True Conservatism: Selections from "The Conservative Mind," with commentary

[Alex Linder]

I see racialism as right reasoning based on true observation, learning and experience; a set of accurate beliefs about the world that forms a subset of the reality encompassed with the phrase "reality exists," which is my definition of conservatism; the implied prescription being, "Fail to pay attention to it at the cost of self and society." The evidence bears out the fact that race is a part of reality which may not be safely ignored. Yet currently we find ourselves in a position in which taking action based on race-reality is almost always unpopular, and many times just plain illegal.

It is the goal of this thread to connect what we'll call true conservatism 2004 to strands of thought running from Europe through the Founders of America and the carriers-out of the American Revolution, up through the 20th century, when they were severed by liberal jews, who infiltrated conservatism and remade it along race-free egalitarian lines, so that today, as the "greatest" conservative president of the 20th century is lowered into the ground, not a single commentator bothers notice, if even aware, that he was just another egalitarian.

On this thread, then, we'll splice threads, if that metaphor works. Tape them, retie them, in any case, reconnect them. I highly recommend everybody on this forum get a copy of The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. It was published by a German-American's firm, and is THE book to read to understand conservatism in America. You can read it over and over, like Mencken, and continue to draw from it. In it you will find a wonderful synthesis of the best Aryan minds our continent has produced, dealing with the deepest questions in the most profound way. Coming to understand and appreciate what these different men saw and thought forms a genuine education you will not get in college. When they say, "never let school interfere with your education," they usually mean street smarts, but schools are so jewed-down it applies equally well to intellectual education. My hope is that at VNN & F we can correct that. And so, in coming days, I'll be posting some of the more interesting bits I find in this book, and I hope they will draw some intelligent commentary from some of the growing number of good people we have on this forum.

It remains conceivable even now that much worth conserving in our culture may be protected and renewed -- granted some conservative will and talent among the rising generation. No universal fall into the antagonist world is decreed ineluctably by a deified History. Burke, [Edmund, considered the founder of modern conservatism] in 1795, denied with vehemence that great states inescapably are subject to cycles of growth and decay:

"At the very moment when some of them seemed plunged in unfathomable abysses of disgrace and disaster, they have suddenly emerged. They have begun a new course, and opened a new reckoning; and even in the depths of their calamity, and on the very ruins of their country, have laid the foundations of a towering and durable greatness. All this has happened without any apparent previous change in the general circumstances which had brought on their distress. The death of a man at a critical juncture, his disgust, his retreat, his disgrace, have brought innumerable calalmities on a whole nation. A common soldier, a child, a girl at the door of an inn, have changed the face of fortune, and almost of Nature."

In those last two sentences, Burke refers to the reverses of Pericles, of Coriolanus, of the elder Pitt, of the Constable of Bourbon. His common soldier is Arnold of Winkelried, who flung himself upon the Austrian spears at Sempach; his child is Hannibal, taking at the age of twelve his oath to make undying war upon Rome; his girl at the door of an inn is Joan of Arc. Chance, providence, or more individual strong wills, Burke declares, abruptly may alter the whole apparent direction of a nation or a civilization.

Men and women with a disposition to preserve and an ability to reform need to bear often in mind this argument of Burke: it may hearten them on dark days. To remind such men and women of their inheritance of thought and feeling, The Conservative Mind was written.

Thatz just about right with the exception that he means nature, not Providence. Providence has no effect on what happens in this world, and never has, and never will have. The only thing apart from nature that has any effect on the world is human will. The disposition to understand and appreciate combined with the will to make happen that which will can alter for the better -- always testing against reality to avoid the standing peril of utopianism, whether in communism, colorblindness or any other false "ideal" -- is about the best we can do. Radical courage, radical daring; bourgeois respect, bourgeois morals. Conservative in form; radical in content.

WE reading this are a GROUP. WE demand an end to the mental and physical enslavement of our people by the race that lies that race does not exist. In order to preserve the people and practices worth preserving, we Aryans must band and destroy our oppressors, which true observation determines to be the jews. A burning house is not preserved by negotiating with the flames, nor pretending they do not exist, nor by denying the existence of arsonists. It is preseved by dousing the flames until they're utterly extinguished, and hanging the arsonists by the neck until dead. Conservatism is conditional; when the colony is under racial attack, whether by jew or Indian, the conservative policy is utterly to destroy the attackers.

[Mithras]

The problem with racialism is that there is no spiritual component. I am convinced that the world needs a complete shift to the traditional world. But in conservatism is a hope that catholicism will be the unifying force, and this is very wrong. Catholicism seeks day by day to reconcile with the modern world and the deeper meaning its symbols and rituals have become unknown by those who use them. There is no unity in christianity; it has been on one long denerative road to compromise this moral or that ritual.

The other failing of conservatism is its falsehood in which it sees the world as a set of classes based on money and not personal worth. That is as wrong as having a peasant government. It just is a falsehood that should never exist in the world, because it is completely unnatural. Conservatism is a perversion of action.

[Alex Linder]

The problem with racialism is that there is no spiritual component. I am convinced that the world needs a complete shift to the traditional world. But in conservatism is a hope that catholicism will be the unifying force, and this is very wrong. Catholicism seeks day by day to reconcile with the modern world and the deeper meaning its symbols and rituals have become unknown by those who use them. There is no unity in christianity; it has been on one long denerative road to compromise this moral or that ritual.

The other failing of conservatism is its falsehood in which it sees the world as a set of classes based on money and not personal worth. That is as wrong as having a peasant government. It just is a falsehood that should never exist in the world, because it is completely unnatural. Conservatism is a perversion of action.

Conservatism has come to be identified with property protection, but it did not always mean that. It used to mean very much the unified, organic community in the sense that the German nationalists exhibited it, and which Germany itself very much smacked of, spiritually, when I was over there in the eighties. I don't know if there has to be a spiritual element, but there has to be a values shift from the proposition that a man's worth is determined by how much money he has. This is a debased-Protestant/Jewish view, and it is the unconscious assumption of most Americans.

You are correct about Catholicism. The best seem to think you're a sexual degenerate unless you have 15 kids, and their assumption seems to be that as long as it goes to mass, quality questions about what exactly "it" is are invidious. Better church rampant filled with society-destroying Mexicans than civilized Catholics as a demographic minority in a Protestant land.

I feel it's enough to be against what jews have done to America with niggers, and that putting out a fire hardly requires a spiritual shift, just an intellectual grasp of what's happening. Not hard, since whites always move away from blackening communities.

