Conservatism and The Illusion of Exclusion

In 1950, while being driven from contested Korean territory by the overwhelming force of the invading Chinese, the U.S. Army’s Major General Oliver Prince Smith Jr. told a journalist from Time magazine “We are not retreating. We are advancing in a different direction.” Depending on your perspective, the quote, which has since become almost universally attributed to Smith’s superior, General Douglas MacArthur, is either a masterpiece of positive thinking or a piss-poor method of deception or burying one’s head in the sand. I’ve always viewed it in the latter sense, and it’s a useful shorthand for the unending stream of failures by the mainstream Right. From immigration to gay marriage and the “war on Woke,” the conservative bloc has an innate talent not only for giving ground in its various culture wars, but for somehow reinterpreting or dissembling concession as an advance in a different direction. At the heart of “the conservative problem” is the issue of inclusion versus exclusion, and the fact the conservative bloc, wherever in the West it is found, leads its voter base on the same merry dance to defeat by endlessly hinting at the promise of exclusionary politics while bringing only an expansion to the “inclusive” state. This overwhelmingly takes the form of attracting votes by promising exclusionary action on immigration; retreating from this promise; then playing sleight of hand by trumpeting an advance in the direction of an “inclusive” economy.

“Culture Wars”

Even a brief look at the cultural career of conservatism from around the 1960s reveals a kind of political Attention Deficit Disorder. I can’t think of any single cause, with the possible exceptions of gun control and abortion (in America alone), that has held the attention of the conservative movement enough for consistent opposition or action. Just look at the current fixation on “woke” language and cancel culture. Historian Stephen Prothero wrote back in 2016 that “conservatives almost always lose, because they lash themselves to lost causes.” Despite the ideological rectitude of opposing woke nonsense, it’s essentially true that the issue is already a lost cause. The appropriate time to suffocate the rise of wokeness was years ago, when it was still in its infancy as a niche of left-wing academic nomenclature. In the same way, prior to the advent of woke, when conservatives offered tepid opposition to the eruption of transsexualism into public life, especially in the ridiculous use of pronouns and the question of restrooms and so on, they were at a loss to offer a meaningful challenge because of concessions already made on homosexuals years earlier. And on the homosexuals, conservatives were incapable of serious opposition because of concessions they’d already made around abortion, marriage, and the family, which had in turn created a childless, promiscuous sexual culture more tolerant of the sexually deviant. The conservative is someone who tries to prop up a domino that has many thousands of toppled ones behind it.

Endlessly distracted by new salvoes from the Left, conservatives always arrive too late to the fight, and they combine this with a particularly perverse kind of amnesia on prior defeats. The fundamental strategic difference between Left and Right is that the Left is aware that it is weaving a cultural tapestry, linking one threadlike advance to the next in an endless but coherent chain of social change, while the Right is engaged in political whack-a-mole, seeing everything it disagrees with as an isolated trend or event that can be defeated on its own terms or least milked for votes in the promise of such. The Right sees a series of independent “culture wars” when in fact, as the Left is aware, there is only one war for culture fought on numerous, related, and sequential battlefields. As Prothero points out, the results are conclusive: “In almost every arena where the contemporary culture wars have been fought, liberals now control the agenda.”

The link between gay marriage and the sudden rise of transsexualism to public prominence is an excellent example of the Right’s addiction to last-minute grandstanding on battles that have already been lost. It’s ironic, to say the least, that conservatives often appeal to the idea of a “slippery slope” when opposing a certain trend but are the first to forget they’re on a slope when it comes to the next challenge from the Left. When conservatives opposed gay marriage, part of their reasoning was that it was a slippery slope that would lead to further dilutions in identity, and that it would lead to a quest for “liberation” for the next putatively downtrodden sexual minority. They were right. Almost as soon as the “gay cakes” were finally baked and gay marriage was signed into law, trannies seemed to start walking into female restrooms around the country. And yet the slope was forgotten about as soon as gay marriage was written into law, and while a justified unease about transsexuals ensued there was no mention at all of how, in legislative or cultural terms, we’d arrived at that point. Quite the opposite in fact. Conservatives, consumed with political ADD, had no sooner given up on opposing gay marriage than they were literally championing Trump for advancing the ‘rights’ of homosexuals. Republicans hadn’t lost, they might say, but “advanced in
another direction.”

The Left often portrays the conservative Right as Draconian or heavily Christian on sexual aspects of the culture wars, but this is hardly accurate. In reality, the conservative Right is extremely erratic and divided on the sexual aspect of the culture wars because, with its commitment to visions of the primacy (and privacy) of the individual and the consumer rather that the folk or the nation, it has no solid ideological basis on which in could develop a robust, adaptive notion of the family. The difference is that the individual will always be boiled down to a mere atom of a global community while the family, with its additional obligations, responsibilities and immediate sense of heritage, is the basic unit of a nation. Although the Republican National Committee still technically calls for a ban on gay marriage and transsexuals in the military, this is mere lip service to the idea of sexual normality given the prominence of LGBT platitudes in the Republican top tier. There is currently no conservative political party anywhere in Western Europe, North America, or Australia that proposes the rolling back of protected status for sexual minorities, or even the tightening of laws around divorce and reduction in state provision of welfare that would curb the fracturing of families and rein in the culture of promiscuity and sterility. Without such measures, which conservatism is inherently incapable of introducing and imposing, endlessly debating these issues really is lashing oneself to a lost cause. David Brooks described Trump as “a culture-war president with almost no policy arm attached,” a description that is applicable to almost every conservative government.

