“I’ve argued since the beginning that the right, the conservatives should distance themselves from the Nazis. I’m glad to see that the Nazis feel the same way about us.” — guywhite
What’s your point? These people are not conservatives.
How so?
Conservatism, properly understood, means the conservation of the national identity throughout the process of change by a steady concern for the whole of the nation’s life. It is therefore inherently tradionalist, nationalistic, and racialist. These so-called “conservatives”, by embracing Negro culture, are undermining America’s national identity. They are therefore not conservative.
Yosemite, no U.S. or British “conservative” of today fits your definition of conservative. In fact, they’re all race-replacement advocates. That being the case, isn’t it time you stopped calling yourself a “conservative”? I stopped long ago. Used to call myself a tradcon (traditional conservative). No more. I’ve connected a few dots since then. Took me years, but I finally did it.
There’s no going back. Ever.
In that “Con” video you glimpse these guys cavorting with Karl Rove. Karl Rove??? The biggest race-replacement advocate of the past ten thousand years??? Yeah, Karl Rove. So much for “conservatives.”
Get with the program.
“Yosemite, no U.S. or British ‘conservative’ of today fits your definition of conservative.”
My answer: then there are no conservatives in the U.S. or Britain. Actually, there are many conservatives in the antique sense still remaining. They just aren’t mainstream.
“isn’t it time you stopped calling yourself a ‘conservative'”
Not at all. There is no other word to describe my political beliefs. I am an advocate of the “Old Regime” of Europe. I am a conservative in the esoteric and original meaning. We need to reclaim European conservatism, not allow American right-liberals to define the word for us.
One other thing: “Tradcon”, in addition to being a silly abbreviation (why not just say “traditional conservative”?), is a pleonasm. It is impossible to be conservative without also being traditionalist. Conservatism is simply the conservation of our national identity througg process of change. You can’t have conservatism without having racialism, traditionalism, and nationalism.
Ever since I started trying to understand political-philosophical affectation, I’ve been hearing about “true conservatives,” “conservatism properly understood,” and so on.
That sort of insistence comes from people who are on the losing side of an ecclesiastical battle, one whose margin of victory is so great it barely deserves the name. Meanwhile I’ve reached a point where I frankly could not give a damn about the relative purity of someone’s conservative principles. Would a series of discussion groups aimed at restoring conceptual order really have any impact in improving our crumbled civilizational setting? I don’t see it.
Will the last conservative please shut the light off on the way out? You can repeat “I’m not a Nazi” to yourself if it makes you feel better.
“That sort of insistence comes from people who are on the losing side of an ecclesiastical battle, one whose margin of victory is so great it barely deserves the name.”
Argumentum ad baculum. Whether or not conservatives are on the losing side is irrelevant. Conservatism, defined as the desire to conserve our national identity throughout the process of change, is simply the correct definition of the term. It has no other legitimate meaning. There is no other word which can with propriety be used as a substitute.
“Will the last conservative please shut the light off on the way out?”
Again, American right-liberals are not conservatives. They are just that: liberals. There is no such thing as conservatism in the United States. Conservatives stand for monarchism, tradition, racialism, and patriotism. That is what conservatism has traditionally meant in Europe. That is its only legitimate meaning.
Do not besmirch the name of conservatism by conflating American right-liberals with conservatives. American “conservatives” would be considered extremist radicals in 18th Century Europe. There is nothing conservative about American conservatism.
Playing these word games is irrelevant. Conservatism is what ever the vast majority of conservatives say it is. Right now, conservatism is defined by moronic bible thumping hicks. Sure, its true that there were zero people like that in the movement when modern conservativism coalesced in the 50’s, but try explaining that to the average man on street. There are better things to do than to argue about words.
In virtually all political discussions the terminology in use has a popular as well as a scientific or technical meaning. This is just as much true of of the word “conservatism” as it is of communism, liberalism, socialism, racism, and egalitarianism. All of these words have two meanings: the popular and the scientific. In religious discussions the two meanings are called EXOTERIC and ESOTERIC.
The term “Conservatism”, like racialism, belongs to this class of terms which have different meanings according to the qualifications of those who use them. It has a popular, i.e exoteric, meaning, and an esoteric or scientific meaning.