[Alex Linder]

From The Conservative Mind, p. 99:

Adams used the word "liberty" less frequently than did most public men of his age, for at the back of his mind was the conviction that human weakness confounds liberty and license. As nineteenth-century French conservatives (following the lead of Joubert) spoke with emphasis of "justice" as the aim of society, rather than liberty, so Adams preferred the concept of virtue to the concept of freedom. But he did not think the first excluded the second; on the contrary, enduring liberty is the child of virtue. Liberty is not to be got by simple proclamation; it is the creation of civilization and of heroic exertions by a few brave souls. Samuel Adams had told his kinsman that the love of liberty is interwoven in the soul of man. "So it is, according to La Fontaine, in that of a wolf," replied Adams, tartly; "and I doubt whether it be much more rational, generous, or social, in one than in the other, until in man it is enlightened by experience, reflection, education, and civil and political institutions, which are at first produced, and constantly supported and improved by a few.... The numbers of men in all ages have preferred ease, slumber, and good cheer to liberty, when they have been in competition. We must not then depend alone upon the love of liberty in the soul of man for its preservation."

[Mithras]

I feel it's enough to be against what jews have done to America with niggers, and that putting out a fire hardly requires a spiritual shift, just an intellectual grasp of what's happening. Not hard, since whites always move away from blackening communities.

Okay, so why the lack of action from the people? Why are they resisting any movement for change? And how does one pry conservatist politicians from the million dollar opportunist circle propped up by all these PACs and businesses?

[Alex Linder]

Okay, so why the lack of action from the people?

Simple: the actions that need to be taken are illegal. our crime problem is a black problem. But the jews have passed laws that make it illegal to do anything about Blacks. It is illegal to bar black from your community, illegal to bar them from your schools, illegal to refuse to hire them or rent your house to them. There's no action because the only actions that can change the system in the right way are illegal for that very reason. The system cannot allow people the means to alter it since its existence. The System is so constructed that tampering with one law is the same as tampering with the whole thing, and that is illegal. The System is a dictatorship. Its point is to suppress Whites, not to offer them a mechanism for reforming it in line with their interests. The system encourages and profits from violent black crime, partly because it intimidates the Whites who suffer from both. But let a White man take serious action against the system, even if its only to organize meetings with a few dozen like minds -- think Chester Doles -- and the system is all over you like a ton of bricks. The System cannot be reformed, it can only be destroyed. The average citizen may not fully understand this as well as we who focus on it daily, but he has a pretty good idea. When you mess with the System, you're taking your life and your lifespan into your hands. The System is founded on one indivisible lie, the lie of human equality. No action in furtherance of the truth that men are not equal and the races cannot live together can be tolerated, because it controverts the very nature, essence and legitimacy of the entire government. So to you, maybe you just don't want to rent your house to a black. It's your house, you can do what you want, right? Wrong. You can't. Because if you are allowed to act on your view that the races are different, a whole chain of events would be set in motion ending with the separation of the races. So you must be prevented from the very simplest actions based on racial reality, lest ZOG slide down a slippery slope.

So there are two ways you can go. You can start killing blacks and the jews who sicked them on us -- ie, break the law, try to trip off a violent revolution. Not likely to be effective, as the populace is well-fed, brainwashed, and the government has the guns.

Two, you can work for legal change. In this case you will run up against the media, which are all but completely controlled by jews who hate you and are the ones responsible in very large measure, by their slanted anti-reporting, for the very laws you seek to repeal. The South couldn't beat them with 200 years of tradition and an unbrainwashed population on its side. How will you beat them after forty years of round the clock lying?

But you're always free to start your own paper! The jews haven't taken that away. Hard to find the money, though. If you could, the jewish retailers and grocers wouldn't advertise. The jews would boycott any advertiser who dared. So you have a formal legal freedom that in practice means nothing.

So you can start your own website. Call it VNN. Of course, in Europe or Australia or Canada, your "VNN" is illegal. So you do it in the U.S. Where your "Department of Justice" works hand in glove with jewish hate groups and terrorist organizations such as ADL, who brainwash the federal police. And who, this very week, were over in Europe networking to get the sole remaining worldwide legal protection for free speech -- the 1st amendment -- rescinded.

Oh, I guess you do have a third option. You can keep your mouth shut, keep your job, watch sports on tv, and move farther inland if the hell of all this gets a little too close to home.

Thus you end up where we are, with a handful of people yelling and screaming about what's going on because for whatever reason they are "weird" and can't adjust to a situation that never should have been allowed to arise in the first place. Speaking personally, I couldn't adjust because I trained myself up to be a Mencken, but the conservative press is controlled by a bunch of Irish Catholics and Anglophiliacs who fear and suckpoop the jews who control America, and give in to their demands that nothing race-realist be published. There is every incentive to give in to the system and go along with it, and only one incentive not to - that what you're doing is right and true and good. A minority cause in any day and age, to be sure. But those are the only people you're going to attract, at the start.

But look at how we've grown. Look at how many people have come along. Look at how many people like VNN and F -- look at VNN the way the jews do: something that MUST be shutdown. Well, itz been four years, and they haven't succeeded.

Ultimately, what this stuff comes down to is 1) an intellectual understanding of where the road America is headed down inevitably leads. The end of that road, as I have pointed out for years, is Zimbabwe: Whites raped, murdered, dispossessed, and, ultimately, genocided. 2) a change of heart that decides to place every other value second to doing something about the problem. That means ditching "security," which is largely a myth in any case, what the safety-first crowd never understands, and living a real life rather than imitation. I can only speak for myself, and VNN has repaid 1,000fold all the effort I've put into. It has blessed me in so many ways I couldn't begin to tell you. And here I'll quit before I come across like a jeboo faggot. But it has. And you who don't know me personally, like I know many of you, the objective thing here is that I'm not a martyr, I'm not a head case, I'm not even really a causist -- I'm just principled in a certain regard; i.e., like Martin Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other."

So all that is to explain where "we" are today, psychologically, and why things are the way they are at this point in reality's fast-running river.

[Mithras]

What I see is that Whites don't even have their own party in the US. Websites are good, but what is needed is a lot more. WNs will work on Buchanan's campaign but when you approach them to help you organize and run a party of their own there is total silence. Now Buchanan is a sell-out. What I find is that whites don't participate in their own cause because it might be hard. Well, it's not much of a cause then is it? If they think they will lose their jobs or be "outed" then they will just up and quit. There's always some excuse. But when it comes down to it, there is little organization and of the organization that exists no one participates. It's pretty much hopeless when no one participates beyond chatting on SF and reading websites.

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

Alex, well said. Thank you kindly.

That is the bottom line the deluded liberterians fail to grasp both in practice and in theory. It's encapsulaed by a short pith phrase by Mao which I paraphrase: in politics all power flows from the barrell of a gun.

So in point of fact sitting around yapping about the ideal hands off government does nothing to reverse the governmants hands around our throats.

Neither does the NOP mentality of always playing defense instead of offense.

Lots of people out there who consider themselves "true conservatives" are suffering from a bad case of the Marquess of Queensbury rules in what is a knock down drag out brawl for existence.

[The Final Solution]

Okay, so why the lack of action from the people? Why are they resisting any movement for change? And how does one pry conservatist politicians from the million dollar opportunist circle propped up by all these PACs and businesses?