Related to the ideological insistence on the individual is the conservative commitment to the fundamental principle of inclusion — a bias that taints all conservative political activity. In an interesting Newsweek piece titled “Why Conservatives Keep Losing the Culture Wars,” Marcus Johnson writes:

Winning the Civil War and World War II against deeply exclusionary societies created a cultural preference for inclusion in the U.S. This preference has become embedded in institutions and has become self perpetuating. It is this cultural preference for inclusion that prevents conservatives from winning the culture wars in this country. To win the culture wars, conservatives would have to fundamentally shift U.S. political culture away from inclusion toward exclusion. But this is extremely difficult to do in practice. It would require rejecting the cultural narratives that the U.S. has long told itself about its past conflicts and reorienting how its political institutions work.

As stated above, conservatives are inherently incapable of doing the difficult but necessary work of introducing exclusionary policies, and their reluctance to even debate or discuss even the potential of such policies keeps the option of exclusion from the public eye; thus ensuring certain defeat in any culture war. It goes without saying that the inclusionary bias of conservatism isn’t entirely autochthonous, even if it is extremely popular in the conservative elite, but has been heavily cultivated both within conservatism and, much more significantly, in the culture as a whole, by hostile, often Jewish, intellectuals and their colleagues operating in society and politics. These aggressive actors have been shaping “ways of seeing” for decades, and “the cultural narratives that the U.S. has long told itself,” referred to by Marcus Johnson, are linked more to pluralist and multicultural propaganda than to the events of history as they actually happened.

Despite the overwhelming tendency to inclusionary politics, even among conservatives, there is clearly an appetite for exclusionary laws among sections of the White population, even if this hasn’t been acted upon in recent decades by a compromised political establishment. Prior to World War II, most Western countries pursued exclusionary politics of some kind, from Britain’s Aliens Act (1905) which targeted Jews, through to the White Australia policy (1901̶–1949) and the Immigration Act of 1924. It’s interesting that two of the most popular and resonant proposals from Donald Trump’s original platform were essentially exclusionary, which is probably why they came to naught. The proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border to try to stop illegal immigration was supported by 86% of Republicans, while the attempt to stop immigration from Muslim countries, Executive Order 13769, was supported by the majority (55%) of the American population. Such statistics suggest that conservative avoidance of exclusionary policies is an elite-driven phenomenon not only strategically flawed, but which actually runs counter to the intuitions of their natural voting base — White America.

“Everyone I don’t like is Hitler”

Conservatism has drunk as heavily from the well of hostile “inclusive” propaganda as any other entity within contemporary politics, with the result that it can’t comprehend the existence of any enemy that is not in some way “Nazi” or “fascist.” Conservatives not only live in mortal terror of being branded “Nazis” but fully engage in the use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative. Their disavowals, coupled with rampant accusations from the Left, create a rhetorical-ideological maze. A staid and tired conservative bloc fights the Left’s almost recreational allegations of Fascism by asserting that it opposes the “real Fascists”—cancel culture types, ‘woke’ protestors, the Democrats, Antifa, pronoun enforcers etc.

The various enemies of majoritarian culture can’t be viewed as opponents on their own terms (neo-Marxist, postmodernist, ethnically alien, Foucaultian, deconstructionist, etc.), which would require developing a full understanding of their myriad and complex behaviors and ideologies, but must be refracted through a single facile lens — that of World War II. Only then, with laughable visions of a latter-day D-Day landing against simplified purple-haired Hitlers, can conservatism conjure enough moral strength to wage a pathetic and doomed war against shadowy left-wing “fascisms” on cultural and legislative battlegrounds long since ceded to the enemy. Meanwhile, at the first accusation of racism, “nationalist” conservatives frantically defend and enunciate their doctrine as meaning there is nothing special about their nation beyond a set of abstract values rooted in individualism — values that are, in Steve King’s words, “attainable by everyone … people of all races, religions, and creeds.” Our contemporary political context is thus one in which the real Fascists are anti-Fascists who call the real anti-Fascists Fascists. The only thing we can sure about these days, it seems, is that everyone is a Nazi.

A fascinating example of this process in action is Brian Reynolds Myers’s 2010 The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters. I bought the book some months ago because I was led to believe it was a sober exploration of morality-based racial ethnocentrism and, in the context of Kevin MacDonald’s work on the formation of moral in-groups among Whites, I was keen to compare and contrast his findings with another ethnic group. Myers’s thesis is that, rather than being the last bastion of Stalinism, North Korea is in fact home to a race-based nationalism and far-right politics derived from Japanese fascism. Myers argues that North Koreans believe that they constitute a childlike innocent race and, being innocent and pure, the Korean race is morally superior to everyone else. Supporting his thesis he offers some statistics on Korean aversion to intermarriage, and a wealth of propaganda from North Korea that seems to be race-specific and ethnocentric. The book was lavishly praised by the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment (Christopher Hitchens embraced it as “electrifying”), which found it much easier to mobilize against a modern Hitler than a modern Stalin, as well as finding a warm welcome with the Obama administration. Myers’s text was even naively welcomed by some on the Dissident Right who saw the book as a kind of blueprint for an ethnostate. The problem, as I learned from both the text itself and criticism I subsequently consulted, was that the book featured a laundry list of exaggeration, omission, psychoanalysis, and ignorance of Korean culture, history, and politics, all of which combined to suppress the Communist footprint everywhere in North Korean politics in order to present the strange little nation of Kim Jong-un as an Oriental Nazi Germany. The book is a caricature.

