If you are a conservative

You believe that a wall for the US is immoral and racist, but a wall for Israel is not.

You believe deporting anchor babies is unconstitutional.

You believe that free trade consists of other nations accepting US copyrights, patents, and US investment, but not US goods.

You believe that the US should be the world’s policeman.

You believe in gay marriage.

You oppose abortion but support state funding for an abortion business that sells baby meat.

You propose that a tax payer funded organization should fund and guarantee mortgages where Hispanics put three percent down on mortgages whose mortgage payments substantially exceed their annual income. (This is your plan to make Hispanics into conservative voters – fund them getting houses in leafy green suburbs)

You believe that America is a propositional nation, defined by allegiance to a proposition, not a land or a people. But you are not terribly clear on what the proposition is. Maybe it is that all Gods chillun are entitled to Obamaphones?

For many decades, Conservatism incorporated has been purging those to its right. Anyone too right wing was deemed to not be a true conservative. And the purge went ever leftwards ever faster.

The alt right is those that have enemies to the left, and no enemies to the right. As conservatism purged ever more people, ever faster, it would inevitably happen that conservatism would become a minority in the Republican party, and the alt right, the faction that fails to purge rightists, the majority.

And so it has come to pass. The alt right outvotes conservatives.

This may well result in the Republican party becoming a genuine political party, rather than the outer party to the Democrats inner party, which is what it was under Bush.

But it will not result in democracy working, since the inner party is permanently in power regardless of election results, and can only be removed by measures resembling a military coup followed by gleichschaltung. Making democracy actually effect policy is likely to require measures strikingly similar to abolishing democracy.

51 Responses to “If you are a conservative”

  1. Learner says:

    I think the Internet is playing a great role in all this. Newspapers used to put together all kinds of people in their headlines. It’s not the same e.g. to write “20 million Americans are long-term unemployed” as writing “5 million Whites, 5 million Hispanics and 10 million Blacks are long-term unemployed”. This stat may not be correct, but you get it.

    In newspapers, non-Hispanic Whites & Whites & Blacks & whatever are all in the same bag. In social media, people have friends resembling them and they can share the pieces of news they really care about. Those pieces of news are radically different from the styled fiction newspapers were publishing. And where could I have read something like this anonymous blog 20 years ago?

    Alt right is the new (Internet) porn. That’s why civil-warmongering is going global (USA, Europe… even the Muslim world). Interesting times ahead.

    • James Forrestal says:

      Once you start realize that it’s not chance or carelessness, but systemic bias in what the legacy media reports, and how they choose to report it, and that an official narrative exists independent of the facts, and often in spite of them, you start to look harder, question, and… there’s no coming back. “Teen” or “teens” in the context of crime, with no picture = black. “New Jersey man” in the context of crime, with no picture = Mexican, Central American, or possibly Muslim immigrant, likely illegal alien. 20,000 yearly black-on-white rapes, nearly 0 white on black rapes? Not news, but still leaks out onto the internet. No problem, 2008 comes, and Eric Holder– just stop recording those stats by race. Blacks = 12.5% of the population, commit >50% of homicides? True, but very “racist” to mention it.

      Eventually, you start to question all kinds of things, including the whole paradigm of cultural “progress” itself. Perhaps you read a few contemporary sources from the “losing side” in some of the major social issues of the last 100 years or so (easily available on the interwebz), and think, “Hmm… Sounds pretty reasonable.” You start to think, “Damn, how do they maintain such a misleading narrative? Who’s doing it?” Then you’re really down the rabbit hole.

  2. viking says:

    I think the cathedral does a brilliant thing it allows democracy to be the cover while distributing the decisions of the elites to the minds of masses.It should be preserved if youre a reactionary and simply put to better use.These ideas of AI , kings ,camerals all this futuristic crap thats never going to happen while we slip into Johannesburg circa 89.Its so much easier to take over a government than start from scratch. DENRx claims modernism doesnt work because HBD then suggests trying things never before used on humans its crazy nerd faggotry men simply need to organize a mosaad and start thinking 4g warfare and whatever means might work The cathedral can be got by smart white men using their heads its run by niggers and chicks for christsake

    • James Forrestal says:

      “then suggests trying things never before used on humans its crazy nerd faggotry”

      Exactly. F**king “Year Zero.” The ancient Greeks had a name for it– “hubris” = overweening pride that offends the gods. This is one of the main errors of Communism– thinking that you can redesign society, culture, and government from the ground up, and ignore human nature and disregard social institutions that have gradually developed, partly by design, partly organically, over hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Sometimes s**t is there because it just works, only it’s been in place so long, or developed so gradually, that no one really knows why it’s there. Destructive testing is not always the best way to find out. Trying to change too may things at once, and you’re guaranteed to f**k something up. You don’t have to figure out a totally new way of filling holes when what you need now is to stop digging.

