Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:21 | #

Doesn’t this presuppose that there actually was a real “conservative” movement at some point in the mid-twentieth century? Was “conservatism” in the American sense ever about anything more than red-baiting, apologetics for capitalism, and distrust of government?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:02 | #

By the post-WW-II American set-up Liberals are the ones who don’t want normalness, Conservatives the ones who do.  Instead of sticking to that fundamental definition U.S. Conservatives royally screwed themselves up by trying to conform to some sort of theory.  There is no theory beyond normalness and degenerateness and everybody, with or without a college diploma (preferably without ...), knows exactly what those two opposites are.  Liberals want the latter for society, Conservatives the former.  It’s as simple as that.  As things now stand, Conservatives want the latter too.  Who wants the former?  The Normals.  (Us.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:20 | #

A recent Kalb log entry expresses some ideas with relevance to this.

Posted by Maguire on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:32 | #

Scimitar,

“Doesn’t this presuppose that there actually was a real “conservative” movement at some point in the mid-twentieth century?”

Yes, it does. 

“Was “conservatism” in the American sense ever about anything more than red-baiting, apologetics for capitalism, and distrust of government?” 

It also served as a vast recruiting office for the Jews’ global attack force, which was given the Orwellian name of “Department of Defense”.

Other than this little of note ever appeared from the post-WWII American ‘Conservative’ movement.  It has never been associated with excellence in the fields of economics, science, technology or anything else. 

The Conservative social policies, so necessary to the emotional recruitment of whites to political purposes that were inherently against their own interests, are otherwise only notable for their record of 100% failure of actual political implementation.  It’s only notable achievement was behavior indistinguishable from ‘liberalism’ in the field of nonwhite racial promotion and replacement. 
Even its placard women are repulsive trolls and wizened shrews (think Phyllis Schlafly), useful only for dissuading white men from procreative relationships.

This was only to be expected of a Shabbas Goy operation composed of third rate men and women remarkable only for personal greed far exceeding their natural abilities.  College dropout and drug addict Rush Limbaugh returning from the negro island of Hispaniola with a bottle of Viagra in his luggage personifies the human quality of that ‘movement’ perfectly.

Considered in toto, the post WWII American Conservative Movement elicits a physical repulsion similar to the normal person’s reaction to a puddle of dog vomit on a hot sidewalk.

Maguire

If this confuses any Republican ‘Conservatives’, I can only say I’ll make a more candid and less rosy eyed statement when time permits.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:37 | #

You’re wrong about Phyllis Schlafly, Maguire.  You’re right about conservatives in general.  Conservatism is death.

Posted by 2R on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:25 | #

Conservatism today acts as a release valve for frustrated white people.  The idea that a white person working at Wal-Mart would become a champion for “free trade” or corporate tax breaks is all you need to know regarding the conservative movement.  The Democrat party used to dominate America because they benefited the white working class.  As soon as the Democrats became the party of race mixing, the business elite were able to pick these whites up with some “traditional values” rhetoric.  What else can explain the support the Republicans get from the white working and middle classes. 

Of course, the Conservatives do nothing to benefit whites.  Once in a while Sean Hannity shows how much of a hypocrite Sharpton is and since someone is pointing this out, white people feel better for awhile. 

The average white man has a choice, either go for the party that is vehemently anti-white in the Democrats or go for the Republicans who at least don’t insult white people or call them “privileged.”  This same Sean Hannity when asked about whites forming a congressional white caucus says “I don’t think any group should have a caucus, we’re all red, white and blue.”  White people eat this up and while they do so, every minority group in the country is organizing for their interests and could care less about red, white , or blue.  They only care about red, black, brown, yellow, and Jew. 

This is why I know White Nationalism has a good chance in America.  Give whites an option that benefits them and they’ll go for it.  The problem is, white people don’t know they’re allowed to have political movements that benefit them.  That is why I believe one of the first ideas we must get through to whites is the idea that THEY HAVE INTERESTS TOO AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PURSUE THEM!!!!