A bigger concern for me than the bogus nature of much of The Cleanest Race was its lavish welcome. It should be considered an axiom that any thesis that enables the “Nazification” of an opposing movement, ideology, or nation will be warmly embraced by the conservative establishment. One of the recent trends on conservative Twitter is the hashtag #nuremberg2, which called for pro-vaccine politicians and medical officials to be put on trial and, presumably, executed. Regardless of one’s position on the vaccine question, the Nuremberg framing is symptomatic of a psychological fixation. Conservatives will never win if they believe their only true enemies are “Nazis.” Whether it’s the fear of antisemitic “Islamofascism,” North Korean “Nazism,” purple-haired “woke Hitlers,” or vaccine-toting Görings, it’s clear that conservatism is psychologically stuck on the beaches of Normandy while the country passes without struggle into the hands of enemies conservatives are totally incapable of understanding.

“Christ is King”

American conservatism’s commitment to a tactically disastrous emphasis on individualism is undoubtedly connected in some form to the peculiar trajectory and position of American Christianity, or rather, varieties of American Post-Protestantism. Demographically, conservatism remains overwhelmingly (85%) Christian. As scholars of religion have noted (e.g., Nathan Hatch’s 1989 The Democratization of American Christianity), American Christianity is significantly different from the classic European form, being much more democratic as well as essentially Gnostic and millenarian (these features are also extremely prominent in the indigenous sects of the United States: Mormonism, Christian Science, Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pentecostalism, leading several academics to speak of an underlying ‘American religion’). American religion has long been preoccupied with the idea of a God who loves the individual, and the salvation of the American Christian, especially the Protestant, does not arrive communally via the congregation but via direct confrontation with a very personal Jesus.

A recent trend appearing on the t-shirts of young conservatives is the slogan “Christ is King.” The phrase is rapidly lapsing away from any hint of piety and into the role of a platitude, and carries with it a sense of escapism from disturbing political realities into comforting visions of higher but invisible authority. It also, however, recalls the more vulgar “Cash is King,” and both phrases meld into the pervasive and, in theological terms quite heretical, “Christian capitalism” that typifies the American conservative movement today. One of the more interesting texts published on this subject in recent years is Kevin Kruse’s 2015 One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The book explores the links between corporate executives, religious celebrities, and major politicians, all of whom, in contesting Roosevelt’s New Deal, were engaged in a range of organizations designed to spread a new gospel of inclusive prosperity and Christian capitalism. It was in the period 1930–1960 that “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States and printed on every dollar bill, and it was in the same period that “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. In the words of one reviewer of Kruse’s text, corporate America sought to

mobilize religious leaders and sentiments for a movement opposing New Deal labor rights, social policies, regulation, and tax laws. Second, they intended to restore the reputation of American business after the ravages of the Great Depression by combining the sanctification of American capitalism with a new gospel of prosperity. And third, they promoted “Christian libertarianism” as a political agenda to transcend denominational and theological divisions, thus paving the way for the Christian Right of the late 1970s.[1]

Contrary to much Left-wing bleating, Christian libertarianism, along with the gospel of prosperity, is not the strength but the weak bedrock of modern conservatism. Since the birth of the Christian libertarian Right, it can claim involvement in only one significant conservative legislative success, maintaining the basic right of Americans to own firearms (though this success is more attributable to significant lobbying and other cultural factors). On the Christian Right’s other major concern, abortion, success has been elusive, fleeting, or localized. Much of this ambiguity is probably due to the conservative Right’s habit of trying to meet the Left on its own terms — the question of ‘rights.’ The conservative Right, faced with the “right to privacy,” does not assert a vision of the destiny of a people, an elevated ideal of womanhood, or even a basic religious fanaticism, but offers instead the rejoinder of the “rights of the unborn” that the Leftist establishment is fully prepared to parry. As with gay marriage and the war on woke, I believe there is a moral and ideological rectitude in opposing abortion. I believe there are unfortunate circumstances when it can be a medical necessity, but I personally object to it as an automatic and universal “right” purely on matters of taste, decency, and demographics, since the universalizing of abortion contributes to a deadening atmosphere of cultural sterility and is, like widespread tolerance of sexual deviance, an apathetic and depressing hallmark of a society in steep decline. Such arguments, however, are entirely absent from the current “pro-Life” debate, which relies solely on the twin pillars of Jesus and Thomas Paine.

The clinging to rights-based “inclusive” argumentation is the reason why the Christian conservative Right has been utterly incapable of offering resistance to the advance of legislative special status for sexual minorities. By arguing on “rights,” Christian conservatives bake themselves into the GloboHomo cake. Just as Christians flee from being called anti-abortion into the more inclusive-sounding “Pro-Life,” so they flee from being anti-gay or anti-transsexual into faltering assertions that they are simply “pro” the sanctity of marriage. And yet without a broader and more honest exclusionary focus, in which they dispense entirely with the arguments that simultaneously acknowledge and strengthen their opponents, their legislative goals will always remain elusive.

“Cash is King”

Conservatism is, perhaps more than any other contemporary political ideology, wedded to a personal and national savior that absorbs constant, fervid, and attentive devotion. This savior isn’t Jesus Christ, but Gross Domestic Product, and it’s worshipped by conservatives everywhere. In Britain, news has emerged that Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party is about to celebrate Brexit, the most significant British conservative victory in decades, by signing a trade deal with India that will allow thousands of Indians to work and settle in the country. An unnamed “government figure” told India’s Economic Times “The tech and digital space in India is still hugely protectionist and if we could open up even a slither of access it would put us ahead of the game.” The last major survey of Conservative voters showed that “immigration is the most pressing concern,” with the economy in second place. We find ourselves, therefore, in a scenario in which a conservative establishment will again avoid the exclusionary imperative of its voting base and will instead present itself as not retreating (on immigration) because they are “advancing in another direction” (for the economy).