      Formal institutions are important, but identity comes first. Liberia has a constitution modeled closely on the US constitution– how’s that working out for them? One of the problems is that, prior to the Enlightenment, you had a culture that was stable, based on stable demographics, with stable social institutions, with technology that changed only slowly. Now we have constant change in all of these areas, based on the assumption that we all can somehow be remade into deracinated, interchangeable cogs in the global economy. It’s hard to rebuild social institutions once they’re lost, but it’s easier than reestablishing a relatively homogeneous, united nation. Diversity is our greatest weakness. Sometimes I can understand why the Japanese rejected technological advance, for hundreds of years, in favor of social stability.

      “organize a mosaad” Entryism is important. External groups that are even implicitly white are big targets. Look at the LE focus on militias, bikers, etc. Even the military. I doubt very much that the push for homos, women, trannies, etc. in the military is solely ideologically-driven. It’s also meant to weaken an institution that is intrinsically white, male, traditional, hierarchical, even “patriarchal.” They’re probably more afraid of a coup than of external enemies.

      “run by niggers and chicks” Well, partly. Not to many dindus running the Fed. Or Hollywood. Or the major media corporations. Or the top universities. Or ranked among the top political donors. Accurately diagnosing the problem is important.

      • viking says:

        when I say mossad I mean deep deep deep hierarchy entryists at higher levels welcomed then turned out. If a tiny country like isarael can do it white men can.
        Well im not really a anti jew type more a jew septic but id say Hollywood is not run by white men its run by fags and jews and owned by sony The white house definitely a nigger probably going to a chick next just saying the dispossession is well under way

  3. EH says:

    The real government is the civil service and the judiciary, which aren’t under anyone’s control.

    Some possible measures: repealing the Civil Service acts of 1979 and 1883, firing the low-IQ and feckless, firing and prosecuting CS employees who knew of government felonies and did not report them, hiring and promotion by ability on tests rather than seniority or credentialism (and encouraging this in the private sector, as well), eliminating administrative law “courts”, overturning bad judicial precedents ab initio by statute (e.g. 14th amendment ratification), eliminating the concept of delegation of congressional legislative authority, requiring consistency and knowability of laws (courts can only decide obvious matters, others get kicked back as a compiler error to Congress), streamlining legal procedure so all cases take less than a year, restriction of sovereign immunity to sovereigns, wholesale repeal of all changes to the law since 1912 and replacement with an omnibus package bill, reinstatement of freedom of association and right to contract without license…. that will do for a start.

  4. Glenfilthie says:

    This is a fight that has been brewing for a long, long time. When I am not pooping in the comments here I am trolling the real conservatives over at the NRO.

    About the only area I disagree with Jim’s list is the idea of America being a global cop.

    I absolutely agree that America should protect its foreign investments and interests – and if that means being a cop in a land of thugs…I am all for it! It goes without saying that cops get paid, too – and so should America. For example – America will be sending humanitarian aid to Venezuela soon. Instead of just digging latrines and handing out food, the trash gubbiment should be kicked to the curb, and American investment used to rebuild the economy. There is nothing immoral in profiting from a country that you are a partner in rebuilding.

    • jim says:

      Governments do not do imperialism very well. The British empire was built by pirates, in particular and especially the East India company.

      The Roman Republic fell because it could not manage empire.

      Imperialism is hard, and tends to go into reverse, with the core people being sacrificed for the empire, as with the Turkish empire and the current American empire.

      Caesar began that process, transforming Italy into a province, legally like the conquered provinces, beginning the erosion of the privilege of being Roman.

  5. Irving says:

    American goods are too expensive, if higher quality.

  6. Dave says:

    My guess is that President Trump will order certain people in the Executive Branch to be fired, the bureaucracy will refuse to fire them, and Trump will order his Treasury Secretary to withhold funds to that department until his orders are complied with.

    The bureaucracy will fight back with a general strike and protest marches that shut down DC. Paul Ryan and the other cucks will put intense pressure on Trump to back down, perhaps even passing bills over his veto, as if a government shutdown were a bad thing!