This same hack Sean Hannity when asked about the North American Union said “I’m just glad we have friends to the North and the South, I think its good that we have a partnership with our friends.”  Of course he didn’t care to talk about the fact that when this Union starts, that “workers” from Mexico will flood the US making the big Immigration “victory” that he takes credit for, null and void. This same Hannity will deceive his listeners into believing the NAU is very good, and opposing it will be “just like supporting the terrorists.”

When the Jews push censorship on the Internet, or “Hate speech” laws, these same conservatives will be their biggest supporters.  They’ll claim its too stop “terrorist hate groups” and the Wal-Mart employee I mentioned earlier will say “I’m not a Natzi or a terrorist so this won’t effect me.”

As far as Gottfried is concerned, his job is to steer whites away from racialism and into “real” conservatism.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:25 | #

Peter Brimelow and Steve Sailer and the whole vdare.com collective’s mission is to steer Whites away from racialism.

Sailers posts are vdare.com are painfully dull. Let the goddam Republican party die. When the Repuboican party finally expires ,only one thing can fill the vacum:one or more White Nationalist parties will sprout up and out.

Posted by 2R on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:43 | #

Some of the writers at Vdare are good.  Brimelow has defended the idea that in a “multicultural” State, whites have the right to look out for their interests. I’d rather there be a Vdare compared to no Vdare.  Sailer has said some negative things about racialists and instead supports an idea called “citizenship-ism” which argues that everyone can be “assimilated.”

Vdare is a good place for people just figuring out that they’re being exterminated.  If they really get it, then they’ll keep digging until they find the whole truth.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:27 | #

Frank’s right that the Republican Party has to be totally abandoned and left to die.  2008 could be the year this happens:  if Ron Paul doesn’t get the GOP nomination he definitely should run as an independent.  If he does, it’s not inconceivable he might win the election:  extremely unlikely but conceivable.  If he wins as an independent he’ll build a new party, which will spell the death of the GOP.  GOOD FRICKING RIDDANCE TO BAD RUBBISH!

Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:00 | #

2R says, “The problem is, white people don’t know they’re allowed to have political movements that benefit them.  That is why I believe one of the first ideas we must get through to whites is the idea that THEY HAVE INTERESTS TOO AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PURSUE THEM!!!!”

Yes, of course, but they need baby steps to break out of the matrix. Noticing defamation and negative stereotypes about themselves running all through the media and entertainment corporations is one way.

Another way is to notice that gang laws apply to people of color, while white gangs are hate groups and treated to no “understanding” or help.

Or notice that white kids are over-represented in smoking tobacco and meth abuse, but receive no specific targeted support whereas all the under-represented kids get all kinds of public help in breaking their particular ethnic-related addictions.

We do not need to tell them they have interests, we need to tell them at least one small interest that they can identify with. It’s not that they have interests in general about which we need to commuicate with them, it’s one specific issue that they need to know that they can understand. Simply opening the op-ed page in any daily paper and noticing who commands 90% of printed op-eds is another way.

Posted by Rnl on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:14 | #

2R wrote:

The problem is, white people don’t know they’re allowed to have political movements that benefit them. That is why I believe one of the first ideas we must get through to whites is the idea that THEY HAVE INTERESTS TOO AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PURSUE THEM!!!!

That’s absolutely right. At its core White nationalism is only the simple idea that Whites are morally entitled to pursue their own group interests.

Since no one can seriously dispute that we do have interests, the vast machinery of “racism” was summoned into existence to deny our right to act upon them.

Put differently, you become a White nationalist when you start thinking and acting without “racism.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:46 | #

“the vast machinery of ‘racism’ was summoned into existence to deny our right to act upon [our legitimate interests].”  (—Rnl)

The “racism” accusation and anti-racism religion are a Jewish-invented-and-utilized tool for helping to pry Euro hands off the levers of power so Jewish hands can grasp those levers instead.  All Jews know the “racism” accusation and the anti-racism religion don’t apply to them, only to their Eurochristian mortal enemy. 

