Without in any way wishing to associate myself with raciliats sentiments, I would just note that there can be such a thing as a good National Revolution, such as perhaps the “Vichy that might have been” (i.e. if the early Vichy had been allowed to continue and develop freely), or that envisaged by the Abbe de Nantes’ group:

http://www.crc-internet.org/p126-130.htm

“racialist” of course. These com boxes on this site are difficult to deal with.

Prozium does make one unimpeachable point: the Republicans have mostly facilitated abortion rather than hindered it. I reluctantly came to this conclusion myself a number of years ago so it must be correct!

“a dose of diluted Prozium” - Hah! You may be the Vladimir Horowitz of the alphanumeric keyboard. Clever lad.

The 60s prove once again the wisdom of conservatives: revolutionary change, even if motivated by a real injustice, unleashes a torrent of demons.

John,

I’m glad to see you have restored (and expanded upon) this post. I will reply later this afternoon or sometime tomorrow. Hope you are enjoying your sojourns in Rome.

The “conservative movement” in the USA is a misnomer. It got started as a reaction against the New Deal. The goal was to restore an earlier version of liberalism. American conservatives believe in free trade, globalization, small government, low taxes, laissez-faire capitalism, religious tolerance, radical individualism, etc. They are unanimous in the belief that “liberty” is the highest good and takes precedence over all other concerns.

This political orientation is known as liberalism. The political mainstream in the USA, which is occupied by “liberals” and “conservatives,” is a merely a debate between two factions of liberalism over whether priority should be given to “liberty” or “equality.” The end result is always more liberalism because there is no real opposition to liberalism in America.

Prozium is a repulsive character, but he happens to be correct in his above comment.
The “Old Right” is a misnomer. (And isn’t “conservative movement” an oxymoron?")
In 1950, Robert Taft called himself an “old fashioned liberal”.  Etc etc.

Prozium, based on what I see in your blog, you reek of Hell.  But Mephistopheles often spoke the truth, even if he did so with evil intentions.

“Conservatism” has been great for the Davos crowd. Aside from the outright destruction of the United States, they have gotten almost everything they have wanted over the past several decades: liberalization of financial markets from the meager restraints imposed on them, the WTO, a drastic expansion of “free trade,” evisceration of unions, open borders, etc.

“Conservatives” rail against government when 100% of the poison pulsating through our culture comes out of the private sector. Capitalism has produced a level of cultural degeneracy in the USA without peer in all of world history. How many niches of pornography do we have in the USA? Gay, interracial, bestiality, tranny, teen, obese, elderly, scat - there’s a thriving market for it all.

In America, homosexuals have the “freedom” to parade around our cities (in Massachusetts they can get married), women have the “freedom” to have abortions, negroes are “free” to knock up teenage white girls. Sluts like Britney Spears and Lohan, thugs like Jay Z and Lil’ Wayne, white trash like Kid Rock are role models.

Conservatives and liberals have reached a consensus that all of this is fine. They call it “freedom of the individual” and “tolerance” and “human rights.” The only value sacred to them is indifference to all the scum running wild in America.

We’re supposed to believe that Iran, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Africa, the American South ... whatever Hitler-of-the-Month the media conjurs up are the bad guys and America is everything great and wonderful. The whole world should aspire to be like us. Everyone who ever lived before the baby boomers were hopelessly backward.

No thanks. I can’t imagine a society that could possibly be more degenerate than contemporary America. Well, aside from the Netherlands. I don’t believe in liberal democracy. I don’t see “conservatism” as being an alternative to it either.

Prozium, you’re wrong. Germany is even more degenerate than the Netherlands. About a year ago a government sponsored campaign handed out handbooks about children’s sexuality. One was titled something like “Why Doesn’t Daddy Touch My Pussy?” It was meant as an introduction to the sex lifes of zero to three-year olds.

This is wholly in line with the feminist-demon Andrea Dworkin’s teachings. Being a physically utterly repulsive person, she falied to attract the sexual interests of men. She decided then that she’d become a lesbian. Imagine her surprise when lesbians too failed to show interest in her. Then she decided she was “asexual” and lived in a sexless marriage with a homosexual.

Unfortunately, Andrea started thinking about what had gone wrong. But she didn’t blame her hairy, fat, bleak and unattractive features for her misfortunes. No, there was something wrong with humanity. So she started writing books on how to “improve” humanity, the same project that communists, fascists and national socialists had approached, but from different angles. To make a long story short, Andrea came to the following conclusions; Sex (gender) is a social construct. The physical sexual differences between individuals aren’t to be divided into two distinct sexes, but instead placed on a floating scale. I guess she meant that someone could thus be considered 70% woman and 30% man, which is probably close to her own individual ratio. Also, house pets should be invited into participating in the sexual activities of us humans. And now, brace yourself, children too, without regard to age or biological closeness to their parents.