It is because the popular connotation of Conservatism, owing to the influence of American right-liberalism, has become the common connotation, that modern Conservatism (i.e. right-liberalism) has proven unsatisfactory — it is not due to any shortcomings of the Conservative worldview in its esoteric, scientific, and traditional sense.
What is conservatism? It is, as I said, the desire to CONSERVE the national identity throughout the process of social-evolutionary change.
Aside from the odd misfit and social deviant, humans are inherently conservative. Why? Because humans have learned through millions of years of evolution and social experience that a stable environment is preferable, for it ensures present and future security, trans-generational continuity, and it allows for freedom of action as well as an easy command of material resources and circumstances. It is the revolutionist, the innovator, the misfit, and the lunatic that disturb peace of mind by bringing in unaccustomed life patterns. Conservatives oppose needless or deleterious innovations, whether sociological or mechanical, and above all they seek the conservation of the national identity. Almost everyone here is a conservative in its scientific sense.
That rap is lame. The failure of taste shows that these people who call themselves conservative have lost their way.
I for one think that race-radicals should not throw rocks at semi-sympathetic people who call themselves conservative. Eventually they might learn. The fraudulent pseudo-conservatives though, yes, by all means throw rocks at them, if for no other reason than because they do violence to the meaning of a word.
Another stupid comment from Guy Jewish. The conservatives were never allied with neo-nazis so there’s really nothing to distance themselves from. Besides, the contemporary definition of a nazi is a white person who opposes affirmative action, multiculturalism, and desires deportation of illegals, strong border enforcement, and a 5-10 year moratorium on all immigration. And yes, an awareness of anti-white activism on the part of Jewish organizations. Pretty radical stuff that might drive Sally soccer mom and Joe six pack into the arms of Obama and his ilk.
There isn’t much of a conservative movement to speak of anymore. Just a patchwork of people who, when their not apologizing to the white man’s biological enemies, only pay lip service to conservative principles.
the contemporary definition of a nazi is a white person who opposes affirmative action, multiculturalism, and desires deportation of illegals, strong border enforcement, and a 5-10 year moratorium on all immigration. And yes, an awareness of anti-white activism on the part of Jewish organizations. ( — Mr. Dithers)
A “nazi” today is anyone who holds a single one of those views. To be a “nazi” today it’s not necessary to hold all of them. Moreover, if you’re a white person who opposes the genocide of all white people on the planet you’re a “nazi.” In fact, if you’re white person who thinks white people exist, you’re a “nazi.” And so on. This all comes from the heavy Jewish influence today.
As for “conservatives,” all of them today are staunch race-replacement advocates. No one at Taki’s or at American Conservative Magazine explicitly opposes race-replacement. Among tradcons Lawrence Auster explicitly opposes it; James Kalb doesn’t appear to. Among paleocons, Pat Buchanan appears to oppose it but he’s not forthright about it. As I alluded to elsewhere, “Mr. Conservative” of GOP politics, Karl Rove, is the biggest, most dedicated, most intransigent promoter of the race-replacement of white people in history. No one in world history has desired the extinguishing of white people more passionately than “Mister Conservative” himself, Karl Rove.
The same is true of the U.K.’s conservatives, the Tories: they all want race-replacement. When you hear the man expected to be Britain’s next prime minister, Tory David Cameron, pronounce on matters racial you’d think you were hearing Noël Ignatiev, Alon Ziv, Saul Alinsky, and Abe Foxman all rolled into one. You’d think you’d died and gone to Jew heaven, in other words. That’s how bad the Tory Party is on race and race-replacement. They’re worse than non-existent — they’re right in the thick of promotion of the other side’s race-replacement agenda. (This is because they’re heavily funded by and organized by the Jews over there.)
Fred,
I couldn’t agree more. Even if I object to the unprovoked murders of whites by non-whites I’m a nazi because I shouldn’t care about fellow whites. Patsy Buchanan can be forceful at times then periodically has senior moment and declares the melting pot must be made to work again. Huh?
The melting pot broke long ago and the disparate racial elements of today simply won’t fit into the pot. Separation and ethostatism is the only solution that will forestall the submergence of European genes into a sea of brown.
Non-whites embrace the race radicals and race baiters in their ranks. Unless whites start changing their attitudes about race our future looks very bleak.
Fox News has nothing better to do with its time than showing two nerds playing “The Young Cons?” LOL!
I am sure their music really attracts the ladies! But, I digress.
