Conservatism Without Race as its Core Feature?
Posted by Socrates in conservatism, paleoconservatism, philosophy, race, Socrates, Western culture, White philosophy at 7:40 pm | 
Permanent Link
This issue was already mentioned on the VNN Forum, but more newbies need to consider it. Notice that the conservative movement has failed. Nothing has been “conserved.” People who call themselves conservatives are more liberal today than they were 30 years ago. The American conservative movement is doomed to failure mostly by its race-blindness (and partly by its blindness to feminism, e.g., “career women”). As the U.S. fills up with non-White voters, the movement will have to shift further leftward in order for conservatives to win elections – i.e., in order for them to win the vital support of non-Whites – a shift which will, in turn, alienate the movement’s main support base of rightwing White men. In other words, the movement has no good options available, except one: recognize the importance of race to culture:
29 January, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Omigosh that’s the dumbest effing article I’ve ever read. Notice this:
There’s a term for people who favor slow, incremental change that respects our heritage over radical, irreversible acts of social engineering: They’re called “conservatives.”.
No, they’re called retarded sheeple. Huh?: “incremental change that respects our heritage”? What change is that, and how likely now that the invasion has gotten such a foothold? Paleocons really are an enemy worse than neocons in many ways. Their movement gets people dithering in a dead end for years and some never really move on to WN. Fuck you, Zmirak. May the kike boot grind the faces of your progeny into the dirt.
29 January, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Here is white liberalism in it’s purest form…and it’s consequences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5vE3VQdLa4&feature=related
29 January, 2008 at 9:39 pm
To Alex Linder.
Can you please post your comment that got erased?
That is, if you still have it available.
Thanks
30 January, 2008 at 2:50 am
The problem is, “conservatism,” at least in its modern form, is, in the immortal words of Savitri Devi on religions, “mere rackets to bluff the fools.”
The cold, hard, ruthless fact is, the Republicans – nominally, the “conservative” party – only wins nationally when they run on RACE, and they win BIG – Nixon over McGovern, Reagan over Mondale.
This is why Nixon was so concerned about Wallace.
This is why David Duke HAD to be stopped by the Republican, which called in a wall of national Republicans, led by Lee Atwater, SOLELY to destroy David Duke’s chances for statewide office.
Only by brutally undermining the White vote by supporting policies that work against White RACIAL interests do the “conservative” Republicans reveal themselves to be, simply, professional political manipulators, who offer a straw man for the Democrats to run against.
The most overwhelming deficits in American history – to cite one example – were developed under “conservative” Republican presidents…
The ongoing attacks on the White Race in the names of “Civil Rights” and “Affirmative Action” were supported – enthusiastically supported – by “conservative” Republicans.
This is why we will do better with Ron Paul supporters, who have little attachment to the extant political system, and see the need for something new that WORKS.
New America
An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!
30 January, 2008 at 12:38 pm
The trouble, of course, is that “incremental change” is just a Jewish code word for “no change”, and refusing to see the racial aspect of the Jewish question, and allowing libertarian Jews to lead the racialist end of the conservative movement, is just another dead end for white people.
Not that these smug policy wonk nerds whose heads are lost in Jewish politicking can ever grasp that.
30 January, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Conservatives today are more liberal than liberals were in the JFK/MM era for the most part. But in the end, “conservative” and “liberal” are statements of degree rather than principle. Would you like a liberal application of Hebrew National mustard on your hot dog, or would a more conservative amount be preferable? It’s still mustard on the hot dog.
30 January, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Just wanted to make certain everyone here has an opportunity to see David Dees latest tribute to Ron Paul on http://www.rense.com.
If you’ve never had the pleasure of seeing this riveting, powerful artist’s depictions of Zionism/contemporary totalitarianism and obvious admiration of statesman Ron Paul, please do go into his archives (beneath his current artwork on Rense’s homepage). And spread the word. His art truly is worth more than a million words.