If all this is stomach-turning and unbelievable to you, then consider that we’re in fact almost entirely there. The only missing piece is that endorsing marriages or “unions” between humans and animals is yet to come. “Do you take this goat, to be your...”

Let me in contrast for once say something positive to John Zmirak. Some very good points in this article. I really thought you had completely lost it John. Maybe it was the negative reactions to your neoconnism that straightened you out?

Now, since you’re in the area, why not take a weekend trip to Kosovo? I recommend Kosovska Mitrovica, where you’ll be entirely among Serbs. Just don’t tell the Serbs you’re Catholic, and absolutely not that your heritage is Croatian. These people will hate you even more than they hate the Albanians. Despite my disagreeing with you when you go “lefting” I’d like you back in one piece.

An excellent piece by Mr. Zmirak.

I’m very serious now when I ask Christ to defend my soul while I respond to “Prozium”, because I believe that when I speak to him, I’m speaking to a highly intelligent Human agent of immeasurably more powerful, NON-human intelligences from Hell.  And I mean that literally.

Prozium, I must admit, you are EXTREMELY intelligent as far as Humans go.  And all the more dangerous because most of what you say is true.  That’s why my intuition tells me that what you write is a threshold invitation to what the higher intelligences of Hell want us to hear - all truthful words as far as they go, which is typical of how the intelligences of the Fallen Angels speak.

That said, and as I ask Christ to defend my soul against higher, non-human intelligences against whom no Human is ever able to defend himself (you real Catholics out there - especially JZ - know what I mean), I will respond to the truths which Prozium has written:

“Conservatism” has been great for the Davos crowd. Aside from the outright destruction of the United States, they have gotten almost everything they have wanted over the past several decades: liberalization of financial markets from the meager restraints imposed on them, the WTO, a drastic expansion of “free trade,” evisceration of unions, open borders, etc.”

Prozium is correct.  I cannot argue against what he said there.

““Conservatives” rail against government when 100% of the poison pulsating through our culture comes out of the private sector.”

Prozium speaks a half-truth there.  The truth is, that it’s impossible to measure how much poison comes from the private sector versus the government, because those two sectors are really inseparable and indistinguishable - and the failure (or unwillingness) of the “Libertarians” to acknowledge this truth, is their Achilles Heel. 

And Prozium-Mephistopheles wrote:

“Capitalism has produced a level of cultural degeneracy in the USA without peer in all of world history.”

A half truth.  It’s true that “capitalism” has contributed to horrible degeneracy, but not true that it is without peer in all of world history.  Satan always (or usually) mixes truth with lies.

“How many niches of pornography do we have in the USA? Gay, interracial, bestiality, tranny, teen, obese, elderly, scat - there’s a thriving market for it all.”

But, Prozium, the kind of political and spiritual pornography which YOU write on your blog, is more radically evil than pictures of naked women.  Sins of the flesh are always lesser sins than sins of the spirit such as YOU perform and represent.  Hitler committed very few sins of the flesh; Hitler’s sins were mostly of the spirit.  Jesus said, “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”,
and so, the sins of the flesh are easily forgivable - like when St Peter denied Christ out of animal fear - but the sins of the Spirit, such as the sin of Judas, are much more radical and less easily forgivable.

“In America, homosexuals have the “freedom” to parade around our cities”

HA!  I remember when I was at an academic conference in St Petersburg, Russia, in 1999, a young Russian thug stood up and said, “We do not want Russia to become like America!  Because in America, homosexuals can WALK DOWN THE STREET!” I stood up and asked him, “Um, where else would you like them to walk, if not down the street?” HA!  :-)
Look, I’m no great fan of Gays.  But come on.  They have a right to walk down the street, as long as they don’t frighten the horses.

“women have the “freedom” to have abortions”

I believe they should not have that “freedom”, but I ALSO think that if abortion is outlawed by the state, then the state has a duty to protect the lives and economic interests of otherwise unwanted babies.  If you want the state to outlaw abortion, then the state must be consistent in its defense of those babies, and continue to support those unwanted babies after they are born.

“negroes are “free” to knock up teenage white girls.”

And even MORE frequently, WHITE men are free to knock up teenage white girls.  Most White children born outside of marriage have two White parents.  The epidemic of unwanted and/or “illegitimate” (a loathsome term) children, has almost nothing to do with race.

“Sluts like Britney Spears and Lohan, thugs like Jay Z and Lil’ Wayne, white trash like Kid Rock are role models.”

Ah, here is where Mephistopheles crosses the line from reason to madness, as all agents of Hell always do.  He started out with a truthful criticism of America’s fake “conservatism”, and ended up equating the failures of America’s right wing with Britney Spears being a slut and going mad.  He’s confusing unrelated things.  That’s how Evil argues, always: open up a niche with some truths, and then contaminate and confuse the truth with bullshit, in highly intelligent ways.

“Conservatives and liberals have reached a consensus that all of this is fine.”