Cuz...kahnservative=someone who wants to kahnserve the status quo. And, typically, an old man. We can parse all the other definitions games out there, and can't escape this reality, nor Grant Bruer's conclusion that for a WN, there is nothing in our political/institutional situation left to kahnserve.

Saw Michael Moore on Letterman. Numerous rounds of applause for anti-Bush, antiwar diatribes. All young people. I doubt a kahnservative among them, though many of Dave's writers are NRA members. It is not the "right" that puts hundreds of thousands in the streets to protest "globalism." True, often for the wrong reasons, but they're doing stuff and they're young. I'll take that over a hundred or so CCC geezers swilling beer, munching on negro BBQ and parroting false nostalgia any day.

NO Protohoax: no enemies on the right.
TFS: the enemy is the right.

[Fritz Kuhn]

But you're always free to start your own paper! The jews haven't taken that away. Hard to find the money, though. If you could, the jewish retailers and grocers wouldn't advertise. The jews would boycott any advertiser who dared. So you have a formal legal freedom that in practice means nothing.

The Moslems in the US seem to have no problem distributing newspapers within their communities. Sure they get no Jewish advertisiers or subscribers, but they have a strong community and a loyal following so it doesn't matter. Also leftists seem to have little problem getting away with attacking Israel, neo-conservatives and the Zionist lobby. Here a leftist magazine with a circulation in the tens of thousands has made a list of powerful Jews in government. It is still in business.

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/articles/jewish.html

But look at how we've grown. Look at how many people have come along. Look at how many people like VNN and F -- look at VNN the way the jews do: something that MUST be shutdown. Well, itz been four years, and they haven't succeeded.

Maybe that's because VNN isn't a real threat. The day some VNN reader/subscriber does a Ben Smith you'll see a little more action on the part of the Jews.

The end of that road, as I have pointed out for years, is Zimbabwe: Whites raped, murdered, dispossessed, and, ultimately, genocided.

Then we'll be waiting a long long time - Zimbabwe is communist dictatorship that is 98% black and 1% white. Today blacks in the US kill and rape a few thousand whites a year. Sadly, most whites seem to have no problem with these numbers, as they are distributed over 150 million plus whites.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html

[Alex Linder]

The Moslems in the US seem to have no problem distributing newspapers within their communities. Sure they get no Jewish advertisiers or subscribers, but they have a strong community and a loyal following so it doesn't matter.

True, although I doubt there's that much Muslim media out there. But Muslims as such have not been demonized for decades as haters. If you're an independent newsstand and a Muslim comes to you to distribute, you can size it up as a pure market question. Not so with "hate." There could be repercussions to your in any way working with open Aryans. Muslims, compared to WN, are just another ethnic group, hence legitimate to appeal to under terms of judeo-System, even if they're generally portrayed as the source of more terrorists than they actually produce.


Also leftists seem to have little problem getting away with attacking Israel, neo-conservatives and the Zionist lobby. Here a leftist magazine with a circulation in the tens of thousands has made a list of powerful Jews in government. It is still in business.


Jews produced the modern left. That indemnifies them against criticism to a very considerable extent. Also, their criticism of Israel is political, not racial. But the gloves will come off if they persist in pushing izzy-crit. As far as I know, no one at Adbusters has thought of questioning AmeriKwa's and the jewed West's fundamental lie: racial equality. I doubt they ever will.

I give adbusters credit for what it has done. I'd like to see them go farther. If they're honest men who've stumbled onto "our" truths, perhaps they will. If they do, they will get precisely the treatment VNN has received.


Maybe that's because VNN isn't a real threat. The day some VNN reader/subscriber does a Ben Smith you'll see a little more action on the part of the Jews.


VNN has been hacked and knocked off servers more than any other site on the Internet, at least as far as I know. Always by folks ashamed to show their face in light of day. Has adbusters ever been hacked? Has LewRockwell? Has anti-war? You can trust me, whoever you actually are, that you don't know the full story of what jews have done to VNN, so you have no basis for making a judgment.

Ben Smith shot some coloreds. This allowed the jewsmedia to use him as posterboy for their perpetual anti-Aryan campaign. They never told you what the coloreds had done to him, just as they never reported that one of the Byrd-draggers had been gang raped by niggers in prison. They further used Smith as a way to demonize his former group, and demonize and extend the sentence of Matt Hale. Guilt by association through nebulous "links" is a time-honored jewish method of lying. Somehow Matt Hale becomes responsible for the actions of Ben Smith. Somehow Tom Metzger becomes responsible for the actions of some teenagers. This is abuse of the legal system as set up by Aryans, but thatz what jews do. All they care about is winning, the rest is bullshit. They will tell any lie, they will forge any documents, they murder anybody they need to in order to have their way. They are liars and murderers and always have been.



Then we'll be waiting a long long time - Zimbabwe is communist dictatorship that is 98% black and 1% white. Today blacks in the US kill and rape a few thousand whites a year. Sadly, most whites seem to have no problem with these numbers, as they are distributed over 150 million plus whites.


Blacks commit about 2 million crimes against Whites a year, and those are only the recorded crimes. When you throw in demographics, change comes much more rapidly than you'd think. 25 years ago there were about 250,000 whites in Rhodesia. Today there are I don't know how many, but probably only 30-40,000. Somebody post the correct figures if you have them.

You're right in the basic point that whites show no evidence they will fight back. I believe they would, but for the brainwashing of the mass media and the selling out of their elites. It is possible loyal elites can emerge and create structures and spaces where Whites can reorient themselves. VNN & VNNF do that virtually.

I'm up for moving somewhere, if people want to form a community of like minds.

[Fritz Kuhn]

I disagree. By your logic since white men invented basketball, they should have some kind of advantage on the court.

That's not really analogous. Jews not only defined the modern left as red diaper babies and sixties radicals and the majority of the tv writers, they own or control the main left media.


But the world doesn't work that way - the young folks who are fighting "globalism" and "colonialism" on college campuses don't know or care which leftist yid was doing what in the 1930's. All they know is that Israel is a violent, illegitimate shitstate and it's supporters are in the wrong. It's true that these leftist enemies of Israel are not against Jews as a race, but why should we care? If they are on our side in the fight against jewish interests, their motives are irrelevent.

Sure, we can join them to that extent, but if they're wrong on the fundamentals, that partnership doesn't extend very far. The left is anti-racist, and anti-racism is why it opposes Israel. It's a bit of blowback: the jews invested all this time and energy demonizing the white race, in large measure for its colonialism. In exchange for 95% successful results in stirring up hatred of evil white oppressors they have to put up with 5% blowback on Israel.

But most of these leftists have no trouble with jews as jews - they've always worked with jews in the cases they themselves weren't jews. Anti-racism/anti-Aryanism has always been a jewish ideology for the white man. The jew retains his Tribal instinct. Racism is good for them, bad for us. That is the double standard their media make stick. I had a friend in UCLA grad school back the time of the first gulf war, and he told me how funny it was to see the anti-war jews turn on a dime when Scuds were fired into Israel.