There is not, nor has there ever been, a debate or referendum on whether a given population is willing to purchase a higher GDP by turning several of its major towns or cities into outposts of Mumbai and Bangalore. No people has ever been asked if such a trade would really “put us ahead of the game.” The cheap labor of the Indian migrants certainly won’t put the native tech workers of England ahead of the game. Nor will it put those who will find themselves waiting even longer for public services ahead of the game. It will, of course, put a small elite of businessmen of multiple ethnic backgrounds ahead of the game, and this, presumably, is what matters most to Conservative Inc. wherever in the West it coheres politically. International finance, in its ceaseless search for cheaper labor and the transformation of peoples into mere markets, is inseparable from inclusive politics. Radical socialism insists that money can be the great equalizer. International finance capital makes the same argument, but from above rather than from below. When cash has rendered the peoples of the world into blank slate consumers, each with the same potential to buy, then we have truly become its subjects and it has truly become our king.

Conservatism thrives on offering the “illusion of exclusion” to its voter base while simultaneously doing nothing about immigration so that it can squat in power and suck profit from decay at home and international trade abroad. No-one has encapsulated this phenomenon more succinctly than Sir Oswald Mosley:

Every one of us in this hall was old enough to see before the war — every one of you know what happened — how the financial forces in the thirties went into these backward countries, into India within the Empire, into Hong Kong, into Japan, into China, and exploited these peoples, to produce cheap sweated goods which ruined the great industries of Britain and of Europe, which put Lancashire out of business in the cotton trade, Yorkshire out of business in the woollen trade, and these poor devils of coolies were exploited for a wage of a few shillings a week. For what purpose? To enable the City of London and Wall Street New York to make fatter profits! … Is that worthy of Britain? Is that to be the future of Europe? … It is childish nonsense to say that a British government rules Britain. It’s nothing to do with British government or the British people. The government of the world is the financial government; the power of money; and of money alone.

Concluding Remarks

Conservatism has a knack for superficially reinventing itself when it senses it’s getting perilously close to being found out. The litmus test for every astute observer should be an assessment of the extent and sincerity of the politics of exclusion espoused by any new manifestation of the conservative movement. I recently spent some time reading speeches from the 2021 “National Conservative” conference, which was organized by a couple of Zionists and is supposedly representative of a new departure in American conservatism and a new front in the culture wars. A single line from one of the speeches was enough for me to conclude my assessment: “We must strive to transcend racial particularism and stress universality and commonality as Americans.” National Conservatism is, in the final estimation, an inclusive doctrine. Anyone who supports it will find themselves both “in retreat” and advancing in a direction they never intended.

Genuine efforts to redress the deep problems of contemporary society will always be marked by their willingness to at least countenance the option of exclusion. This is one of the reasons for the intense backlash against the work of Kevin MacDonald, who, in the concluding chapter of Culture of Critique suggested (pp.308–9) that

Achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to employment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States.

This is an honest and necessary discussion of the potential of exclusionary politics, framed in the context of a persuasive argument that such measures might be required if an eventual overt ethnic conflict is to be avoided. Conservatism, inasmuch as it remains wedded to inclusive doctrines and unchecked individualism, is as much an arm of globalism as any segment of the Left it claims to do battle with. We should finish by returning to MacDonald:

The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the multicultural minorities but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of resistance by a significant segment of the population. … The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of de-ethnicized individualism.

[1] Schäfer, A. R. (2018). Kevin M. Kruse. One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The American Historical Review, 123 (4), 1340–1341.

35 replies
  1. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    Joyce hits another one out of the park with this incredible article. I can’t agree more. White people et all will never make self determinist headway until we unload the baggage of worrying what the (((left))) thinks of us and allowing them to weaponize that sentiment to shut us up and stifle debate. There is no debate. There is only, how much do you want to win? What do you want to leave for your children, as a legacy, and as a reality? Will your children curse you in your grave for being so milquetoast and fearful of the opinions of your enemies that you allowed all semblance of their future to be destroyed so you could save temporary face? Conservatism is a dead end for people who never cared anyway, and just want to play with their shiny toys while someone with an R after their name watches the wheelhouse, icebergs looming in the distance.

  2. anonym
    anonym says:

    Sometimes I wonder if there’s some kind of mind control or collective hypnosis involved… But in the end it’s just brilliant salemanship from our Jewish merchants. They paint a wonderful picture, make you dream and feel good about yourself.

    Multi ethnicism is a “celebration of life”, “colourful”, “vibrant” – a wonderful street carnival with a happy music, an overflow of tasty food from around the world, wonderful expressons of love and friendship when we overcome our differences, acceptence, tolerance, inclusion, a neverending warm fuzzy feeling of goodness… What they´re really describing is hundreds of thousands of poverty stricken, crime ridden, dirty, depressing, bombed out, grey concrete housing projects, controlled by drug cartels, pimps, muslim terrorists, murder gangs and rape gangs. But no one wants to see that, when instead you can feel warm and fuzzy, listening to the pleasant voices of Jewish salesmen.

    Same for the homosexuals. Personally I don’t think it’s an important issue – they’re less than two percent, and without the Jews they wouldn’t have any power and wouldn’t cause much problems (and the Jesus dupes who are obsessed with them has inherited the Jewish sexual paranoia), but it’s still interesting to see how it’s being sold. Just one look at any Pride Parade should make it obvious. Deranged men in pink string underwear, greased up, gyrating to horrible music while waving dildos in their hands… Hour long seminars about anal sex and other things that would make most normal people cascade vomit… Jacuzzis’ filled with grunting perverts, stewing in semen- and feces-defiled tepid water… But who wants to think about that, when we can listen to Jewish salesmen and feel warm and fuzzy fighting “the good fight” for homosexual rights, tolerance, acceptance and inclusion…

    We have reality on our side. They only have bizarre dreams and delusions. We don’t even have to be salesmen, just present our product as it is and everybody wants it. The all white European neighborhood looks the same everywhere, from New Zealand to Canada: harmonious, prosperous, safe, well ordered, peaceful. The Jews has managed to make us believe that the European neighborhood is unconnected to white people. “Sell” it back to white people, the same way the Jews sell their crap: a pleaseant, safe wonderful neighborhood where whites feel included, accepted and tolerated. A home.