No “they” haven’t, because “conservatives and liberals” are abstractions.  And Satan is the Lord of Abstractions, as (inter alia) Satan’s agents Lenin and Hitler both demonstrated.  (Yep, Hitler was very abstract, in an INGENIOUSLY Satanic way!)

“They call it “freedom of the individual” and “tolerance” and “human rights.” The only value sacred to them is indifference to all the scum running wild in America.”

“Scum” including you.  So don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

“I can’t imagine a society that could possibly be more degenerate than contemporary America. Well, aside from the Netherlands.”

Go f--- yourself with Monica Lewinsky’s stained dress (after bronzing), Prozium.
Yes America is very degenerate - as all the World has been ever since Adam asked Eve a question and Eve said, “Wow, that’s a hard one!” ;-) Most countries are more degenerate than America, but I can’t be bothered to give you examples. 

“I don’t believe in liberal democracy.”

Then move to North Korea, where they care very much about racial purity and they hate Christianity.

Yep, John, the Civil Rights campaign opened a
Pandora box, but that makes the point that I made
earlier, that failure to address the civil right
issues much earlier led to it.

Unfortunately there is a mantra of too many
conservatives (and libertarians) that when you
point to a problem they say “it will solve itself
with time” - and forget that things that solve
themselves never do it to your own specifications.
Might as well expect a patch of untended ground to
give a harvest of wheat.

Jim Crow could have been dealt with in the nineteenth
century, or beginning of the Twentieth, but nooooo, they
had to wait until the demand for it got out of control.
When, to parapharse Burke, whatever was achieved instead
of being a boon graciously given, was an extracted demand\

You see what happens out of saying “things will work out
on their own” So they did.

Beware the conseils of laziness.

Scratch an American “conservative”, and he’s either a racialist or a libertarian (or both) (not Mr. Z, by the way).

Mr. Z’s history isn’t quite correct.  The “Left” in fact became “Right”. The Civil Rights movement became a nationalist and racialist movement.  Removing Jim Crow morphed into Black Power and Black Panthers.  King, right before his death, was already being dismissed as an “Oreo”. Even to call it after 1966 the “Civil Rights Movement” is wrong.  “Affirmative Action” was just a euphemism for assuring that a particular ethnic nationalist group got power.  The goal of the 1950s Civil Rights movement, a laudable and correct goal, was to get rid of skin color as a category. It failed, not for the risible reason of our Aryan racialists, who are so marginal as not to be taken seriously, but because of the exact same nationalist and approach among our pre-1808ers. Our racialists are just, so to speak, brothers under the skin with Black Nationalists and Black supremacists.  There is really little difference among Frances Cress Welsing, Susan Brownmiller, and Prozium, save that the former are willing to use their real names.

“Race” in reality is only skin color, which is as important for human culture as eye color.  An ethnic group are the product of a particular history, not genetics. Gringos are purblind about this.  Our pre-1808er “Blacks” are an ethnic group, not a race.  West Indians are a totally different kettle of fish, as are “African” Africans because their history is differnt.  In passing, physiologically there are a vast variety of groups in African, as in Europe, – another reason that race is a silly category.

it’s a huge step from there to say that the State must use its coercive power to restrict private association or freedom of contract

Which is exactly how the pro-death crowd sees it.  “It’s my restaurant, it belongs to me, I can do with it as I wish” “It’s my body, it belongs to me, I can do with it as I want.” If you’re for “voluntary” [sic] Jim Crow for proprietors because they wish to exclude on the basis of a physical condition (skin color), you’re for “voluntary” [sic] for Pro-abortion, which also wishes to exclude on the basis of the physical condition embryo-ism.  Of course the two can’t be compared. So spare me about “bad analogy”.  (Today seems to be the day for “false analogy”). It’s just not how most folks see it. Abortion is the (bad) libertarianism of the “Left”, Jim Crow of the “Right”.  And the pro-Life movement is the civil rights movement of today, thank goodness!  And let’s have The State criminalize abortion!  In passing, Personalism is a vastly better ideology than “national liberation” and liberalism/libertarianism.

Odd, by they way, how the Austrian school’s central plank, that “The customer is king” (demand drives the market), is suddenly subordinated to “Let the proprietor be a tyrant!”.

If Mr. Z means that the “Left” has become “Right” (identity politics = nationalism and racialism), then he’s quite correct.  If he is offering the choice of either The State or a return to “voluntary” [sic] Jim Crow, and himself choosing the latter, this is a false dilemma.  How would Mr. Z feel if we had “voluntary” [sic] discrimination against Croats.  Has he forgotten the NINA signs?  Does he wish NCNA signs?

PS: see C. Vann Woodward, The Strange History of Jim Crow, chap. 1-3. Adriana is correct: Had we listened to (Gov.) Wade Hampton, all this would have been obviated.