Again, there can be some tactical alliance with goyish anti-racists who are actually jew-brainwashed anti-Aryans. Some old leftists actually do favor free speech, and can even begin to grasp race-realism. Those are the ones I work on and with strategically. With the others, it can only be tactical. Until they see that the jews' power comes from their racism, they're useless. Until they grasp that anti-racism/anti-Aryanism is a racist strategy by which jews attempt to brainwash and defeat their Aryan competitor, little can be done with most of them. The jews have all kinds of clever ways to channel young Aryans' passion for justice. Not one woman in a thousand will see through them, and not many more men will either. The few who aren't or don't become leftists at college will become economic conservatives. They'll leave race alone and chase the cookies like good little dogs. Becoming a racist is the end result of faith in what's the end of your nose being real and worth recognizing.

VNN has been hacked and knocked off servers more than any other site on the Internet, at least as far as I know. Always by folks ashamed to show their face in light of day. Has adbusters ever been hacked? Has LewRockwell? Has anti-war? You can trust me, whoever you actually are, that you don't know the full story of what jews have done to VNN, so you have no basis for making a judgment.


I wasn't aware of the hacking and I'm glad to see that VNN has been up and running recently.

Well, if we're ever down, it's not because of us. Let me just put it this way: nobody who has critized jews in public believes America is a free country. The ADL has just issued its marching orders for the two government parties. ADL says: "While the League has an abiding respect for free speech and the guarantees of the First Amendment, hate on the Internet cannot be entirely unregulated." The jews have worked for decades now to brainwash the American public and the world that criticism of jews, their 'minority' tools, and their political agenda is something other than free speech - ie, hate speech that must be regulated.


What is interesting is that in other parts of the world where the jewzmedia is non-existant, people do fight back for their tribes and their race. In India, Hindus have murdered tens of thousands of Muslims in Sihks in revenge attacks. In Indonesia and Nigeria, Christians and Muslims have battled on the streets and burned each other's villages. And of course in Serbia and Kosovo Whites fought and killed for their brothers and sisters. One day I hope that American Whites will rise up and defend themselves against mud and jew rapists and killers, as they did in the past. But I'm not optimistic. Sadly we may need the Iraq war, an Iran war, more rapes and murders, more "terrorism" and more illegal immigrants before Whites realize that they are not longer secure in their suburban homes and gated communities.

America 2004 is the most propagandized country in history. More people have TVs than phones. TV is our national culture. People have a herd instinct, and they orient toward Authority, no matter who that authority is, no matter what it tells them to do. If the jews shut down the First Amendment, the only real legal protection in the West for criticism of ZOG, they will make violent revolution inevitable, per JFK's words. But I believe violent revolution is inevitable in any case, since even with the Internet half-open, it's the only forum we have, and it's a drop in the bucket next to the reach of MTV and the rest.

BTW, although the jews do not control the media in much of the third-world as they do here, they're working on it. They team with local content providers in places from South Africa to India to China to produce beginner versions of the sleazy stuff ubiquitous in the West. It is very easy to see what they're doing, if you get rid of your goyish kop. From reading you come to understand that they intend a raceless world, ruled by them as the only in-tact people. But you can see from TV, without understanding the theory or politics involved, that race-mixing is some kind of super-goal, and that literally nothing produced for the masses doesn't promote it. It seems that human society can only handle one narrative, and that's whatever Authority is putting out. Everything else is "hate," and the foolish flag-waving majority will help the biped K-9 units shut you down. We're in danger, sometimes, especially the more intelligent folks, of making this stuff too complex. Few people can think. Most have all they can do making the instrumental connections necessary to get through the day. What these people hear from the mass media at the end of their tired day is what they're going to believe and repeat. In a perpetually tired, high-tax society, media control really is political control.

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

what to make of this: Buckley sells his shares and leaves National Review

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040629/ap_on_re_us/national_review_buckley

[Fritz Kuhn]

what to make of this: Buckley sells his shares and leaves National Review

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040629/ap_on_re_us/national_review_buckley

Not much - he's 78 years old and he has put his son in charge. Nothing has changed, except perhaps the next generation of NR writers will be less conservative that the previous one.

[Alex Linder]

what to make of this: Buckley sells his shares and leaves National Review

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040629/ap_on_re_us/national_review_buckley



NR's epitaph was written by Wilmoore Kendall when he called it just another liberal rag. That was back in the late sixties, I believe. Still, NR used to be intelligent. It used to run articles by extremely intelligent men, not wonks and gerbils like Lowry and Goldberg. I look at it online, but when I see a print copy, I just skim it. Nothing but boring Republican promotional material. It used to be erudite, much mass-ier now. I don't know if Florence King still writes for the tree version, but she was the last writer I really liked. She was adamant that a writer who became a tv head killed himself as a writer, and she would never go on tv. She is a rare and principled woman. Wrote some great books, too. NR, like everything else in America in my life, has gotten progressively stupider, louder, niggerier and more semtically correct.

Where have all the right-wing funnymen gone? I can't read anyone with pleasure like I used to. Where is funny P.J. O'Rourke? Last I saw him he was making feeble fun of the critics of the failed judeo-American attack on Iraq. Like a watching a couple viagra-propped seventy-year-olds going at it. I'd like to think the old PJO would have recognized the humor and political truth lie in pointing out the real rulers of America, and their reversal of the founders' foreign policy.

Where is funny Tyrrell? I read Tyrrell, I just get cheerleading. The concept of politics as racial struggle more than battle of personalities never occurs to him. Politics as the struggle between egalitarian personalities has got to be the most boring thing in the world. How could anyone truly care whether Kerry or Bush gets elected unless he has direct material interests?

The real questions are off-limits, even for discussion in political journals. That is the difference between NR today and NR back when it started. You can't even theoretically entertain anti-egalitarian positions in the mainstream conservative magazines. Thatz called jew media control and NR's transformation perfectly exemplifies the spectrum shift the country has seen over the last few decades. We may not all be blacks yet, but we're all afraid to criticize blacks. We don't all have to say the same things, but we all must avoid saying the same things.

With each passing year, more and more arguments, terms, positions are put off limits. The vocabulary is shrunk, just as Orwell described. Complex thinking is for global masters, not plantation peons. Books and movies reflect the new stupidity. We're all to become mulattoes in flesh and rappers in mentality. Any rejection of the new order is hate. Any abstention raises eyebrows. Guns, words, neighborhoods are taken from us by a force that can't be named, soon legally if the ADL succeeds in murdering the First Amendment.

Until the jews controlling America are destroyed, journalism and everything else will continue to decrease in quality and complexity.

[cg jung]

Alex do you think there will be a convergence of paleos with WN ? You said in an earlier thread that they got us on brains and money. Will we supply the heart ?

If so, at what points will the ideologies intersect - and will this put explicit racialism politically into play ?

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

you didnt direct the question at me but I think there is plenty overlap already and there will be more even though they will try to hide it.

It's probably long term stupid of them, short term smart. They keep themselves out of trouble with hymie's dogs but in the long run they know we are their only hope.