    And if that warm and fuzzy feeling isn’t enough, contrast it with the Jewish multi ethnic nightmare, or the semen- and feces deliled tepid jacuzzi…

    We are the normal ones – the ones who wants to have a normal, ordinary peaceful European neighborhood. Lets focus on that, and let’s not dress up in SS uniforms, Grand Master Dragon dresses, or shoot up synagogues or beat up some homosexual hairdresser or some brown subway cleaner. No screaming, no demagoing, no bragging. Ignore Antifa, BLM and the rest of the weirdos. Just soberly present our vision of a home to white people, and welcome them in.

    Jews, essentially, sell diamonds, no matter what they’re peddling: expensive crap, a sparkling shiny object, that’s really only a useless piece of glass.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      The all jew neighborhood looks the same everywhere, from jew york to beverly shills: harmonious, prosperous, safe, well ordered, peaceful. The jew has managed to make us believe that the jew neighborhood was not created by White people.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “let’s not dress up in SS uniforms, Grand Master Dragon dresses, or shoot up synagogues or beat up some homosexual hairdresser or some brown subway cleaner. No screaming, no demagoing, no bragging.” -anonym

      Those who would actually do these things (very, very few) are usually PATSIES being manipulated by Federal law enforcement agents or JEWS who are passing themselves off as European or even, nowadays, as Arabs who hate Israel. I doubt you can come up with many authentic “Nazi” examples. It says a lot that you would include this example as It confirms what I wrote to Bobby, and also counters what Andrew Joyce wrote in the above article.

      How many Grand Master Dragon dressers do you know, or know of? How many synagogues have been “shot up?” And who are the culprits? Do you know what was going on in Europe when Adolf Hitler showed up on the scene? Those peaceful, orderly neighborhoods can be deceptive.

      • anonym
        anonym says:

        Look at the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” trainwreck, where normal nationalists walked side by side with kooks in uniforms and klan dresses. The shooting in the Pittsburgh synagogue, where 11 Jews was murdered. Who needs agent provocateurs if we include those types of morons?

        We need to include the white majority in our movement, not the crazies – those will exclude the white majority. Focus on white homogeneity – everything else is secondary (left-right politics, lgtbq nonsense, etc.)

        We are the normal ones. It’s our normal European society that our enemies idealize. When Barabara Streisand threatens to flee USA because of “racism”, where does she threaten to move? To Canada, New Zealand, Scandinavia… All we have to do is make people understand is that you need Europeans to have a European country. It’s our society that has all the virtues they idealize, while in reality they are selling us a multi ethnic sewer.

        I don’t think have to tell you that Weimar Germany was owned and controlled by Jews (left and right) – it wasn’t European. We need another nationalist uprising, but let’s avoid the mistakes that was made the last time.

  3. kolokol
    kolokol says:

    Incredible that Boris Johnson’s government has signed a trade “deal” with India, that allows “thousands of Indians to work and settle in” the UK. That shows where his loyalties lie. Where is the Labour Party on this? They’re not really for the working classes, are they.

    Like other fake “conservatives”, Boris Johnson is a tool of the globalist Jews. Britain is now “advancing in another direction”, towards annihilation.

    The author quotes from Oswald Mosely: “It is childish nonsense to say that a British government rules Britain. It’s nothing to do with British government or the British people. The government of the world is the financial government; the power of money; and of money alone.”

    Boris Johnson is a total traitor. I’m sure he would agree. He likes it that way. Kim Philby was the same.

  4. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    The best part of this essay are the 2 paragraphs right before and after the subheading: “Everyone I don’t like is Hitler.” I had this very exchange with “Bobby” just a week or so ago, and I was on the side that Andrew Joyce takes here. It consisted of my two replies to him. Bobby, take note of what Joyce writes:

    “Despite the overwhelming tendency to inclusionary politics, even among conservatives, there is clearly an appetite for exclusionary laws among sections of the White population …”
    “Conservatives not only live in mortal terror of being branded “Nazis” but fully engage in the use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative.” … “A staid and tired conservative bloc fights the Left’s almost recreational allegations of Fascism by asserting that it opposes the “real Fascists”—cancel culture types, ‘woke’ protestors, the Democrats, Antifa, pronoun enforcers etc.”

    “Meanwhile, at the first accusation of racism, “nationalist” conservatives frantically defend and enunciate their doctrine as meaning there is nothing special about their nation beyond a set of abstract values rooted in individualism — values that are, in Steve King’s words, “attainable by everyone … people of all races, religions, and creeds.”

    This attitude that Joyce (everybody’s favorite from their comments) expresses so well in these quotes can be applied to most of the commenters here (even though they would object!) — very cautious conservatives, I would call you. So I’m grateful to A.J. for giving us his political point of view, which one would think would carry a lot of weight here.

    • Susan
      Susan says:

      The sentence I most love is “Conservatives will never win if they believe their only true enemies are “Nazis.” …it’s clear that conservatism is psychologically stuck on the beaches of Normandy while the country passes without struggle into the hands of enemies conservatives are totally incapable of understanding.”