Hello, Sid

Good to compare the Right to Life movement to the original
Civil Rights movement. I trust that you saw the telecast
of the March for Life in EWTN. Very racially mixed
crowd, all claiming for the same: respect for human life.
Reminds you that the Catholic Church is the Universal
Church, and if it is not Universal, then it is nothing.

As for the rights of the business owner, we have, in the
name of liberty, skewed our outlook towards the business
owners, in the name of economical efficiency, forgetting
that the interest of the business owner is not the same
of the polity. Witness how the desire for cheap labor
drives so many business owners to advocate unrestricted
inmigration, never mind what that does to the body
politic.  One would think that a group of people who
are willing to inflict damage to our society in the name
of making a greater profit would be watched with
distrust by the rest of us, no matter how beneficial
they might be in other respects.

Mr. Ball,

do you not feel that your last post was the tiniest bit melodramatic?

If not, and if you are/were sincere might I just point out that, with your continued resort to swearing and tough-guy posturing, you would be pleasing the devil no end?

Don’t mind me - i’m just another ignorant bog-trotter.....er...one generation removed!

“Civil rights” = a movement built by non-Whites, i.e., people who are genetically Jewish, especially Emanuel Celler: http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=2570

Adrianna,

You give Martin Luther King and his followers way too much credit. The Civil Rights Movement kicked off in 1955 with the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The U.S. Supreme Court had struck down racial segregation in public schools the year before in the Brown decision. The controversy that followed was caused by the failure of Southern state governments to enforce federal court orders. The Supreme Court had already struck down the white primary and segregation in public accommodations in several other decisions before Brown.

The American establishment decided to rid itself of Jim Crow for its own reasons. Both major political parties were committed to “civil rights reform” by 1948. Truman desegregated the military that very same year. The end of segregation was preordained before White America had ever heard of Martin Luther King.

Betty (Goldstein) Friedan published The Feminine Mystique in 1963 - a year before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her radicalism was in no way caused by an obscure black preacher from Georgia. Friedan had been a radical for decades before the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement.

The common thread that runs from civil rights to feminism to abortion to gay liberation to the progressive left of 2008 is not Jim Crow. Rather, it is the inclusion of your co-ethnics in United States and their attraction to subversive political movements.

Everyone in America knows what the “Christian Right” is and that it has a discernible political agenda. To identify and oppose the “Jewish Left,” however, is to be branded an “anti-Semite” or something much worse and excluded from polite company.

@John

a melancholy thought. I would like to make a
parallel between the Civil Rights movement and the
Right to Life movement. Both sought worthwhile goals,
and both gave rise to unwelcome side effects. You
listed the side effects of the Civil Rights movement.

How about the Right to Life movement? It was used to
elevate to power the current cabal of warmongers and
Empire builders who got us bogged down in Iraq, and
to put our economy in hock to the Chinese.

At least the Civil Rights people took down Jim Crow.
What has the Right to Life movement to show as an
accomplishment in getting rid of abortion?  Just the
willingness to be the eternal dupes of the Republican
Party to help advance ends which have nothing to do\
with the evil they denounce, or which might be
counterproductive.

Adrianna,

At least the civil rights people have also become the dupes of the war mongering Republican Party as we obliterate one country after another in the name of suffrage for women and gay rights.
Funny I haven’t heard that right to life given as a reason in agitating for war yet.

Nucci

They are dupes indeed, because they enable the
invasion of Iraq and the economic destrction of our
country without ever getting anything in return but
empty promises.

At least the civil rights people can get some of what
they ask for, even if misguided. But the Right to Lifers
seem doomed to walk around with a big sign “We enjoy
being deceived”

“At least the Civil Rights people took down Jim Crow.What has the Right to Life movement to show as an accomplishment in getting rid of abortion?”

Excellent point, and the comparison shows that Americans respond ever so sensitively to people of color not being given their full rights, while the execution of a fetus is simply not morally compelling.

““Race” in reality is only skin color, which is as important for human culture as eye color.  An ethnic group are the product of a particular history, not genetics. “

Still peddling this nonsense, Sid?  You might want to check out the following article from MIT technology review, which states:

“Ultimately, all of genetics boils down to measuring the genetic variation in some population of people and comparing it to their characteristics and looking for correlations. That’s all genetics ever is.” And, adds Altshuler, the HapMap “is simply a tool to study genetic variation at unprecedented levels of accuracy and detail.”
... They also found that how people categorized themselves—whether they called themselves black or white or Asian—correlated closely with the genetic categories.
... Race, of course, already plays a huge role in how doctors diagnose and treat patients. Physicians are well acquainted with the idea that Caucasians with northern-European ancestry have higher rates of cystic fibrosis than Asians and blacks, while African Americans suffer from higher rates of hypertension and diabetes. “

It’s available here. 
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000789.html

You might also want to check out Neil Risch’s Genome Biology article, which states:

“Neil Risch of Stanford University, a leader in the field of genetics, contends that race is helpful for understanding ethnic differences in disease and responses to disease.
His position was prompted by an editorial last year in the New England Journal of Medicine asserting that “‘race’ is biologically meaningless,” and one in Nature Genetics warning of the “confusion and potential harmful effects of using ‘race’ as a variable in medical research.”