[Draco]

Though I am generally moderate, I would do well in a real conservative society, one that prided itself on the rights of the individual, and rabidly defended the rights of free speech, religion, fiscal responsibility and the bearing of arms.

Many are surprised to learn that corporations are not so highly esteemed by real conservatives, and tend to care about the environment. The phrase; "you can't spell conservative without conserve" always stuck with me.

However, the conservative movement was hijacked by Christians and weakened by Jews for the benefit of furthering Israel, and kneecapping any opposition to the jew led "counter-culture(hah!) movement of the 1960's.

The neo-con has made himself the de-facto representative of Conservatism, and that pisses me off. Alot. He has given wetbacks amnesty so his corporate friends had cheap labor to exploit, while displacing the White worker. He has sold out our public lands so they could take what they want. "Healthy Forest Act" was a juicy handjob to the lumber industry, the "Clean Air" nonsense actually permits more pollutants in the air.

They arent looking out for the White race, the ones who founded this country, theyr elooking out for dollars and favorable coverage from their kike-masters media.

If the fact this infuriates me makes me some bizarre Pagan Paleo-Con, so be it. As much as it revolts me, I'd be willing to work with the relatively un-jewed Christians to fix it.

[Alex Linder]

Alex do you think there will be a convergence of paleos with WN ? You said in an earlier thread that they got us on brains and money. Will we supply the heart ?

If so, at what points will the ideologies intersect - and will this put explicit racialism politically into play ?

The paleocons wouldn't resist us, and they don't have enough money to help us. If WN ever took off, it would happen very quickly, and today's WN and paleocons would most likely be entirely irrelevant. You can't make people revolt over theoretical or intellectual points; they'll only revolt when their stomachs tell them something is dreadfully wrong. Only then will their brain open up to someone explaining why. Zimbabwe is about there, thanks to the thievings and general n*ggerings of Mudgabe. America is not. We still have enough money to wage wars on 8 continents, and our bellies are bloated with excessive food, not lack of it.

So what we do now is more educational than anything. The Girenko solution will probably be tried in Russia before here, or somewhere in Europe. It is still too easy to move away from the problems here in America, and we still retain more formal legal freedom than anywhere else.

Many of the paleocons are jeboosters more than conservatives. Global warming they proudly laugh down as an obvious fraud. Jesus coming back from the dead, why you're going to Hell if you doubt. Think about that: Christianity insists on point of consigning your soul to eternal Hell that you believe that a man came back from the dead. There is nothing conservative about believing that men come back from the dead. Christianity didn't "sink" to Orwell's point - the point at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men; rather it began at that point and never moved on. Do men die for our sins, cirrhosis of liver, whatever, and then come back to life? Do you see that happening in graveyards near you? Is it Evil to ask obvious questions? Then thinking itself is devil's best practice, as C.S. Lewis more or less put it.

Pallids may be intelligent and thoughtful apart from their beloved sorcery, but they're easily scared and, the deeper truth, most of them prefer losing. Losing can be very comfortable, farting away in your private library. Winning requires messy non-typing activities. If the paleocons have more money and respectability than we do, they still don't have a drop in the bucket compared to the jews. They got kicked out of their own movement! Think about that for a moment. They're losers - why in the world would WN want to work with them? We don't need a bunch more ineffectual intellectuals; our problems aren't difficult to figure out. And they have nothing to do with the public abandoning jebooism. Our nations are controlled by a race-cult and organized political group called jews. These jews interpose between lordly them and peon us a middle layer of coloreds. We're third-class "supporting caste" in the land our fathers made. Paleocons aren't interested in these facts. They're old men maundering on about a constitution invalidated long ago by jews who lacked respect enough even to change its words, or throatily promoting a religion based on turning the other cheek to reality when it whips a gun on them and demands money.

It's one thing not to have the courage to do something about a problem. It's another thing not even to have the courage to describe a problem. High intelligence tracks only weakly with good character. This makes for a subtle danger: the intelligent coward can hide his tracks so well that average readers can't see where he misleads them. The "conservative" drags pinko herrings over the road to right reason about race. This common coward construes plausible alternative explanations for any body of fact. Some of these faulty constructions are erected in jewish arenas. Solicited and paid for. Paleocons prosper providing plausible Pet-exculpating agitprop. These Pet protectors need their pay as much as any wage addict. They know in their hearts, the paleocons like Sam Francis, that they're being paid not to enlighten readers but to provide for the jewish owners duping the ignorant masses the illusion of genuine debate over substantial issues. They know that the jew pays them NOT to reveal the actual workings of the system. They accept their role, and become cynical in the worst sense.

Respectable people don't make revolutions. The paleocons' whining should not be confused for revolutionary sentiment. They're complainers. They're sitters. They're remonstrators. They're ironists. They're losers. They're passivists. They're jeboo fanatics whose weak characters take solace in our destruction because we didn't follow their advice. Not their leadership, for they provide none. Their kibitzing.

Whites will only follow a leader, and that means someone manifestly willing to kill or die. Who ever heard of a paleocon leader? To say it is to evoke the contradiction. Lean and hungry men? Which paleocon fits that description? Paleocons believe winning is evil. They'd never put it that way, but that's the stench they give off, and everybody smells it.

[Mithras]

they'll only revolt when their stomachs tell them something is dreadfully wrong. Only then will their brain open up to someone explaining why.

They'll revolt when the action becomes an unthinking response, for when they can do no more. But most paleo-cons are past their prime, so I don't see this happening. Even so, they aren't dirty enough to play by the twisted rules that dominate the game. A revolt to them is an action they consider to be beneath them or "uncivilized." I wouldn't count on them for much of anything.

[Intrepid]

Yes, as Mr. Linder inferenced above, intelligent, lively political discourse has devolved into nothing more than a giant back-slapping contest, lacking in any form of independent thought. (Just look to what grade school children were reading 100 years ago, if one were to actually need any proof of the matter.) Russell Kirk, the grandfather of American Conservatism, has been thrown down the memory-hole of history. Dare I say, if I were to elucidate Kirk's political philosophies on one of the "conservative" internet forums, I would no doubt be banned. Kirk, just like Solzhenitsyn, served a purpose for the Republican heirarchy: anti-Communism. Neither of these gentle scholars had the sycophantic tendencies of, say, Buckley, Will, et al. While it's true that both were pro-Israeli in the context of the Cold War, neither can be accused of philo-Semiticism in general terms. They were not men who would embrace empire nor the purely libertarian debating socities of "economic man." Hence, the relative obscurity that they now face. Kirk is only kept in our memory, in reprints, by the kindly Mr. Regnery. Solzhenitsyn, a literary giant, couldn't get a publisher for his last book in the entire English-speaking orbit. Now, write a book on a sob story of a Treblinka survivors grandson or a third-world race hustler, and Scribners & Simon and Schuster will be banging down your door. So, for Alexander and Russell, in essence: good job, here's your faux-gold watch, now get the f*ck out.


