them, as we now mindless support and defend the Constitution, or whatever else it is we are defending you worthy gentlemen find so objectionable.

@50"The Conservative Foundation is the Constitution, which Englishmen living in North America created to govern Englishmen living in North America."

How odd then, that they expressed themselves in such a way "All men are created equal" that they unambiguously said the exact opposite of what you say they said, and that all who read and followed those words for two hundred years and more did as well.

Ah. Now you are here, in your transcendental and translogical super-brilliance to explain that they really meant that NOT all men are created equal, only Englishmen, and that they do NOT have equal rights, only Englishmen, and that therefore they...

.... wait for it....

... broke all legal and sovereign bonds with England, the English form of government, and the English crown, in order to form a union based on universal principals that apply to all men.

For me, as a lawyer, having a layman who has never read the Federalist Papers or any Supreme Court opinions explain the meaning of the Constitution to me, and come to the conclusion that it means this new and secret thing that only people who drink his kool aid can see, is like me, as a Christian, having an atheist tell me the Bible is actually pro-gay, because he can read the special secret meaning I am too brainwashed to see.

I never claimed to be the first to realize, and it is so an answer. It's the real and true answer: oikophobia (but with better rhetoric). Just look at how they define themselves by what they're against instead of what they're for; anti-white, anti-male, anti-cis, anti-straight, anti-natal, anti-capitalist, anti-rational, anti-Christian. Anti-familiar, anti-home, anti-normal. Anti-Western. Anti-Dad.

I didn't really believe it until feminists turned into rape apologists for ragheads and niggers, while making up shit about white college boys. You can actually tell what color skin a rapist has by if the news doesn't say, and whether one of his names is Mohammed by if the news doesn't say. So now we know what they're really about.

I never claimed to be the first to realize, and it is so an answer. It's the real and true answer: oikophobia (but with better rhetoric). Just look at how they define themselves by what they're against instead of what they're for; anti-white, anti-male, anti-cis, anti-straight, anti-natal, anti-capitalist, anti-rational, anti-Christian. Anti-familiar, anti-home, anti-normal. Anti-Western. Anti-Dad.

I didn't really believe it until feminists turned into rape apologists for ragheads and niggers, while making up shit about white college boys. You can actually tell what color skin a rapist has by if the news doesn't say, and whether one of his names is Mohammed by if the news doesn't say. So now we know what they're really about.

"The sixth idea is that it is self evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, which they secure by the erection of forms of government that take care to diminish, insofar as possible, the danger from government itself."

I think the problem has always been one of a disconnect between those who considered themselves 'conservatives', and those who sold conservatism as a political motivation.

Frankly, the self-identified conservatives are the ones most betrayed by 'cuckservatives'. They subscribed to the classic virtues and called it conservatism, while their leaders subscribed to 'getting rich and powerful by playing both sides against the middle class' and called it by the same title.

Thus speaks one who holds only he and his are born in the image and likeness of God, but not Jews.

Equality means equal in the eyes of the law. It means no kings, no slaves. That is all it means, all it has ever meant.

The Left, in order to be kings and make your children slaves, used a stupid argument that would only convince idiots that equality meant all men being of the same height, intelligence, virtue, strength, income, hair color, whathaveyou.

And you bought it.

Christianity is hard, my dear damnable heretic. Sarcasm is easy.

Now, if you hold that you are not equal to me, all I can say is that if you are a slave, shut up before a free man canes you.

If you think you have the right to speak, then .... well... hypocrisy is not the form of government where horses rule, you know.

John Wright mistakes his principles for a viable political program. Essentially all he offers is virtue signaling, not a will to power. This is why conservatives conserve nothing, not even their sacred "muh constitution."

"Besides, if conservatives are as weakminded and silly as you say, all you need to do to convince us is have your ideas promoted in the public eye for a few years, and we will mindlessly follow them, as we now mindless support and defend the Constitution, or whatever else it is we are defending you worthy gentlemen find so objectionable."

This makes me laugh ...look how many conservatives now defend "gay marriage"?

Or use the Constitution to justify open borders and hoards of Muslim invaders?

Interesting, I've been following this campaign with the question "what the hell is wrong with Conservatives" foremost in mind and I'm leaning in the opposite direction from the OP.

I think Conservatives--Glenn Beck Conservatives especially--are very much ideologues. Their "Constitution is sacred scripture / Israel first" ideology is retarded, incoherent, and dull as drying paint to boot. But its very much an ideology and the GB Cons filter everything through that lens to their own detriment, arguably.