In large part, the controversy stems from advances in DNA research streaming from the Human Genome Project—and trying to reconcile the fact that the pattern of DNA data differs among ethnic groups.
All humans have the bulk of their genetic heritage in common and possess the same set of genes.
But because of mutations—or changes in DNA—each gene comes in slightly different versions, and some of them are more common in one ethnic group than another.
These genetic differences often have medical significance—since some occur among genes that affect susceptibility to disease and the response to drugs.
For example, a mutation that causes hemochromatosis, a disorder of iron metabolism, is rare or absent among Indians and Chinese, but occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. Differences involving susceptibility to sickle cell anemia and lactose intolerance have been noted among ethnic groups and races.
Risch points out that many studies have shown that these differences cluster into five major groups, which are simply the world’s major continental areas and the people who once bred in them in isolation—sub-Saharan Africans; Caucasians, including people from Europe, the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East; Asians; Pacific Islanders and native Americans”

Pay close attention to that last paragraph!  It’s important.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2002/pd073002a.html

Similarly:

...several studies have shown that individuals tend to cluster genetically with others of the same ancestral geographic origins (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Stephens et al. 2001; Bamshad et al. 2003). Prior studies have generally been performed on a relatively small number of individuals and/or markers. A recent study (Rosenberg et al. 2002) examined 377 autosomal micro-satellite markers in 1,056 individuals from a global sample of 52 populations and found significant evidence of genetic clustering, largely along geographic (continental) lines. Consistent with prior studies, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%.

(Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:268–275, 2005):

Race is real.  Deal with it!

Marc--thank you! Finally, a sensible post on race. All too often, this website, of all websites, sounds like the Zombie Left on the reality of race. Is there no place where one can escape this foolishness except at odious Stormfront?

“Here’s maybe where the generational gap shows through.”

I hope that Mr. Zmirak isn’t implying that banning artificial birth control would be immoral.

Sid:How would Mr. Z feel if we had “voluntary” [sic] discrimination against Croats.  Has he forgotten the NINA signs?  Does he wish NCNA signs?

Sid, you hate WASPs so much you’ll believe anything - or spread any lie. The famous ‘No Irish Need Apply’ signs in the USA are a myth.

Richard Jensen: The fact that Irish vividly “remember” NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle. There are no contemporary or retrospective accounts of a specific sign at a specific location. No particular business enterprise is named as a culprit. No historian, (2) archivist, or museum curator has ever located one (3); no photograph or drawing exists. (4) No other ethnic group complained about being singled out by comparable signs. Only Irish Catholics have reported seeing the sign in America--no Protestant, no Jew, no non-Irish Catholic has reported seeing one. This is especially strange since signs were primarily directed toward these others: the signs said that employment was available here and invited Yankees, French-Canadians, Italians and any other non-Irish to come inside and apply. The business literature, both published and unpublished, never mentions NINA or any policy remotely like it. The newspapers and magazines are silent. The courts are silent. There is no record of an angry youth tossing a brick through the window that held such a sign.

One other thing.
Note to Australian authorities: A John Ball of the Perth area may be on the verge of going postal.

(I wonder if he curses like that in church)

Indictus

Nothing so surprising. We have a saying in Spanish,
“ojos que no ven, corazon que no siente” “If the eyes
does not see, the heart does not feel” No one sees the
fetuses, so the heart does not feel for them.

But both situations point to the political naivente of
those who go into political crusades which end up
benefitting third parties who care little for those
crusades.  And the Right to Lifers showed themselves
to be extremely naive because they failed to secure
anything of what they wanted, but they still kept at
it, even with those who cheerfully betrayed them.

Naive is the word, for us right to lifers.For 30 years we have let the Republican party lead us by the noses.Until we go third party we can never get anywhere.God bless Howard Philips the founder of the Constitution Party. He saw the writing on the wall 25 years ago with the Sandra Day OConner nomination.Howard was born a Jew but is a Christian convert.

I’ll not waste my time with “Marc”, who’s lifted his stuff from his favorite book: Kleine Rassekunde des deutschen Volkes, München:  K. Lehmans Verlag, 1929, by Professor Doktor emeritus Hans F. K. Günther, Ordinarius für Rassenhygiene, Universität Jena. (Wiki him)

Re NINA signs, the other liar is “Andrew”, another too coward to sign his name, and when you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism
and the photo, you’ll see why he’s a coward.
Go there quick before Andrew defaces the article. And notice he doesn’t bother to tell us who in hell is Richard Jensen.  I pray he doesn’t mean Arthur. 

More fearful symmetries:

1. “Blacks [sic] are inferior to us Whites [sic], and thus aren’t fully human.”
2. “Jews, Slavs, and esp. Poles are Untermenschen”.
3. “The fetus, the embryo, the zygote aren’t fully human.”