While it's true that The Conservative Mind is considered Kirk's finest work, I believe that it's held in this regard for its chronological format not his prose. His biographies of Burke & John Randolph of Roanoke are vastly superior, imho. Speaking of Randolph, from his address at the Virginia Convention of 1829:

" I would not live under King Numbers. I would not be his steward, nor make him my taskmaster. I would obey the principle of self-preservation, a principle we find even in the brute creation, in flying from this mischief."

Now, where is this erudite, passionate oratory in todays political climate? Nowhere. The aforementioned statement above is a saber at the head of the state; uncompromising and filled - in its mere 40 words - with more cutting invective then any of our political usurpers has uttered in decades. For those not familiar with Randolph, he was, for all intents and purposes, the preceptor of John Calhoun. A sidenote on Kirk: He was, shortly before his death, Buchanan's Michigan chairman for President. No doubt that only earned him more friends. lol...

Alas, I must admit a certain degree of consternation at the discontinuity of your words, Mr. Linder. You speak highly of an "old Conservatism," as epoused by Kirk, then malign his Praetorian guard, the paleos. I don't necessarily agree with all of the Paleo points, and I certainly wish the racial angles were hit on with much greater severity. However, that being said, I can't see how the school yard taunts at P.C.R, S.F., J.S. & P.J.B. serve any purpose. The Left, as well as the neos, have always worked on many levels of incrementalism, so should we. That is, unless perhaps you feel all rightward dissent should be extinquised from every newspaper in the country, that still carry paleo op-eds, for exhibiting a more strident view? Is it not better for the occcasional reader to be exposed to anything - yes, anything - other than the Kemp, Kristol, Goldberg, Coulter cabal of vapid egalitarian, war mongering pap? We're seeing our nation being preped for destruction Mau Mau-style, with all its ugly racial connotations specifically intended. I just find it odd that I can be in complete concord with your one post (#6), which hits reality upon its ugly head, then have to trudge though the muck of " ineffectual intellectuals... losers... farting in their private libraries..." Last I checked, I haven't seen anything that slightly resembled a supply of "victorious" heavyweight thinkers on the WN front. If I'm wrong, please explain where? I suppose I'm just not much on dogmatism & ideological purity. There's simply too much at stake for us in the West, 'tis all.

Regardless, I enjoy the format of your forum, albeit having to sift through a great deal of semi-literate, wacky rubbage. It certainly bears no similiarity to cultesque feeling one gets when visiting SF, however. I find it quite telling, that a forum limiting any form of criticism, is under the bland, vacuous grip of a Scientoligist. :o Apparently, a forum that takes Lenin's quote to heart: " It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed."

[Fredrik Haerne]

Intrepid, true that nationalism hasn't defeated the Left yet, but we have a winning concept, we stand a chance to win, whereas the paleo-cons don't. They will simply continue to move two steps behind the Left, and so their ideas are distorted, not in accord with reality.

Now, it will take time, of course. Whites on the whole are lousy joiners, not at all like Chinese, Jews, Arabs etc; we have a harder time giving up our individual freedom. (The reason being one of two: either it's in our genes, or it's because we have historically had such good individual protection through laws that we haven't needed form clans and groups to protect ourselves.) Right now it is safer and much, much better for the wallet to obey the ZOG, and as has been said many times before, the average White will probably start fighting back only when things are so bad that following the ZOG doesn't provide safety anymore. I would think that will be when Whites become a minority in the United States, but it could be sooner.

As for heavyweight thinkers, White Nationalism has many. It's just that they won't be interviewed on television, and so they aren't really real to most people.

I suppose I'm just not much on dogmatism & ideological purity.

I think we need both those "hard" nationalists who tell the whole truth, to pass it on until such times that the game has changed and the average man is open to new solutions, and those "soft" nationalists who hold back a little in order to simply spread the desire to look at ourselves as a group with collective interests.

Now, these "soft" nationalists will always attract some activists who actually believe in the soft stuff only and abhor more radical truths, and who will attack harder nationalists out of ideological beliefs and because they want to shield themselves from criticism for being evil nazists. These people are regrettable, but unavoidable. However, it has been said that in any revolution the most radical elements always prevail over the moderates once the revolution has gotten underway. That's because when it's not dangerous to talk about the revolutionnary ideas anymore the radical stuff, which dares go all the way, will appeal to the masses more -- and always remember, despite what it may seem at times the masses are a bloodthirsty and cruel bunch who will sometimes shock even their revolutionnary authorities. So the softies may be in for more than they've bargained for.

But these softies will not, however, be paleocons (what we in Sweden sometimes refer to as "punsch patriots" -- because they will sing patriotic songs when toasting in punsch at some national holiday, but they are too frightened to actually stand up for the country). Those guys are a completely different crowd, quite impotent. Okay, now I'm done.

[Franco]

Intrepid, true that nationalism hasn't defeated the Left yet, but we have a winning concept, we stand a chance to win, whereas the paleo-cons don't. They will simply continue to move two steps behind the Left, and so their ideas are distorted, not in accord with reality.

Now, it will take time, of course. Whites on the whole are lousy joiners, not at all like Chinese, Jews, Arabs etc; we have a harder time giving up our individual freedom. (The reason being one of two: either it's in our genes, or it's because we have historically had such good individual protection through laws that we haven't needed form clans and groups to protect ourselves.) Right now it is safer and much, much better for the wallet to obey the ZOG, and as has been said many times before, the average White will probably start fighting back only when things are so bad that following the ZOG doesn't provide safety anymore. I would think that will be when Whites become a minority in the United States, but it could be sooner.

As for heavyweight thinkers, White Nationalism has many. It's just that they won't be interviewed on television, and so they aren't really real to most people.



I think we need both those "hard" nationalists who tell the whole truth, to pass it on until such times that the game has changed and the average man is open to new solutions, and those "soft" nationalists who hold back a little in order to simply spread the desire to look at ourselves as a group with collective interests.

Now, these "soft" nationalists will always attract some activists who actually believe in the soft stuff only and abhor more radical truths, and who will attack harder nationalists out of ideological beliefs and because they want to shield themselves from criticism for being evil nazists. These people are regrettable, but unavoidable. However, it has been said that in any revolution the most radical elements always prevail over the moderates once the revolution has gotten underway. That's because when it's not dangerous to talk about the revolutionnary ideas anymore the radical stuff, which dares go all the way, will appeal to the masses more -- and always remember, despite what it may seem at times the masses are a bloodthirsty and cruel bunch who will sometimes shock even their revolutionnary authorities. So the softies may be in for more than they've bargained for.

But these softies will not, however, be paleocons (what we in Sweden sometimes refer to as "punsch patriots" -- because they will sing patriotic songs when toasting in punsch at some national holiday, but they are too frightened to actually stand up for the country). Those guys are a completely different crowd, quite impotent. Okay, now I'm done.




As someone else said, the Paleocons got kicked out of their own movement, and are now seen as 'extreme.' They lost most of the political ground that they held.