The reason anti-racism has completely taken over our lives in the U.S. and every country the U.S. influences is that, just as in 1917 there was a Jewish revolution in Russia, in the 1960s there was a Jewish revolution in the United States:  by the end of that decade Jewish hegemony over Euros in this country had been established, hegemony which has not been challenged effectively since. 

Apart from anti-racism, Martin Luther King worship, and ©The Holocau$t® having all been imposed now as our new religion, the various manifestations of Jewish victory in the revolution of the ‘60s include of course the 1965 “It’s Good For The Jews” Immigration Holocaust Act, the deliberately engineered general breakdown of sexual morality and plummeting Euro birthrate which have continued, the imposition of women’s lib culture and homosexualism with the suppression of Euro males and generalized federal-government attack on non-homosexual white men, the Hollywood transition from representing white men in films as white goy women’s love interest and sexual partners to representing Negro men as white goy women’s love interest and sex partners, the Jewish self-fulfilling-prophecy tactic of representing Negroes in every communications medium Jews control as already being the majority population in the U.S., and so on, and the long string of Jewish victories in the decades since. 

Jewish power over Euros since the Jewish revolution that was the ‘60s hasn’t been absolute:  the Jewish power brokers didn’t want Nixon to be president, for the most part didn’t want Reagan to be president (a faction of Jewish neocons did), didn’t want the cataclysmic collapse of Soviet-Russian/Eastern-European communism of 1989-91 (Jewish neocons didn’t shed too many tears, angry as they were over Soviet-Russian treatment of Jewish dissidents and hindrance of Jewish emigration to Israel), didn’t want the reunification of the Western and Middle portions of “Germany,” don’t want our side, the side questioning race-replacement, to have internet access.

What’s most important to Jews is getting Eurochristians race-replaced.  Everyone knows how Jews are natural bolsheviks — as if they’re born with a gene for bolshevism or something, it’s so blatantly obvious and so blatantly universal among them — but race-replacement is even more important to them than bolshevism.  That’s how important race-replacement is to them.  In the universal Jewish drive to get Euros race-replaced you’re seeing what is pretty close to a truly primordial Jewish drive, a primordial Jewish desire, one which trumps lots of others including the Jewish drive to establish bolshevism.  In this deep, intense Jewish desire to see Eurochristians changed into Negroes you’re seeing something close to the innermost heart, the central core, of what Jews want above all else.  They’ll give up a lot, sacrifice a lot, if they can get Euros changed into Negroes (or Mexicans, Chinamen, Subcons, and so on, but Negroes are best for the purpose in their eyes, as that destroys Eurochristians with the most finality — not only really and truly gets Euros erased but visits a terrible vengeance on them for two thousand years of, as Jews see it, Eurochristian abuse of Jews:  changing Euros into Negroes not only solves the Eurochristian problem for Jews but is the sweetest payback imaginable).

Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:02 | #

Fred: All of you seemed to miss the fundamental point, until this last entry of yours (which is very good)

Look at the last name of Gottfried.

There’s your answer- to impartiality, honesty, ‘truth is no defense’, and verifiability of facts masquerading as ‘truth - then go back one, and look at it all again, until you see things their way.
NEVER trust a Jew.
Never.
Ever.
Never.

They are the Deicides, as the Orthodox Church clearly still calls them, and Rome did, for 2000 years, until a shabbas goy named J2P2 brought his ‘smoke of Satan’ into the ‘synagogue of lies.’
Assisi 1985 was clearly his agenda, and it spelled out what Rome had become, what she was in nascent form, since 1054.

NEVER trust a Jew.
Never.
Ever.
Never.

Now excuse me, I have to go say Liturgy. Blessed Sunday.