Sid, it is not the least bit dangerous for you to set there spouting pitch perfect PC right think without any fear whatsoever of negative repercussions. But speaking out against PC right think could very easily ruin careers and lives. So it is real easy for you to call those who use what you assume to be aliases cowards while you thump your more PC than thou chest. Aren’t you a brave one.

I am not necessarily defending what they say nor necessarily defending the use of aliases, but good grief. Your constant PC preening is SO tiresome. If you were interested in an intelligent debate then you would be denouncing attempts to enforce right think. But you aren’t interested in intelligent debate. You have already made it very clear you are interested in purges. You would have made a great Stalinist.

Prozium is surely not a genius. He wants free trade on the one hand but not open borders. He want Laissez-faire Capitalism but wails about the poison coming from the private sector. He wants personal liberty to do whatever he pleases yet homosexuality disgusts him.

he hates himself and what capitalism made him into.

I hear people say America is a Christian nation, when if fact America is an empire run by the Mammonites of avarice and greed.

Capitalism creates liberalism because it is exploitation, exploitation of mans labor, of his desires and of his addictions.

Jesus, poor man that he was, recognized that usury and materialism and greed were the downfall of man and that which corrupts his soul. Jesus and his followers had few possessions and were communal sharing all that they had.

I’m not sure I follow. I’m for free trade, globalization, capitalism, liberalism? That’s not the case at all. Conservatives are for these things. They are classical liberals. I’m not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Civil Rights legislation means that we can all pretend to be helping out minorities while sending good paying jobs overseas.  We can devalue the currency that all Americans need to buy food by printing money to finance our military excursions, but so long as we allow minorities to go and die too then all is well.  I read that paper money was developed as a more efficient way to enslave the worker.  Physical owning of slaves was seen as less efficient because the slave owner was charged with the care of the slave.  By paying the worker instead of taking care of him it was seen as preferable since it is much more efficient to pay a worker whatever the owner sees fit.  Wether or not that pay actually will feed the worker or his family is of little consequence so long as there is a steady stream of other workers, be they immigrants, whatever, who are willing to take that worker’s place. Of course this paper money is no store of value and we are now experiencing a decreasing standard of living because of our dependence on it.

Prozium, in my view one must distinguish between “conservatism” in America and conservatism elsewhere. In America, conservatism is fundamentally grounded in the doctrine of states’ rights. That is to say, conservatism, whatever its philosophical aims, demands local, dispersed government and the absence of an overarching, centralized locus of sovereignty in order to achieve them. Conservatism in America is the doctrine originally championed by the so-called anti-Federalists of the founding. Liberalism, on the other hand, requires a centralized government which alone possesses all sovereignty in itself. It is the doctrine of the Hamiltonian “Federalists.”

Thus, as the states have taken their hits over the years and lost their ability to function as a check on the national government, so has conservatism in America died; to the point now where there exists no authentic American conservatism. What we are left with is a European-style unitary state with all sovereignty fixed in a central, consolidated national government. Hence, what we today call “conservatism” and “liberalism” in America are merely two competing philosophical visions vying for power within the confines of a unitary, centralized construct. We have two gigantic factions of people with opposed beliefs competing with each other to control Leviathan; a “conservatism” and a “liberalism” competing to control an essentially liberal machine.

To put it another way: the European vision of conservatism presupposes a unitary state (because all European states feature centralized government possessing all sovereignty), as opposed to the American, which presupposes dispersed sovereignty. European conservatism then is an attempt to maintain justice and liberty in the face of a government which reserves to itself all power over the life of the nation. It is a set of guidelines or principles for lawmakers to use to make wise laws in that particular context. That European model is the kind of conservatism we have now in America, not the authentically American brand of conservatism which retains all sovereignty in the people and their states that is not expressly loaned, or granted, to the national government.

The upshot of all this is that mainstream American conservatives are today, as you say, simply a species of liberal. They have made peace with Leviathan and now focus their efforts entirely on gaining control of it in order to force the nation down the path it deems preferable. The problem, of course, is that this is all but impossible, because there can be no permanent conservative victory in such an environment; only modest and temporary gains at best. The arena they are fighting in is fundamentally unsuited to their program. Any authentic American conservatism must make its first priority the rollback of the centralized state and the restoration of power in the states and in the people.

Sorry, I’ve had to write this quickly. Hope it’s at least moderately coherent.

The problem with defining conservatism as favoring
local governments vs. central government is that you
can fall into the trap of considering the form of
government above its content. Somehow there is this
superstition that small local government can never be
tyrannical nor incompetent. The question is not in what
form are people governed, but if they are governed well,
and if in the form of government are mechanisms to
render the government - local or central accountable.

Let’s not worship a form of government above all else.
We risk one day giving our support to Sicilian mafias
if they seem to be opposing the centralism of Rome.