----------

[Fredrik Haerne]

Kirk's Six Canons of Conservative Thought

1. "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience."

2. "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems;"

3. "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'."

4. "Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and the Leviathan becomes master of all."

5. "Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs."

6. "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress."

[Intrepid]

Kirk's Six Canons of Conservative Thought

1. "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience."

2. "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems;"

3. "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'."

4. "Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and the Leviathan becomes master of all."

5. "Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs."

6. "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress."


Where did you acquire that, Fredrik? And the most important query: do you agree? For example, John Adams was nothing like his kin, Samuel; yet every man has his limit when his basic rights - to speak his mind and defend his family - are denied him.

[Intrepid]

As someone else said, the Paleocons got kicked out of their own movement, and are now seen as 'extreme.' They lost most of the political ground that they held.

And your point is...? With all the forces arrayed against them, was there any doubt of the outcome? What power the old Right had, died with Robert Taft on a golf course in 1952. So your point is moot. I'm surprised they even have a name, paleos, that is reconized by a fair amount of people. The simple fact that they have been able to help create the symbiosis between Neo & Jew is, in fact, quite remarkable. That is, considering the restriction of information in all major media outlets.

[Fredrik Haerne]

I know little about John Adams or Samuel Adams. I thought the points were interesting enough to post, and I know what Kirk was thinking of when he wrote them. But I would have put emphasis on other things of course, fanatic nationalist as I am.

The first point: we must remember some very important things that can't be run over by any government planning, if that government wants to do a good job and not be overthrown. I agree.

Second point: it seems to me this means resistance to communism and its straight-jacket. Opposition to utilitarian aims? I am terribly utilitarian, identifying the survival and evolution of Life as my lofty goal, but I know that you can't turn all of society into a utilitarian machine working toward that goal day and night, like little automatons of efficiency running around. People need time to relax and eat potato chips.

Third point: "requires" classes I don't know, but sure enough is that classes will arise naturally, even though they don't have to be cut in stone. Nothing special about that, only something to accept, and accepting it can only be hard for a silly soc.

Fourth point: yes, property rights are very important. Without them, society suffocates and won't move forward. It has been one of the West's great virtues that individual rights and property rights have been better guarded by the governments than anywhere else: because of that, people dared invest and grow rich. In China the emperor would simply cut the head off a few of the wealthiest guys every now and then and take their money, hardly an incentive for the best and brightest to work hard.

It has also been shown that there has never been any ancient age of bliss and collective ownership and "harmony with nature" like the commie religion would have you believe, an age they think was ended by slavery. No, all societies have quickly learned to respect private property, which is an essential ingredient for any tribe that wants to move out of the Stone Age. And they probably had private property in the Stone Age too.

The lesson was learned once again by the settlers from Mayflower and other ships, who first tried a system where tools and food were owned collectively by the colony. They starved and starved good, since only about one in five would work while the rest would slack, and a downward spiral started where people stole from the shared food supply. After almost a year of this they divided the land between them, and production soared. A valuable lesson, bought by the victims of famine, that America remembered.

Fifth point: sounds a whole lot like the first point. It simply warns of trying to build a society that does not take into account nature, human biology, and so on. Kirk chooses the words "sophisters, calculators and economists" where I would simply say "commies, Keynesians and other weirdos."

Sixth point: good to remind people that you can't change everything with a snap of your fingers. People are rarely as smart as they think they are. Change must come slowly, and adapt through added experience. When it comes to getting rid of darklings, however, no change is quick enough; we have enough experience of that problem already.

Now, I would have added a point about the folly of democracy too, but even should Kirk want to write about that I suppose he wouldn't have been able to, if he wanted a chance to get published.


Speaking of that, has anyone read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's essays (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-arch.html) about the flaws of democracy? They are interesting, but I think I would write differently. (He pulls a whole lot of punches, and is lousy when it comes to figuring out an alternative.) My main argument against democracy is simply that it is the only way Marxist populism will survive year after year, since the exploitation of laziness, envy, and perversion will be needed again and again to win elections. Look at the Soviet Union and China: when they didn't need cultural Marxism to win over voters or cannon fodder anymore, they returned to conservatism, encouraging people to work and study hard, abstain from perverted stuff, be loyal to the motherland, obey the law, eat their vegetables and so on. Paradoxically, Eastern Europe became more conservative in cultural policies than Western Europe. Was not one of their accusations against the West that it was "decadent"? Such a change from their original appeal to decadence.

[Intrepid]

Okay, let's try this again, only with a condensed version to preclude another malady this time.


Intrepid, true that nationalism hasn't defeated the Left yet, but we have a winning concept, we stand a chance to win, whereas the paleo-cons don't. They will simply continue to move two steps behind the Left, and so their ideas are distorted, not in accord with reality.

In reality, it wasn't my intention to malign nationalism at all. Certainly, I'm under no illusion that the paleos are going to win anything. They simply adhere to our founder's visons, in both spirit and word, far better than anyone else. It's a natural point of reference for me - a grounding, if you will - in explaining the reason why we still can speak freely and maintain our 2nd amendment. Considering the powerful interest groups that wish to extinquish these rights, it's really not that difficult to imagine why I have such reverence for the documents they created. Regarding your impression of the old Right (O.R.) being "two steps behind the left... their ideas are distorted" Well, you're going to have explain that. Being a reactionary is one thing, but having any similiarity to the Jacobin monsters on the left is quite another. This holds no basis in reality, my friend. We shall take a quick look:

-Economics: The O.R. believes strongly in decentralization - smaller is better or akin to a Jeffersonian quip of the sort. The Left (when I say Left, to avoid being redundant, I'm placing the whole "conservative" oligarchy here, too, for brevity) worships the federal leviathan, for it perpetuates their reason for their existence and power. The proclaimers of Free Trade mantras, best illustrated by the WSJ & the folks at L. Rockwell, would have one believe that that to protect a nation's vital industries would somehow make one an economic neanderthal. Of course, this has created but another schism, yet I fail to see how this this relates to the Leftist pie-in-sky economic dreams.

-Culture, heritage, values et al: The Leftist prescriptions , as we would both agree, are both suicidal & utopian. The O.R. is essentially Burkean, in the fact it's not trying to remake man. Now, that may on the losing-side of the contest we're in, yet it's hardly leftist. Our heritage, icons, traditions and the racial roots of our country are spread thoughout their writings. Once again, not one once of the multicult. Now, they don't have a Pim Fortuyn prancing about the movement - I will grant you that.) - essentially breaking down more of our traditional mores. (No, but I'll certainly concede that Mr. Buchanan's choice of a running mate would be right up there.) Rest assured, that wasn't a popular decision amongest the rank and file.

-Military adventurism: Well, there has been a degree of agreement on the subject. I would imagine we would be in accord on this; however, this is a good thing. The Left, for the most part, isn't exactly principled on the issue as evidenced by our Serbian adventure. I truly doubt Washington's farewell address, on foreign adventures, rarely spew forth from their gullets at cocktail parties.