  7. Andy Texan says:

    To paraphrase, Geo W Bush, we might have to suspend the Republic to save the republic. I’m all in favor of President Trump using emergency diktats to overcome the rest of the government. If he tries anything serious, a bill of impeachment will be passed. He should ignore and dissolve the congress and the judiciary.

  8. NRK says:

    I believe most of those things, and I’m not a conservative. Your argument is invalid.

    • jim says:

      You are not very bright.

      A counter example to my claim would be someone who claimed to be a conservative, and was tolerated as a conservative by conservatives, who failed to believe in those things.

      • NRK says:

        Meh, I’m pretty sure that no one actually denies that Pat Buchanan is a conservative.
        Letting it depend on wether or not other conservatives tolerate him (which to my knowledge isn’t unheard of, either) is like letting Stalin decide wether or not Trotsky is a marxist.

        • jim says:

          Pat Buchanan is deemed to be an anti semite and a member of a hate group.

          And Stalin did get to decide who is a Marxist.

          • NRK says:

            Pat Buchanan is also deemed to be a conservative, at least I haven’t heard anyone say he wasn’t. Which was my point.

            So, according to your own reasoning, Trotsky was no marxist. Your determinaion to stick with your assumptions is somewhat admirable, if not epistemologically advisable, but: what was he, then?

            You seem all too willing to let the meaning of words be voted on, or decreed from on high, don’t you see the risk in that?

          • Koanic says:

            Buchanan is known as a paleocon. Not a conservative. Wikipedia says so.

            Thus bolstering Jim’s claim for terminological drift. The “paleo” prefix here indicating not prior geological eras, but a handful of decades.

            • jim says:

              “paleo conservative” – what conservatism used to be back in the horrible evil dark ages of 2000 or so when conservatism was racist, misogynist, sexist, antisemitic, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, and so on and so forth.

          • NRK says:

            “Buchanan is known as a paleocon. Not a conservative.”

            “Stalin is known as a marxist-leninist. Not a marxist.”

            “You have pancreatic cancer. Not cancer.”

            • jim says:

              Paleocons get purged.

              That is the point: That conservatism was purging everyone, until there just were not very many left.

        • jim says:

          What are Ted Cruz’s policies?

          It has often been remarked that the Trump could have been stopped if any of the other candidates had been willing to lie during the relatively brief duration of the primaries that he was going to build a wall, deport anchor babies, and restrain political correctness.

          • Zach says:

            Cruz is a conservative as we both understand it. His immigration policy was tougher than Trump’s too. I researched the shit out of them both. Trump can’t be figured out, because he is not consistent nor coherent.

            Earlier you assumed Cruz had something to do with the picture of Trump’s naked wife getting out into the media. I’m almost certain he had nothing to do with it.

            Trump just says whatever to whoever. One day it’s A, the next it’s B. One hour it’s A the next it’s B. He doesn’t give a shit. I do like Trump’s loyalty though. But one shouldn’t attack the innocent, and you shouldn’t stick up for people that do so.

            Conservatism is about as good as we can hope to get in this toilet of a culture we have now. A deeply flawed ideology, but it was within grasp. And we all collectively fucked that choice. Perhaps the faster the shit hits the wall, the faster real change will come to realization.

            Isn’t it perfectly obvious Trump is an opportunist, that is somewhat dim witted? I mean, compared to Hillary, Trump is the bomb dot com, but good god…

            It is after all just entertainment I suppose.

            • jim says:

              Cruz is a conservative as we both understand it. His immigration policy was tougher than Trump’s too.

              He is a last minute convert to building the wall, and the wall is not mentioned on his Wikipedia page.

              Since Israel built the wall, that has become the defining issue of immigration.

          • peppermint says:

            » Trump just says whatever to whoever.
            » I do like Trump’s loyalty though.

            wtf

            » But one shouldn’t attack the innocent,

            when has this happened

  9. Jim says:

    Jim, did you get purged as a conservative before or after revealing your penchant for under aged girls?

    • Minion says:

      Real conservatives love little girls. Little girls are pure virgins who are not corrupted by feminism and slut culture. They are also very cute and feminism, unlike modern Western adult wymyn.

      Modern “Conservatives” hate little girl love because they are basically yesterday’s liberals. It was feminists that made the age of consent 16-18 across the Western world. Adult wymyn (aka “roasties” – since their cunts look like roast beef) hate competition from little girls- who are sexually superior to them in every way.