Writeback more often, Mr. Newland.

“Writeback more often, Mr. Newland.”

Don’t be so hasty, Mr. Cundiff.  After all, Mr. Newland used the word “nation” without scare quotes, and more than once! So he might be just another goose-stepping disciple of Cavour, Mazzini, Garibaldi, Bismarck, and the Jacobins!  Not a true Tory conservative at all!  Hiss!

Seriously, though, Mr. Newland, I wish to correct your idea that all European governments are centralized, for Switzerland is the exception.  Germany has a federal system, too, for I know a German who is very interested in the outcome of the election in her home Land of Hesse. 

Additionally, if the Anti-Federalists were the true conservatives and the Federalists were liberals, then the U.S. Constitution (the product of the Federalists) in and of itself is liberal.  In which case, conservatives by your definition truly are traitors to even the regime imagined therein.

The Constitution represented a compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in that there was the provision that any power not specifically granted to the federal government resided in the states.  When Lincoln illegaly forced states to stay in the union the conservative part of the document ceased to exist in practice.

To my knowledge, “conservative” wasn’t a part of the American political lexicon until the mid-twentieth century. The state’s rights ideology has a much older lineage, but it was associated with the Southern Democrats who bolted the New Deal coalition over LBJ’s support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My ancestors didn’t call themselves “conservatives.” They were segregationists, racialists, “State’s Rights Democrats.” A weak central government for them was necessary to ward off a Northern dominated federal government from interfering in Dixie’s unique social system.

I’m no expert on the subject, but I want to say that “conservative” was popularized by William F. Buckley’s National Review during the 1950s. “Conservative” was an established political tendency within the GOP by the time of Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign in 1964. “Conservatives” were people who believed in small government and low taxes. Goldwater would later become notorious for his opposition to the “social conservatives” (newly minted) who defected to the GOP from the Democratic Party.

“Conservatism” used to be synonymous with “classical liberal.” American conservatives were people who disagreed with FDR’s revision of liberalism in the wake of the Great Depression. They wanted to return to an earlier version of liberalism which was averse to using government as a tool to redistribute wealth ("reform liberals” came to believe that concentrated economic power was a threat to personal liberty and equality).

James Newland is correct to distinguish between American conservatism and European conservatism. “Conservative” was a dirty word in liberal America until the 1950s/1960s. It was generally associated with “reactionary.” In America, “conservatism” is merely a species of liberalism whereas in Europe it is more closely identified with religion, monarchy, custom, etc. European conservatives don’t believe that “freedom” and “equality” are the highest goods.

There has never been a European style “conservatism” in America to stand in the way of the progress of liberalism. There were, however, illiberal tendencies within the American mainstream that traditionally acted to restrain this ideology. First and foremost amongst these was racialism. Racial identity took an importance in the United States unique in the Western world. Religion was another restraining force. A weaker since of ethnic identity also once put the brakes on liberalism.

No more. The significance of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s is that all the non-liberal elements of Americanism were finally expunged from our national identity. We are united by nothing other than our allegiance to liberal ideology. Americans no longer share the same ancestry, history, culture, or religion. “Conservatives” have endorsed this consensus. For conservatives, to be an American is nothing more than having U.S. citizenship and believing in “principles” like non-discrimination. We are an ideological nation like the Soviet Union now.

Conservatives like Zmirak wonder why our culture has become so debased. The answer is that Americanism is nothing but liberalism. Conservatism is liberalism - which explains its exhaustion. We are racing forward to the final dénouement when our standard of living collapses and whites become a minority in America.

Let’s see how popular “conservatism” remains then.

Well guys and gals, whatever your definition of conservatism, the question you gotta ask yourself today is; What’s there left to conserve?

The Holy American Empire of The Third World Nations?

“But part of the price for using the State to overturn such engrained inequities was the launching of other insatiable ‘movements,’ and the creation of an atmosphere in which every settled social arrangement—from the Christian dominance in Europe to ‘heterosexism’—was suddenly open to question.” (—from the log entry)

What about the Euro-race dominance in Europe being thrown open to question?  No less than that has now, of course, has been done and anyone questioning it shouted down as “evil,” nay threatened with criminal prosecution, by people with ulterior motives.  Is there a problem there, or only a problem with opening Europe’s “Christian dominance” to question?  Before you answer, remember, among James Burnham’s rules, the one that went “Who says A must say B”:  a “yes” answer will set in train a series of re-adjustments of your positions that will bring them more into alignment with Prozium’s.  A “no” answer will tell us only that among the three things a person needs to acknowledge race—to acknowledge race one must have the brain for it, the soul for it, and the stomach for it—you (like the Vatican Curia) lack one, but it won’t tell us which you lack.

Race must now be acknowledged.  No one who calls himself a responsible member of the Euro race can shirk it any longer.  It’s not hard ... not for those having the three things needed, that is ...