I could go on and on over a multitude of subjects, yet to reduce time here: Where's the leftist conection? I don't think that by not using the strong visuals by, say, Mr. Linder that they're somehow leftist. Come on, show me the hidden egalitarian under the paleo bed!


...Right now it is safer and much, much better for the wallet to obey the ZOG, and as has been said many times before, the average White will probably start fighting back only when things are so bad that following the ZOG doesn't provide safety anymore. I would think that will be when Whites become a minority in the United States, but it could be sooner.

Yes, men will usually place their family & home above all. I think this is far more part of the equation than social ostracization for extreme political views, imo.

...That's because when it's not dangerous to talk about the revolutionnary ideas anymore the radical stuff, which dares go all the way, will appeal to the masses more -- and always remember, despite what it may seem at times the masses are a bloodthirsty and cruel bunch who will sometimes shock even their revolutionnary authorities.

The lack of food in the belly and hyper-inflation of a nation's currency have a remarkable affect on their outlook and views, however. ;)


But these softies will not, however, be paleocons (what we in Sweden sometimes refer to as "punsch patriots" -- because they will sing patriotic songs when toasting in punsch at some national holiday, but they are too frightened to actually stand up for the country). Those guys are a completely different crowd, quite impotent. Okay, now I'm done.

Well, I'll just assume that in your comparison of the paleos to "punsch patriots" that you meant to make the comparison with flag-waving pro-Bushies, right? I still consider the O.R. to best suit my ideology, and I can assure you in the fact that no one I know, who shares my political convictions, waves any flag for that SOB, Bush. No faux-patriots amongest my colleauges, nor any one I came into contact with in any of Pat's campaigns. All decent men have a Boston Tea Party or Beer Hall Putcsh in them, they're just not cognizant of the fact.

I think we need both those "hard" nationalists who tell the whole truth, to pass it on until such times that the game has changed and the average man is open to new solutions, and those "soft" nationalists who hold back a little in order to simply spread the desire to look at ourselves as a group with collective interests.

This is all I was referring to, in actuality. Is it not better to approach our common problems from many different angles? (Sans Scientologists, of course. :D) Our founding fathers hardly fit the bill of hardened revolutionaries; most were, in fact, very prosperous men with much to lose.

When I was a young teenager, some 20+ years ago, I recall reading an op-ed by Mr. Buchanan. I'd never heard of him up to that point, nor the subject matter he discussed. In addition, my political views were hardly grounded in anything at that time. The article dealt with the Whites in Rhodesia and South Africa. Up to that point, I'd never even imagined being a minority in your own country. It was truly not something I couldn't fathom, as I grew up among my own kind, for the most part, and the thought of being surrounded by blacks was a very foreign concept. I didn't know the difference between a Boer and a bear, but it made me want to learn more. Would I have come to my current beliefs without that article? Yes, it's probable but not a certainty. Point is: I read that article in my local paper. In a similiar vein, if a young White were to happen upon the Sobran link at Drudge, read his views on the tribe and see something he/she has never seen before. Yes, something that confounds a great deal of all previous knowledge on the Jews, and perks his/hers interest to examine things further. Isn't that a good thing? Now, if Mr. Sobran were to use Mr. Linder's colorful language the link wouldn't exist. That's really all I was trying to convey. Comprende?

Best regards,

Distorted, almost lefty & utterly out of reality person

[Intrepid]

Speaking of that, has anyone read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's essays about the flaws of democracy?

Yes and no. I've read Hoppe's first book, but I haven't read these essays. He, imo, is one of the most sane Mises lads. He isn't blind to the cultural and demographic issues that most Libertarians are. I have a friend that took one of his classes at the University of Las Vegas, and he said, when in private, he was fairly candid on race. However, he didn't find it relevant to his book. Sounds kind of odd to me, but his book is very cogent, nevertheless.

I know little about John Adams or Samuel Adams. I thought the points were interesting enough to post, and I know what Kirk was thinking of when he wrote them. But I would have put emphasis on other things of course, fanatic nationalist as I am.

Well, what I was trying to convey, however dis-jointed, was the fact that John Adams was very different to his kin. Samuel Adams was a professional rabble-rouser, and failed at basically every occupation he ever attempted. In essence, a loser. John, on the other hand, was very successful and not very inclined to breaking with England. In the end, they came together. Sorry for the sh*ty parable.

Now, I would have added a point about the folly of democracy too, but even should Kirk want to write about that I suppose he wouldn't have been able to, if he wanted a chance to get published.

Actually, the folly of democracy is filled throughout Kirk's works. He had published 15 or so books, with nary a problem of getting published. The best American writers on the subject, imo, are Garet Garrett & Albert Jay Nock. Fire-breathing individualists, sans perversions, were these men. If you sift through Rockwell's site, you'll find several of their writings. My personal favorite on that vile creature is: The Heresy Of Democracy , by Lord Percy of Newcastle - 1955. It's an old Regnery print, like so many of the others, including many of Kirk.

Fifth point: sounds a whole lot like the first point. It simply warns of trying to build a society that does not take into account nature, human biology, and so on. Kirk chooses the words "sophisters, calculators and economists" where I would simply say "commies, Keynesians and other weirdos."

Your words work just as well, Fredrik. :D Social planners are typically usually very disturbed individuals in their own right. Paul Johnson's: Intellectuals - 1988, shows most of these cretins for their own hypocrisy. In it, he basically destroys several prominent "social planners," including: Rousseau, Shelly, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Betrand Russell, Brecht, Satre, Edmund Wilson, Victor Gollancz, Lillian Hellman, Chomsky etc. It's all so humorous to see these august people try to direct how our lives should be led. Yet, in reality, their personal lives were in many instances a shambles. Most couldn't even take care of their own financial affairs, battered their spouses & children. All in all, they didn't lead very ideal lives, yet they knew how we should live. lol... I couldn't recommend a book any higher.

[Douglas Wright]

I am halfway through CM as I write, having labeled myself a conservative since college years ago, but never having read it. Duh. If there were any kind of true tutoring system out there, some older conservative white guy would have directed me to read this book long ago, but, in our current system, older conservative white guys don't give younger conservative white guys anything but the cold shoulder. Funny, that. Conservatives prattle about the transmission of values from old to young, but they never engage in it themselves, preferring to let MTV handle the task.

No matter. CM itself is a collection of conservative wisdom, put together by Kirk, for you to imbibe.

The clear theme is that true conservatism is not about maximizing property, per se, or hyperindividualism. Quite the opposite. It's about recognizing and revering what Kirk calls the wisdom of the ages: the individual is foolish, but the species is wise. Prejudice, far from being a bad thing, is a damn good thing. Hierarchy, good. Equality, impossible.

Of military imperialism, we hear nothing. Of capitalism, we hear very, very little. Really, all that the Jew neocons emphasize --- basically, those two things --- there is SILENCE on in CM. CM is essentially racialist.