      • Jack says:

        Personally, I agree with you that 14 year old pussies are delicious, but I suspect it’s not the ideal age for marriage. For instance, when the Jews raze your Mosque on the stupid mount and rebuild the Temple, and reinstate the Priesthood, well, what age do you think the Kohen Gadol’s (High Priest’s) wife must be? No older than 12.5 – now, this may still be 3.5 years older than what you have in mind, but I’m fine with that, though it’s very unlikely that I’ll ever get to be Kohen Gadol.

        *http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_59.html (see note 18)

        • PV van der Byl says:

          Thanks for the interesting link but I think you have misread what is there. A High Priest’s wife must be at least 12 ½, not at most 12 ½.

          MISHNAH. A HIGH PRIEST ……………SHALL NOT MARRY ONE WHO IS ADOLESCENT.18

          And, according to Note 18, an adolescent is:

          [H] one over twelve years and six months of age. Cf. supra p. 393, n. 5.

          • PV van der Byl says:

            Sorry, I meant to paste the following from that page:

            R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON PERMIT HIM TO MARRY ONE WHO IS ADOLESCENT,18

          • jim says:

            The spirit of the text is that a priest should marry a virgin, and that the various commenters clearly doubt that a girl is likely to remain virgin for very long after menarche.

            The old testament and the earlier talmud reference physical development, rather than calendar age. Calendar age is the result of ever escalating Jewish legalism. In the old testament a girl is marriageable when she has boobs and hair on her pussy, which usually happens before menarche, though boobs only get nice a year or two after menarche. By which standard (nice boobs) girls should marry at thirteen or fourteen. On the other hand, the failure to reference menarche in connection with marriageability may well indicate that in old testament times, girls were marriageable shortly before menarche, consistent with older Christian view that ten year olds were OK – that the important thing was to be well past what we would now call the Westermarck effect.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I didn’t know Jim was a Bible scholar. Did he attend a seminary? Does he know Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew? What qualifications make him a Bible scholar?

  10. Minion says:

    Lets not forget that conservatives, as of today, will now support fag rights simply because Muslims hate fags and actually had the courage to stop fags dead in their tracks (extra points since it was “Latino night” at the Orlando club).

    Maybe if we learned from Muslims, we would not have gotten cucked by the Supreme Court last year.

    • jim says:

      Immigrants doing jobs that Americans will not do. 🙂

    • Jack says:

      That Omar “Striking Fear Into Every Queer” Mateen did nothing wrong doesn’t justify Islamic presence in Western countries. None of these “fucking white male” conservatives who give you nightmares and adrenaline-rushes would object to you guys throwing the poofs off of the roofs if you do it in your own damn countries. Iran’s been hanging the buttlovers for some time now and the only people calling to bomb you because AIDS is Holy are (((Zionist shills))) — not that bombing you would be any moral atrocity, sandnigger. Actual paleocon conservatives don’t give a rat’s arse about how you conduct your affairs – just stay away from White countries.

      Tl;dr Kebab, meet Shishkebab.

  11. Ron says:

    “In actual substance, Solomon became King by murdering his brother Adonijah, arguably the legitimate heir, in a fight over Abishag, the most beautiful woman in Israel, even though it was illegal and immoral for either of them to possess her, and even though there is no mention in the bible that she intentionally did anything to tempt either of them, and by shedding the innocent blood of Joab in the tabernacle, thereby desecrating the tabernacle.”

    Jim, your take on it is problematic. First of all, the Kingship is not a prize or an inheritance. At that time, please remember that we had no tradition dynastic rule. The kingship was actually a new thing among us, and not something all of us were fond of. So there was no “right” to the throne in the hardcore sense you perceive it as.

    Secondly, how beautiful Avishag was or was not, was totally irrelevent. Look at the passages again, it’s clear that Solomon wasn’t remotely concerned about her, nor did he marry her at a later date. The issue with Avishag was that she the concubine of king Dawidh. By convincing Solomon to allow him to marry the royal concubine, Solomon would have been conferring status on Adonijah that he did not have. Adonijah had already made moves towards revolution, and had been stopped. This was clearly the beginning of another rebellion.

    Had I lived in that time, even if I despised the monarchy I would have backed Solomon, because the people could not tolerate another damn revolution.

    Thirdly, for all your griping I see you are a romantic and a poet at heart.