Anyways, Fred Scrooby is correct. Our typical Republicans support race-replacement as much as the Democrats do. The Dungeon and Dragons types in the above video, certainly support the Hispanization of America.
William Hung has competition…
What’s your point? These people are not conservatives.
How so?
Conservatism, properly understood, means the conservation of the national identity throughout the process of change by a steady concern for the whole of the nation’s life. It is therefore inherently tradionalist, nationalistic, and racialist. These so-called “conservatives”, by embracing Negro culture, are undermining America’s national identity. They are therefore not conservative.
Yosemite, no U.S. or British “conservative” of today fits your definition of conservative. In fact, they’re all race-replacement advocates. That being the case, isn’t it time you stopped calling yourself a “conservative”? I stopped long ago. Used to call myself a tradcon (traditional conservative). No more. I’ve connected a few dots since then. Took me years, but I finally did it.
There’s no going back. Ever.
In that “Con” video you glimpse these guys cavorting with Karl Rove. Karl Rove??? The biggest race-replacement advocate of the past ten thousand years??? Yeah, Karl Rove. So much for “conservatives.”
Get with the program.
“Yosemite, no U.S. or British ‘conservative’ of today fits your definition of conservative.”
My answer: then there are no conservatives in the U.S. or Britain. Actually, there are many conservatives in the antique sense still remaining. They just aren’t mainstream.
“isn’t it time you stopped calling yourself a ‘conservative'”
Not at all. There is no other word to describe my political beliefs. I am an advocate of the “Old Regime” of Europe. I am a conservative in the esoteric and original meaning. We need to reclaim European conservatism, not allow American right-liberals to define the word for us.
One other thing: “Tradcon”, in addition to being a silly abbreviation (why not just say “traditional conservative”?), is a pleonasm. It is impossible to be conservative without also being traditionalist. Conservatism is simply the conservation of our national identity througg process of change. You can’t have conservatism without having racialism, traditionalism, and nationalism.
Ever since I started trying to understand political-philosophical affectation, I’ve been hearing about “true conservatives,” “conservatism properly understood,” and so on.
That sort of insistence comes from people who are on the losing side of an ecclesiastical battle, one whose margin of victory is so great it barely deserves the name. Meanwhile I’ve reached a point where I frankly could not give a damn about the relative purity of someone’s conservative principles. Would a series of discussion groups aimed at restoring conceptual order really have any impact in improving our crumbled civilizational setting? I don’t see it.
Will the last conservative please shut the light off on the way out? You can repeat “I’m not a Nazi” to yourself if it makes you feel better.
“That sort of insistence comes from people who are on the losing side of an ecclesiastical battle, one whose margin of victory is so great it barely deserves the name.”
Argumentum ad baculum. Whether or not conservatives are on the losing side is irrelevant. Conservatism, defined as the desire to conserve our national identity throughout the process of change, is simply the correct definition of the term. It has no other legitimate meaning. There is no other word which can with propriety be used as a substitute.
“Will the last conservative please shut the light off on the way out?”
Again, American right-liberals are not conservatives. They are just that: liberals. There is no such thing as conservatism in the United States. Conservatives stand for monarchism, tradition, racialism, and patriotism. That is what conservatism has traditionally meant in Europe. That is its only legitimate meaning.
Do not besmirch the name of conservatism by conflating American right-liberals with conservatives. American “conservatives” would be considered extremist radicals in 18th Century Europe. There is nothing conservative about American conservatism.
Playing these word games is irrelevant. Conservatism is what ever the vast majority of conservatives say it is. Right now, conservatism is defined by moronic bible thumping hicks. Sure, its true that there were zero people like that in the movement when modern conservativism coalesced in the 50’s, but try explaining that to the average man on street. There are better things to do than to argue about words.
In virtually all political discussions the terminology in use has a popular as well as a scientific or technical meaning. This is just as much true of of the word “conservatism” as it is of communism, liberalism, socialism, racism, and egalitarianism. All of these words have two meanings: the popular and the scientific. In religious discussions the two meanings are called EXOTERIC and ESOTERIC.
The term “Conservatism”, like racialism, belongs to this class of terms which have different meanings according to the qualifications of those who use them. It has a popular, i.e exoteric, meaning, and an esoteric or scientific meaning.