Posted by Amalek on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:12 | #

“American conservatism” has always been somewhat oxymoronic as a national-political category, since the USA was founded in defiance of divinely and lawfully constituted authority: that of His Majesty King George III over the colonials.

For those who take a lower line, it may be said that, pace Burke, the objects for which the rebellion was conceived were not weighty enough to merit it. The outbreak rather startled even its progenitors. Indeed after a few years of independence (cf France after the Revolution) the ex-colonials found that the federal government taxed them at least as heavily, and was apt to place at least as many curbs on their individual and collective freedom of action, as the easy yoke of British monarchy had done.

The War of Independence was a putsch. Around one-third of white Americans opposed it and about the same number were indifferent. The origins of loyalty to the Crown in Canada was the flight or expulsion of Tories from America: the Nakba of the white race on that continent, inflicted by fellow whites. Such aspects of the late 18th century are glossed over today, but they nagged at the conscience of the newly independent nation.

Like all polities stitched together by clumsy savants rather than allowed to grow organically over centuries, the USA of 1776 did not last. It perished 90 years later in what was then one of the bloodiest fratricidal struggles yet seen. Disobedience to divine authority was not mocked, and the sincs of the rebels were visited on the heads of their great-grandchildren. “God sees the truth, but waits.” (Tolstoi)

The second, imperial Republic of Tyrant Lincoln which arose from these ashes is now beginning to break up: its incessant diversionary meddling overseas and racial dilution are of a piece, as anyone who has studied Gibbon on the later Caesars will recognise.

American conservatives therefore stand on shaky ground, conceptually and in terms of historical analogy. Those such as Calhoun who defended the first republican dispensation, with its haughty oligarchies and formal racial divisions, have more to say—to us who wish political life to be congruent with the biological realities of mankind—than literary stylists, trimmers, evaders and false friends such as Russell Kirk or William Buckley.

Contemporary thinkers such as Jim Kalb, whose political outlook is grounded in a vision of the transcendent, are nutritious even to a European fortunate enough to live in a still largely monoracial country. But Kalb, Tom Fleming and the like are too Catholic to confront the central question, in an age of mobility: how can people live tolerably free and comfortably (conservatives seek no more) in a “melting pot”?

After 50 years of desegregation, Civil Rights, mob-handed immigration and neo-imperialist crusading, with its associated burdens on the purse and the cowed psyches of “homeland-secure” citizens, the answer for Americ a has been given loud and clear: civilised people cannot dwell tlerably free and comfortable in a multiracial society. The redivision of the 50 states on racial lines is a sine qua non for that modest desideratum. Yet American conservatives are tongue-tied about this necessity in a way that would have amazed their grandparents.

Why? So much of the founding mythology of the USA is connected with rebellion, and with grandiose universalist rationales for it such as the Bill of Rights. Conservatives who articulate a philosophy of government derived from popular consent and blank-slate egalitarian opportunity for all upright-walking humans have ceded most of the territory to dead-end liberal fantasy before they have begun.

Hence the ratchet effect: a shamefaced tagging after liberal pieties of yesteryear (“We are all humane interventionists now”) which has characterised “neoconservatism”, “compassionate conservatism” and other statist mutations of the old don’t-tread-on-me spirit.

Buckley once said National Revoew ‘s job was to stand in the way of History yelling “Stop!”. A true conservative would have shouted “Turn back before it’s too late!” But ever since Burke, turncoat Whigs have been invading the conservative camp and telling us that we can only arrest “progress” for a wee while, not divert or reverse it. Burke’s axiom about adaptation has been worked to death, to the profit of conservativism’s foes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:06 | #

“So much of the founding mythology of the USA is connected with rebellion, and with grandiose universalist rationales for it such as the Bill of Rights.”  (—Amalek)

Amalek meant, of course, to put “such as the Declaration of Independence” there, not the Bill of Rights.  (Overall, a very good analysis by Amalek.)