Prozium,

Excellent posts. Unlike other discussants here, I am not afraid of your demonic powers, so keep it up.

@Prozium,

I am using the term conservative in the context that those who hoped for states rights and limited federal government were hoping to preserve their way of living and essentially were conservatives if not actually going by that name.  You correctly pointed out that the term would not have been used at that early date and I did not mean to imply that it would have.

Craig Senna wrote,

Well guys and gals, whatever your definition of conservatism, the question you gotta ask yourself today is; What’s there left to conserve?

Very little it would seem. I would like to start with some very basic ideas,

That if the government eventually does start to read our thoughts that thoughts not be turned into crimes.

Second, I would like to propose that we conserve the right of any person to observe Martin Luther King day by donating to Ron Paul and going to Home Depot to bug some poor guy that still has to work on that day, even though we/I have it off.

Oh just kill off white people for all I care.  What’s wrong with that?

You point out that the Civil Rights Movement’s crusade to end racial discrimination evolved from “positive” campaigns against, say, voting restrictions, to a “negative” strategy that employed government power to enforce social templates alien to any American model. Citing just a couple of examples: Within a few years of the first civil rights acts, the ability to sell homes unrestricted was checked, and even memberships of private clubs were circumscribed by public, bureaucratic intervention.

Initial success in any undertaking can goose fervor and morph its designs to a more absolutist template, and while those developments may have been unforeseen by average marcher or Freedom Rider, they were always paramount for “generic leftists or outright Communists”. Usually, “forces for change” default to their most radical elements, and it was no different for the Civil Rights Movement; radicals are, simply, more disciplined and ruthless. As its platform came to mirror that of the “hard” left, and because the “ruling class” of any society is targeted for destruction by that faction, white people who populate that class in this country, as well as much of the Northern Hemisphere, saw sanction after sanction aimed at them in the past five decades. This socio-political pogrom is not meant to end poverty, racism and global injustice; despite the gas-bag chest-beating, these are merely wedge issues to achieve “divide and rule” objectives.

An example is the plethora of “hate crime” laws (and, in some western countries, hate speech laws) . The intended byproduct of such thought-crime legislation is to establish protected classes. It doesn’t take a Yale degree to figure out “unprotected classes” translate “open target.” And the “unprotected” are exclusively white, non-Jewish, straight – and usually male.

It is impossible not to recognize this relentless, hostile agenda as nothing less than a war against white people, and the weapons every element of this “revolutionary” legacy: multiculturalism, open borders, speech codes, hate laws, etc. Couple all this with the totalitarian au courant - severe restrictions on legal rights and a federal government that practices kidnap and torture – and the implications are terrifying. (And let’s remember habeas corpus didn’t come to us from universalist philosophy or the Old Testament.)

Yes, we view the broiling reactionary forces with as much alarm: paramilitary racists, Holocaust deniers, Black Helicopter Conspiracy Pig Farmers and the kind of surly, disaffected youth attracted to websites like the one operated by “Prozium. (Sounds like a diet pill!)

But we can’t address, or battle, those primitive mindsets without first admitting that some of their grudges are legitimate.

Dear San Fernando Curt,

I couldn’t agree more. What the racialists fail to see is that dissident and minority groups which gained influence over legislation, and quickly collected far more legal and bureaucratic privilege than their movements merited, did so mostly NOT by trumpeting their nature as identity groups on the make at the expense of other groups. No, they focused on existing injustices, and grabbed political power under the ruse of rectifying these injustices and preventing their recurrence. In other words, they focused on abstract principles which might appeal to outsiders ("civil rights” ,"equality between the sexes” “liberation” for gays, etc.). Calls for “black power,” feminist utopias, and the “reconquista” of “Aztlan” have mostly backfired....

Likewise, whatever movements in defense of the legitimate interests of majority Americans have succeeded in recent history have done so by also appealing to abstractions of universal appeal.

Ward Connerly’s assault on affirmative action in California, attacks on bilingual education, the growth of the immigration reduction movement.... None of this would have been possible if the organizations promoting them had advocated them as part of promoting the interests of European Americans per se.

It’s true that minority groups get away with far more tribalism and outright racialism than ought really to be acceptable in polite discourse… but that’s no argument for encouraging Euro-Americans to emulate the worst excesses of black nationalists, Mexican irridentists, or other groups of outright bigots.

Civility in a society can only survive when groups pursue their interests using the rhetoric and internal logic of justice, equity, and the Common Good. That doesn’t prevent groups from overstepping the bounds of justice, and demanding far more than they are due. But it does give other groups leverage to resist their excessive demands, and provides a common ground for discussion.

I dread the day when members of one tribe face those of another with no reference to justice--when the argument is force.

AFRICA FOR AFRICANS, ASIA FOR ASIANS, AND WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into ALL white countries and ONLY into white countries.  The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.  Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for ALL white countries and ONLY white countries to assimilate, i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.  What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?  How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?  And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?  But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.  They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.  Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.