Amerika

Conservatives keep making the same mistake they did after the French Revolution. Being pragmatic as well as realistic, they opt for keeping a voice in the political system even as it goes Left, but end up being forced to compromise positions that the next generation then mistakes for the goal.

As is no longer taught at high schools, the French Revolution produced conservatives; before that time, ideology did not really exist, but people had differing opinions on how to solve certain problems, although they were weighed down by past compromises made with the rising middle class.

These conservatives faced a choice. They could either drop out entirely as ultra-royalists, figuring that the system had inverted itself with a revolution and could do nothing but error and evil, or they could become classical liberals and join the National Assembly, sitting on the right.

From this came the name of the modern Right. These politicians wanted to conserve all that was good from the time before, but realized that in an egalitarian system, it had to be through the rights of individuals, and not as an organized civilization.

In doing so, they gave up on their society and tried to save the remaining functional people who were left, much as the English did following their Revolution and Magna Carta. They had lost the war for the culture and society, but wanted to keep intact what they could of the function from before.

While this enabled them to remain active, it also tacitly gave approval to the new regime and forced conservatives into a hybrid position. They could no longer say that they wanted the kings to return, only try to keep the types of actions a king would do to protect his people as part of policy.

This means that each generation, society breaks down further as we get farther away from what works. The new generation of conservatives adopts what the previous one did, but they understand it as a goal in itself and not a signpost to a larger goal, and so Leftism marches on.

If the Uniparty has an essence, it is that both sides agree on a Leftist style of society, and each generation conservatives start arguing more for a personal philosophy and less for a civilization, accepting more Leftist ideas each time.

At this point, most conservatives are essentially Leftists who want slower decay than what the mainstream Left will endorse which is usually disguised as moderation but gives a wink and a nod to full Communism.

Leftists after all are those who simply want power they cannot wield. The path to that is to have the standard human third world society where a few warlords rule over a vast and impoverished mass, and only those who get into the system have any wealth. This exerts ultimate control indirectly.

They demand “equality” from individualism, namely that they want to clear aside anyone who might know better and focus on producing a fungible mass of idiots who will trade their loyalty for favors from the warlord class. Most human societies operate this way.

Europe became powerful because it got away from this and focused on having strong but not micromanaging leaders because doing so made greater competence available to all, and over time this system — enshrined as manorial feudalism — bred better quality Europeans and vaulted us over all others.

Since Leftists want to break society down so that they can rule the ruins, they oppose this and anything that looks like strength. They want a weak society so that they can become its trusted advisers and make financial deals instead of doing difficult stuff like fighting, farming, or manufacturing.

Leftists are the kid in your group project in school who does absolutely nothing until the last night, when he types everything and puts his name first, having done a tenth of the work and getting most of the credit. He thinks he is clever for doing this even though everyone else thinks he is a dork.

Right now, conservatives are still defending the America of Lincoln and Reagan. They fear mentioning the obvious genetic and biological differences, including IQ, between social classes, races, sexes, and ethnic groups. They want us all to be equal so we can serve equally.

Consequently we hear a lot of rhetoric about a raceless America from the Right, who want to unite us with a libertarian ideology and the Christian religion instead of culture:

Some conservatives question the process itself, saying the overarching premise that Americans need more ethnic categories will only accelerate Balkanization.

“By creating and deepening sub-national identities, the government further contributes to the decline of one national American identity,” wrote Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in his personal comment posted on the OMB web page seeking public input.

That view contrasts sharply with those who say previous categories have overlooked nuances.

Here we have the ideological creation of “one national American identity,” which denies the differences between us so that we may be compelled to act as if there is unity on a political, legal, and economic basis. They want a Leftist society that pretends to be Right on most issues, like Hitler did.

An actual conservative perspective holds that we conserve the best of the past, when societies were united by ethnicity, culture, religion, and a social hierarchy which produced aristocrats at the top who ruled for the best of the society, not themselves, special interests, or all individuals.

Conservatives cannot talk about race because part of conservatism is nationalism, or preserving each tribe by conserving its culture and genetics. After WW2, this became controversial, and after the 1960s, it became our New Original Sin.

Consequently, conservatives are barred from talking about one of the core principles of conservatism, just like we are barred from talking about overpopulation and the ecocide it is creating. These things are not popular, therefore in a society based on selling products and votes, they are taboo.

The Left can talk about race, but will only do it in a way that allows them to weaponize it against us, such as by demanding representation for minorities but denying it to Europid groups in order to use the former to replace the latter.

Conservatives compound this by talking about specific ethnic groups instead of focusing on the broader problem of diversity. In the long calculus, diversity replaces majority culture and adulterates its genetics, committing genocide.

Diversity creates as an intermediate stage a state of undeclared race war where each group attempts to dominate the others. They have no choice in this; they are either in power, or subject to the whims of another racial or ethnic group, which is never a good idea.

This covert race war occurs through events disguised as everyday violent crime that are in fact genocidal leanings weaponized into “hate crimes” that are not prosecuted whenever the group committing them has control:

The case has seen police unveil a deadly game in which older men are randomly targeted and assaulted for no apparent reason.

According to News24, the name of the game is “drop a toppie” (drop an elderly man).

Their modus operandi is to visit drinking spots and identify an ‘old toppie’ and harass them until an argument ensues.

They use racial provocations to prompt a response, which then causes the group to attack. The same happens in political, economic, and legal systems whenever there are enough minority group members to have a plurality and sway the election, court case, or marketing in their favor.

Rather than bemoan Black crime statistics or the number of Jews or Chinese in Congress, we should instead ask the question of whether diversity is good at all. Considering that it requires lots of footnotes, fixes, exceptions, and red tape, it seems to be useless except for political purposes.

We are going to have to talk about human differences. Whether the IQ bands that make up our castes and social classes, the bad people among us who need removing, or the need for each ethnic group to have its own nation, conservatism embraces the issues that Leftism suppresses.

Tags: conservatism, identity, race