    • jim says:

      Secondly, how beautiful Avishag was or was not, was totally irrelevent. Look at the passages again, it’s clear that Solomon wasn’t remotely concerned about her, nor did he marry her at a later date

      That is not how I read it. Seems to me that both Adonijah and Solomon were each saying that he would rather give up the kingdom than Abishag.

      Which makes a lot more sense than Abishag granting Adonijah kingly status. She was just a hot concubine. How could she make Adonijah more kingly?

      Seems to me that men are more willing to kill for women than for wealth and power. Certainly I am. After all, the whole point of wealth and power is women.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Given that the relevant verses have Solomon say something to the effect of “Then I might as well hand over the kingdom to my brother!”, the theory that concubines/wives were status symbols for their men would be consistent with the most straightforward reading of the text. Just like Jim chides his opponents for assuming that NRx assumes a mainstream leftist perspective, only arguing for the evil side, so it seems that he assumes that people’s authentic perspectives are NRx though they may advocate for the evil Leftist side to achieve immoral, unethical gains with plausible deniability. For that matter, he accuses the Left of (often actually existing) sanctimonious hypocrisy while openly condemning sluts from the standpoint of a (supposedly) sexually adventurous man. So the paradox here is that while Jim’s criticisms of the Left are often extremely accurate, that very accuracy is due to the Freudian dysfunction whereby a man projects his Shadow, the dark parts of the Self that one refuses to acknowledge, onto people he dislikes!

        • jim says:

          Given that the relevant verses have Solomon say something to the effect of “Then I might as well hand over the kingdom to my brother!”,

          Not what Solomon says.

          That is your interpretation of what Solomon says. My interpretation is “That is no small favor, that is a very large favor. I would rather hand the Kingdom over than hand over Abishag”

          • Hidden Author says:

            1 Kings 2:22 22 King Solomon answered his mother, “Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him—after all, he is my older brother—yes, for him and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!”

          • Hidden Author says:

            Cite your bible.

      • Koanic says:

        Makes sense Jim.

  12. Zach says:

    Aren’t you guys kinda mixing up Republicans and Conservatives?

  13. […] American experiment, conservative insight, and formalism. Confused conservatives. Church and State. Border security (an SF story). Ideological mechanics. Basics of […]

  14. […] Down Under, Jim completes this sentence: If you are a conservative, _________________. He thinks the Alt-Right, because it does not purge to its right, may become a true political party […]

  15. Zach says:

    “He is a last minute convert to building the wall, and the wall is not mentioned on his Wikipedia page.”

    This is true. But Trump is weaker on immigration overall. There is a lot more problems with immigration than just there being a wall or not. Cruz had all the dirty details covered.

  16. Zach says:

    “when has this happened” – Pep

    Look, I’m the last guy in the world to defend people, to say nothing of women, to make myself look better; but going after Cruz’s wife on twitter was attacking the innocent. It doesn’t offend me at all, not even close, but Jim was defending it, by suggesting Trump was going after those who went after him. Cruz and his wife, did not facilitate that naked picture onto eyeballs. Jim didn’t look into it, I’m quite sure. We only have so much time in the day I suppose.

    I like Trump. I could do business with Trump possibly. But he’s largely a leftist, who won through sheer propaganda.

    • peppermint says:

      Heidi Cruz is Ted’s partner in crime, she got a Goldman Sachs VP appointment after he got in the senate, and was involved with the CFR. Though unconfirmed, she looks more than a little Jewish. She is not innocent.

      Melania Trump, by contrast, has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and little to do with the Trump Organization. She is innocent, and Cruz’ pet reporter did make news of her picture at a time calculated to damage Trump.

      • Zach says:

        Logic:

        Nobody is innocent. Therefore Cruz’s wife is not innocent.

        I can’t argue with that.

        The attack, by Trump, in context, was unwarranted. Not a big deal, but Jim was wrong assuming that Cruz did X so Trump did Y. That’s all.

        A guy once said (a celebrity) that Trump is the only guy with his own show he’s ever known that did not control what people said on camera during shooting. They were not briefed on what not to say. I don’t know if you know, I do, this is almost always the case that people are too heavily briefed beforehand.

        I think the real person that is Trump is relatively clean, with not a lot of rot. The public figure, and Trump’s actions in politics, is unclean, and dirty. Perhaps one must fight fire with fire.

        He is a decent man that is too used to getting things done instead of getting things done right.

Leave a Reply