Posted by torgrim on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:25 | #

Amalek-
“American Conservatism” has always been somewhat oxymoronic as a national political category, since the USA was founded in defiance of divinely and lawfully constituted authority: that of His Majesty King George III over the colonials…

Today, American conservatism and the Republican Party is an oxymoron.

However, the colonials of the 18th century were very much following tradition. A conservatism that predated King George III by many centuries.

Before there were so-called kings by the Grace of God there were kings that actually entered into contractual agreements with the legislative and judicial. The king was not above the law. The king was in fact held to a higher standard and could be disposed by the assembly. This comes from the eldest of Anglo Saxon law and tradition.

The freemen, be they called Bonder or Yeomen rebelled at the yoke feudalism, imposed by the new conservatism of King George III, (king by the Grace of God).
With all the power in the person of king both secular and religious. Awesome power over mind and body.

With the Rebellion, came the return to the traditional form of land ownership, at least initially, Allodial title. No little victory here!

Posted by B.C. on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:20 | #

“There is no theory beyond normalness and degenerateness” - Fred Scrooby

That statement was elegant in it’s simplicity.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:23 | #

I must wonder if there is a nontrivial connection between Fr. John’s statement:

what Rome had become, what she was in nascent form, since 1054.

and Torgrim’s statement:

The freemen, be they called Bonder or Yeomen rebelled at the yoke feudalism, imposed by the new conservatism of King George III, (king by the Grace of God).

With the Rebellion, came the return to the traditional form of land ownership, at least initially, Allodial title. No little victory here!

particularly given the events of 1066.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:39 | #

Apparently there is some agreement that the split between allodial and feudal land organization is somehow associated with the split between Roman and Orthodox Christianity.  From Richard Pipes, “Property and Freedom”

Property: rights, lands, allodialism, etc. plus Georgism, fascism, communism…:

“Hitler did not have Mussolini’s revolutionary socialist background…Nevertheless, he shared the socialist hatred and contempt for the ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘capitalism’ and exploited for his purposes the powerful socialist traditions of Germany. The adjectives ‘socialist’ and ‘worker’ in the official name of Hitler’s party (‘The Nationalist-Socialist German Workers’ Party’) had not merely propagandistic value…On one occassion, in the midst of World war II, Hitler even declared that ‘basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.’”
—Richard Pipes (1999), Property and Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 220

“...the Domesday Book, the cadastre of English landed properties compiled under William the Conqueror, probably used the terms “feodum” (conditional tenure) and “alodium” (outright property) as equivalents to mean ‘a heritable estate, as absolute an ownership of land as is conceivable’.”
—Richard Pipes (1999), Property and Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 106 [Note from Dr. Cobin: While I doubt that this notion of Pipes is true, if for no other reason than that the English above all Europeans knew the meaning of absolute land rights and there is a stark difference between the two words, but then we might also consider the following quotation:]

“At the time of the Norman Conquest the landed estates of the English royalty stood at their zenith. The conquerors abolished allodial holdings: previous owners, if permitted to keep their estates, became royal tenants in chief. Normal royalty not only inherited the holdings of the deposed Anglo-Saxon kings but also the confiscated real properties from the lords who had offered them resistance, much of which the distributed among their tenants. The tenants in chief were required to provide the king with fixed quotas of cavalry. To ensure that they had the required number of horsemen, they, in turn, granted estates to knights. Thus the feudal chain was forged. But William the Conqueror assumed that all the land, secular as well as clerical, belonged to him and was held by his tenants on feudal terms. A tenant in chief who failed in his duties forfeited his lands to the crown.”
—Richard Pipes (1999), Property and Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 126 [Note from Dr. Cobin: This statement by Pipes seems to contradict the one above. This one suggests that the people knew what allodium was and the conquering king abolished it in favor of setting up a feudal system.]