      Mulling over this situation, I’ve concluded that conservatives really prefer to smear Germans, a fellow white group of people, over naming the Jew or other more colorful minorities, historically incorrect or not. I’ve corrected friends a number of times, pointing out how many more people were killed by Bolsheviks/Communists than the Nazis have been accused of eliminating, but they shortly lapse into “Nazis” again.

      It’s been years since Arthur Butz wrote his Hoax of the Twentieth Century, yet most conservatives seem not to have gotten around to reading the book or any other of the many World War II revisionist books or journals. Whether it’s their guilt caused by their religion that makes them not want to blame Jews or that they are just gutless, or both, I am still pondering. I understand their not wanting to ruin their reputations and disturb their peaceful lives, but the greater the number of people that will, the easier it would be for everybody else.

  5. RockaBoatus
    RockaBoatus says:

    Just as American conservatives/republicans have largely accepted gays into their fold and now, apparently, even Trannies (e.g., Trump who wrapped himself in the LGBTQ flag, including the nonsense spewed by Charlie Kirk and the MAGA-Trannie), so they will also receive pedophiles into their fold. Pedophilia is fast becoming socially acceptable. Sure, it’s still occurring incrementally and not everyone is on board with it . . . yet. But it’s going to be here sooner than most people expect.

    There are all sorts of educators, psychologists, social workers, social reformers, and influencers seeking to ‘make pedophilia great again.’ They have an array of sophisticated arguments which amount to nothing more than lies and word games, but there will be plenty of people, including ‘conservatives’ and republicans, who will claim to have ‘evolved’ on the question of pedophilia and welcome it with open arms.

  6. Jett Rucker
    Jett Rucker says:

    True story from my tumultuous senior year in high school. There was a fuss about sanctioned service clubs (approved fraternities and sororities) among the students: should existing members be disempowered to reject new applicants for members?
    I had just been rejected for membership in XC (the Exchange Club’s high-school auxiliary), but I, an outcast, voiced this position regarding societies: adult life in the adult world we were approaching worked this way, whether officially or otherwise. It would be a disservice both to us outcasts AND to the hapless members of the clubs to make our high-school world work otherwise. Admission must remain at the discretion of the members. I believe my view prevailed, at least for the nonce.
    In later life, I was rejected from other societies, including one that paid me $10,000 to leave (the US Navy).

  7. coyote
    coyote says:

    “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.”

    The International Jew – The World’s Foremost Problem by Henry Ford (1920).

    Judas-ism: it’s NOT a religion, it’s a satanic, criminal conspiracy/cult.
    If you really want to make a difference, EXPOSE judas-ism’s bible, the talmud.
    Show regular Americans what satan’s rats are all about.
    That’s all you need to do.
    EXPOSE the talmud!

    MUST read:

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Judaism is of the flesh not the spirit. It is biological- according to jewish law, if one has a jewish mother one is a jew. That cannot be fixed by accepting the Lord.

      • coyote
        coyote says:

        Judas-ism is a belief system. Being jew is a CHOICE.
        The khazar believes he doesn’t have a choice.
        It’s a great, big CULT, and you ain’t in it. — Geo. Carlin

  8. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Hi Carolyn.
    What you say in your last paragraph, “So I’m grateful to A.J. for giving us his political point of view, which one ‘would think would carry a lot of weight here.'” ‘Here.’ I think it does carry a lot of weight here. I’m sure that in our discussion about my comment and using the term ‘Nazi,’ in commenting on another piece, everyone ‘here,’ knew what I meant.

    Carolyn, my interest as a dissident is; how do we bring the truth of what the Jews have done and are continuing to do to our country and our race to the masses? The masses of our country are not ‘here,’ at TOO like we are. I’m sure that you understand that they have been indoctrinated as we all are, by the Jewish power structure, since birth, in the phony holohoax narrative and are still constantly. According to any statistic out there, the average American watches over two hours of television everyday, that would be ‘Jewish’ television everyday. The Jewish powers that be have most of the population still in a cage, a cage since birth and so, to get them out of that cage, it must be done very gently.

    An example of this is when Tucker Carlson called out the ADL’s hypocrisy in regards his white replacement comments on immigration. Tucker pointed out that on their website, the ADL’s stance on Israeli immigration is completely opposite their stance on US immigration policy. Tucker then discussed the steeply declining white population of California that has taken place over the years. He didn’t come right out and say, ‘Jews want to replace us,’ but he did discuss that issue in a way where people could connect the dots themselves and I believe that they are starting to do that.

    I agree with Andrew, there is a lot of support amongst whites in our country for exclusionary policies but the fear of everyday people who instinctively know what’s going on, or at least, some of what’s going on, is a fear that the Jews have instilled in most since they fell out of the womb. So, we can’t break the jail cell door open and drag everyone out of it. The lock must be picked slowly, and the masses led out with knowledge and awareness.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      You can’t have it all ways, Bobby, and that’s what you’re trying to do. That’s because you don’t get it.

      Your entire comment is beside the point.You’ve dropped any justification for the use of “Nazi.” Instead you end with “there is a lot of support amongst whites in our country for exclusionary policies BUT the fear of EVERYDAY PEOPLE […] is a fear that the Jews have instilled in most since they fell out of the womb.” Okay, so what to do? “The lock must be picked slowly, and the masses led out with knowledge and awareness.” That sounds more like cautious Conservatism to me–with cautious equaling timid. Not what Andrew Joyce is recommending. But exactly as I described so many commenters here.

      Maybe you should read the article again.

      • Bobby
        Bobby says:

        Not an easy problem to solve Carolyn, that’s for sure.

        What happened in Virginia a few months ago was very interesting. Everyone knew that the CRT problem was a Jewish problem; Soros, Garland, Mark Elias, etc… People took action and a new governor was elected. Hopefully more of that will occur in the future and those of us who are able will be there to give an extra push and support. .