It is because the popular connotation of Conservatism, owing to the influence of American right-liberalism, has become the common connotation, that modern Conservatism (i.e. right-liberalism) has proven unsatisfactory — it is not due to any shortcomings of the Conservative worldview in its esoteric, scientific, and traditional sense.
What is conservatism? It is, as I said, the desire to CONSERVE the national identity throughout the process of social-evolutionary change.
Aside from the odd misfit and social deviant, humans are inherently conservative. Why? Because humans have learned through millions of years of evolution and social experience that a stable environment is preferable, for it ensures present and future security, trans-generational continuity, and it allows for freedom of action as well as an easy command of material resources and circumstances. It is the revolutionist, the innovator, the misfit, and the lunatic that disturb peace of mind by bringing in unaccustomed life patterns. Conservatives oppose needless or deleterious innovations, whether sociological or mechanical, and above all they seek the conservation of the national identity. Almost everyone here is a conservative in its scientific sense.
That rap is lame. The failure of taste shows that these people who call themselves conservative have lost their way.
I for one think that race-radicals should not throw rocks at semi-sympathetic people who call themselves conservative. Eventually they might learn. The fraudulent pseudo-conservatives though, yes, by all means throw rocks at them, if for no other reason than because they do violence to the meaning of a word.
Another stupid comment from Guy Jewish. The conservatives were never allied with neo-nazis so there’s really nothing to distance themselves from. Besides, the contemporary definition of a nazi is a white person who opposes affirmative action, multiculturalism, and desires deportation of illegals, strong border enforcement, and a 5-10 year moratorium on all immigration. And yes, an awareness of anti-white activism on the part of Jewish organizations. Pretty radical stuff that might drive Sally soccer mom and Joe six pack into the arms of Obama and his ilk.
There isn’t much of a conservative movement to speak of anymore. Just a patchwork of people who, when their not apologizing to the white man’s biological enemies, only pay lip service to conservative principles.
A “nazi” today is anyone who holds a single one of those views. To be a “nazi” today it’s not necessary to hold all of them. Moreover, if you’re a white person who opposes the genocide of all white people on the planet you’re a “nazi.” In fact, if you’re white person who thinks white people exist, you’re a “nazi.” And so on. This all comes from the heavy Jewish influence today.
As for “conservatives,” all of them today are staunch race-replacement advocates. No one at Taki’s or at American Conservative Magazine explicitly opposes race-replacement. Among tradcons Lawrence Auster explicitly opposes it; James Kalb doesn’t appear to. Among paleocons, Pat Buchanan appears to oppose it but he’s not forthright about it. As I alluded to elsewhere, “Mr. Conservative” of GOP politics, Karl Rove, is the biggest, most dedicated, most intransigent promoter of the race-replacement of white people in history. No one in world history has desired the extinguishing of white people more passionately than “Mister Conservative” himself, Karl Rove.
The same is true of the U.K.’s conservatives, the Tories: they all want race-replacement. When you hear the man expected to be Britain’s next prime minister, Tory David Cameron, pronounce on matters racial you’d think you were hearing Noël Ignatiev, Alon Ziv, Saul Alinsky, and Abe Foxman all rolled into one. You’d think you’d died and gone to Jew heaven, in other words. That’s how bad the Tory Party is on race and race-replacement. They’re worse than non-existent — they’re right in the thick of promotion of the other side’s race-replacement agenda. (This is because they’re heavily funded by and organized by the Jews over there.)
Fred,
I couldn’t agree more. Even if I object to the unprovoked murders of whites by non-whites I’m a nazi because I shouldn’t care about fellow whites. Patsy Buchanan can be forceful at times then periodically has senior moment and declares the melting pot must be made to work again. Huh?
The melting pot broke long ago and the disparate racial elements of today simply won’t fit into the pot. Separation and ethostatism is the only solution that will forestall the submergence of European genes into a sea of brown.
Non-whites embrace the race radicals and race baiters in their ranks. Unless whites start changing their attitudes about race our future looks very bleak.
Fox News has nothing better to do with its time than showing two nerds playing “The Young Cons?” LOL!
I am sure their music really attracts the ladies! But, I digress.
Anyways, Fred Scrooby is correct. Our typical Republicans support race-replacement as much as the Democrats do. The Dungeon and Dragons types in the above video, certainly support the Hispanization of America.
They don’t deserve any positive attention.
My audio-visual response to the Young Cons video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOV22TN5_4E