“Votchina land, whether donated by the prince for services rendered, inherited, or purchased, was allodial property: accords between the appanage [a term originally meaning land set aside for the upkeep of children] princes commonly contained a formula guaranteeing every every noble possession of his estate even if he did not serve the prince on whose territory it was located…The process of transforming allodial property into tenure conditional on state service began in earnest in the reign of Ivan III at the end of the fifteenth century…”
—Richard Pipes (1999), Property and Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 168-169

“As can be seen, the evolution in Russia of property in land ran in the diametrically opposite direction from the rest of Europe. At the time when Western Europe knew mainly conditional land tenure in the form of fiefs, Russia knew only allodial property. By the time conditional tenure in Western Europe yielded to outright ownership, in Russia allodial holding turned into royal fiefs and their onetime owners became the ruler’s tenants in chief. No single factor in Russia’s history explains better the divergence of her political and economic evolution from that of the rest of Western Europe, because it meant that in the age of absolutism in Russia, unlike most of Western Europe, property presented no barrier to royal power.”
—Richard Pipes (1999), Property and Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 180

Note from Dr. Cobin: Leaving aside the flawed idea that Western Europeans enjoyed “outright ownership” (which Pipes himself seemed to contradict in the third chapter of his book), evidently, the fall of Russia to the Mongols (Genghis Khan and his son) ruined property rights in Russia, but in some places, notably the ancient Viking settlement of Novgorod (about 100 miles south-southeast of modern St. Petersburg), allodial property and liberty flourished. (It was too far north for Genghis Khan or his son’s army to bother with evidently.) Pskov, near the borders of modern Latvia and Estonia, was another Russian city with similar circumstances, but not nearly as bright as Novgorod. Pipe’s account of Novgorod is an important finding for real property theory and policy. It could suggest yet another example where allodialism fostered liberty naturally. Novgorod had the last and longest standing parliament in Russia, and had the best checks on princely power. Its best days occurred during the period 1200 to 1450 or a little later maybe, until it was ruined by Ivan the Terrible. As an aside, apparently allodial policy did not provide sufficient defense services given that it fell to Ivan. In Russia, “serfdom was eternal”. (p. 183). The Tsar owned everything (as the sole allodiary) and there were not any nobles who held land as they did in England. No one wanted to produce and store anything for fear tht the Prince would confiscate it by force. What little the people did have was often hidden in forests or other secluded places. There was, in a word, economic death in Russia which persisted at least until 1991. At any rate, it seems that one could note Novgorod, in addition to pre norman England, as places where allodial policy flourished. There are also other paces where allodial thnking had some significant footing, perhaps Poland and Iceland and even medieval France (although I have seen little evidence from them other than a stray passage in a history text here or there), as well as the ante-bellum USA See my book dealing with allodial policy.

“Russia’s experience indicates that freedom cannot be legislated: it has to grow gradually, in close association with property and law. For while acquisitiveness is natural, respect for the property—and the liberty—of others is not. It has to be inculcated until it sinks such deep roots in the people’s consciousness that it is able to withstand all efforts to crush it.”
—Richard Pipes (1999), Property and Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 208

Posted by torgrim on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:52 | #

“there are other places where allodial thinking had some significant footing”....

The Constitution of 1814 Norway placed allodial title into that document due to the traditions of the farming class. Title to property can be challenged even today in Norway, if the property comes up for sale and if challenged, must be sold to ancestoral claim, first.

It could be that the “viking” era conflicts in some instances, such as Novgorod, the Hebrities, Yorkshire, Orkneys etc. were about land law and fielty to the chieftain that enforced such law.

The Normans originally were founded by Rollo the Ganger from Norway. This Hersir or noble was expelled from Norway due to banishment as an outlaw and was unprotected by law if he returned.

He and his band or army settled in what was to become Normandy. There is some evidence that he or his heirs supported the “Sword Christianizing” kings of Norway, Olaf Trygvasson and Olaf the Saint.
After the short reign of Olaf the Saint title to land lay with the king. The feudal model of Continental Europe was in place in Norway, at least from around 1090.