    • Lucius Vanini
      Lucius Vanini says:

      “Controlling the language” is an underestimated factor in politics, and apparently Conservatives are less likely to perceive its importance and more likely to abet Leftist narratives by their choice of terms.

      I saw your disagreement elsewhere with someone (Bobby?) concerning the use of “Nazi” to express oppressive social tendencies. I wanted to jump in but couldn’t before the comments were closed.

      I too see “Nazi” employed where “totalitarian Leftist” or “Talmudic” or “Orwellian” or “communist” would convey the point and also avoid bolstering our foes’ propaganda. I seldom fail to object when I see a putative White advocate use “Nazi” to denote evil. This goes also for graphics showing Third-Reich soldiers or officials or AH. On Gab, where I often post, there are a couple of clowns who, when they’ve wanted to paint a current tyranny in the darkest color, have backed up their text with a picture of someone or something connected with the Third Reich; and I’ve said “You could’ve shown Zionist soldiers oppressing Palestinians” (or the like) and “Bad meme: I would’ve shared it but for your dumb choice.”

      “Fascist” is another word used by people who should know better. The substitutes I suggest above for “Nazi” also are preferable to “Fascist.”

      “Gestapo” is used, e.g., to characterize the FBI as sinister, when “Cheka” or KGB” or “Mossad” is available.

      I don’t know about you, but I’m increasingly impatient with and irritated by Fox News’ presenters and commentators calling far-Left demonrats “progressives”!!! Who the hell wouldn’t support a progressive?! The name is clearly associated with “progress,” and progress is taken to mean improvement. The scum devastating the West are anything but progressive; and it’s very easy to refer to them with apt names, like “neo-Marxists,” “radical leftists,” “totalitarian leftists,” “racist Marxists” and “the loony left.”

      I think so-called transgenderism pertains to the Leftist, europhobic threat, because, among other things, it’s one more way to prevent Europeans and Euroamericans from reproducing. Actually, unicorns are more real than transgender people: the only actual trans is the transvestite, and the only “reassignment” is from male or female to NEUTER. There’s no changing from one sex to the other. Ever. Nor does mere “identifying” efface objective reality. And you’d think people on the Right would understand that well enough to use proper language concerning the wretches whom charlatans have named “transgender,” “transwomen” and “transmen.”

      But no. Or not sufficiently. Conservative commentators, in the media and elsewhere, apply these terms as though they denoted realities, and also apply “she” and “her” to the dysphoric males, and “he,” “his” and “him” to the females. These unwary Rightists thus seem to endorse the very narrative they regard as a grave threat.

      Part of this inanity–a quite ubiquitous part now, what with the current male invasion of women’s sports–is the phrase “biological males,” which insinuates that there’s another kind of male. That’s precisely the claim of the scammers pushing the transgender myth: the other kind of males are females who lol SAY they are males! I look for better from FNC and Newsmax people; but on TV the only person I’ve heard using all the right language was a guest of Tucker C.–and she was the feminist Kara Dansky, who, in talking of the male swimmers invading women’s competitions, unswervingly called the invaders “men” and used all the proper pronouns.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Thanks Lucius. I can’t disagree with anything you say. I’ll just add a few comments. I think dumb whites resort to the words ‘Nazi’, fascist, Gestapo, etc. because they’re too lazy to think of anything else AND bc they see it or hear it elsewhere so it’s like monkey see, monkey do. Of course, there are also the plants who only pretend to be for Whites.

        But I tend to think it’s also a result of dumbing-down. I abhor the dumbing-down of the white race more than anything else. Speaking of Fox News, I seem to notice that every program host uses more simplified concepts that ever, as though they’re addressing third graders. Some tell their guests things like, “lets not get into the weeds” and proceed to reduce his/her ideas to the simplest form possible. Result: BORING. I’ve seen Sandra Smith do that – just stop the guest in his tracks.

        Everyone now is so PC, which is also boring. Pretty soon I won’t be able to tolerate anything, and I do find it relaxing to watch news clips in the evening, as I don’t have TV. I’d turn into a zombie if I watched TV!

        I’ve also seen Kara Dansky and she stands out as persuasive and intelligent. In spite of his weaknesses (that hyena laugh) we have to be grateful for Tucker Carlson and many of the issues he presents. He’s bolder than most.

  9. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    According to the author Andrew Joyce , individualism is headed for the dustbin of history as indicated by these notions excerpted from the essay ___

    “American conservatism’s commitment to a tactically disastrous emphasis on individualism”…

    …”unchecked individualism”…

    “The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned … the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples.”

    The problem is not the ideology of individualism which is a complex subject with several contentious perspectives ( as is also the case with Christianity ) corresponding to several different versions of individualism . The problem is also more complicated than individualism versus collectivism which is the contrary alternative of individualism .

    The Wikipedia article on “Individualism” broaches a multitude of issues and makes some misleading and even false assertions about it . Be cautious about Wiki info since the Synagogue of Satan owns it .

    Individualism is the only historicly renown and viable ideology that correctly acknowledges the primacy of the individual whom has a priori “unalienable Rights” of supremacy of their life and sovereignty of ownership of their property where an issue of intrinsic worth of the individual is moot if for no other reason than it would be primarily a subjective determination ; and individualism is an ideology that rejects an elite collectivist assumption of a supreme right to cancel any and all rights of any and all individuals and thereby demand and obtain involuntary sacrifices of life and property with or without a formal judicial due process of law .

    In other words , individualism rejects the assumption that legitimacy of a right of supremacy over an individual and their property is obtained ipso facto of it being a collectivist assumption ; unless the individual , whom is not under abnormal mental duress , freely and willingly agrees prior to such a collective demand and expressly waives specified a priori rights .

    Have no doubt , a collectivist assumption of supremacy over an individual cancels any and all rights of any and all members of a collective/organization and any and all rights of people external to and not members of it but whom haplessly fall under the power of the collective .

    Clearly , no insinuation has been made here that a Synagogue of Satan collective of elite gangsters , such as were the 1917 Bolsheviks for one example , do not have the power to enforce unlawful demands for sacrifices .

    Make no mistake , the one indispensable principle of individualism must be the primacy of the individual whom are people that have a priori “unalienable Rights” of the supremacy of their individual life and sovereignty of ownership of their individual property over any collectivist assumption of supremacy contrary to those a priori individual rights where that collectivist assumption is not secured by any publicized consummated legislation nor by any specific judicial due process of law .

    Moreover , to be perfectly clear about this vital moral and political issue , any rights and including also “unalienable Rights” are effectively vacuous unless there exists an agency of enforcement such as that which a government could provide . In particular , the USA federal government is under the presumption of an obligation to uphold “unalienable Rights” by employing agencies of enforcement to defend and secure those rights .

    Fortunately , the USA people have a Constitutional Second Amendment provision which facilitates individual assumption of agency to secure and defend their lives and property against the covert and hostile subversion of the federal government , some state governments , and some local city governments whereby globalist sponsored Bolshevik communists have gradually infiltrated and now power-wise ( not majority-wise ) covertly dominate the USA . However , unless Whites whom are the major USA ethnic group can very soon get adequately organized to effectively defend their “unalienable Rights” , the politicly camouflaged Bolshevik infiltrators entrenched in the various USA governments will likely neutralize the Second Amendment and then cancel all governmental enforcement and defenses of individual rights .

    Obviously , medical/religious/political/corporate authorities or officials , in all social stratums around the world , tend to dislike and resist any constraints , especially that of individualism , on their exercise of collectivized/organized power . In particular and apparently , The RCC has abandoned their stand on and defense of individualism , which it never properly educated Catholics about in the first place , and adopted Synagogue of Satan collectivism according to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church 2792”.
    Which version of individualism did it abandon ? All versions ? The reason why The RCC abandoned individualism is clearly insinuated starting at the beginning of this paragraph .

    Regardless , Westernworld Whites no longer have any establishment agency nor creditable institution to teach a viable and defensible version of individualism which upholds the a priori sovereignty of the people whom have an “unalienable Right” of supremacy against arbitrary collectivist totalitarian governmental demands for involuntary sacrifices of their life and their property ; whereas both The RCC and “the Jews” educate their members about collectivism , which stands in opposition to individualism , and programs their adherents to willingly sacrifice life and property “for the common good” or “for the greater good” of the
    collective/organization/community .

    Please note that the collectivist assumption of supremacy , over any and all individual rights , is becoming depressingly popular and overwhelmingly established by TPTB .

    A transformation from
    an [ assumption of supremacy ] to
    an “imperative of individual sacrifice”
    has been very recently and spuriously
    manufactured using this rendition

    …”imperative of individual sacrifice for the sake of communal welfare”…

    which is an excerpt quoted from a MSM article at this link ___

    Most Whites (whom are predominantly descendants of: Nordics/Euroman/Europeans/Aryans/Indo-Europeans/Caucasians/(and perhaps a few unspecified other cultures)) will not be and likely never have been sufficiently educated about individualism and thus will not know how to properly employ it to protect their lives and their property ownership rights against collectivist/communists expropriations and cancellations .

    In particular , many if not most USA Whites mistakenly believe that individualism is necessarily anti-organizational and that an individual can nonetheless expect to prevail against collectivist network attacks such as the Synagogue of Satan ILLuminati depopulation agenda totalitarian nets-of-death that are being and some that already have been constructed and dragged around the world by the globalist to trap about two billion sheeple in the worldwide Christian herds and also trap about two billion not-so-sheeple people whom are nonetheless too unorganized or too disorganized or too inadequately organized to escape or resist or oppose the NWO oligarchy systematic collectivist entrapments .

    To be sure , the collectivist assumption of supremacy over any and all individual rights ultimately provides a blank check for leaders or leadership groups to accumulate unjustifiable political power at the top of an organizational power hierarchy , such as for example that of a government or of a corporation (both rendered as a collective) , whereby they are subjected to the ineluctable corruptive effects of holding power that inevitably results , when left unchecked , in horrendous abuses of it .

    Individualism , which is a typically misunderstood but nonetheless renown combination of
    morality/(political philosophy)/ideology ,
    is the single most important factor in opposing the inordinate accumulations of political power and subsequent abuses up to and including inordinate slaughters of humanity that inevitably occurs throughout the world and the history of it ; and that is why individualism stands in opposition to collectivism and vice versa .

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Where is the evidence of individualism? The government “schools” have been communist since they started, the pledge [of allegiance] was penned by a communist/socialist, government universities the same. The fake money system has long been collectivist [fascist/socialist]. Regulation such as the FCC favors only statist views [forget about FREE TO CHOOSE, Friedman [Dr. Friedman] was another lying tribal member. Remember income tax withholding was Friedman’s baby. . .income tax called for in the commie manifesto. . . The last century was turned into caca by statist collectivism [government enforced monopolies, established for the public good].

      What is individualism? I seem to be the only one who knows. It is simply FREE THOUGHT, or reason. A Founder wrote some books about REASON and RIGHTS.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” What is individualism? I seem to be the only one who knows. It is simply FREE THOUGHT, or reason.”

        Thank you for confirming my comment above which noted in paragaph five ___

        …” several contentious perspectives … corresponding to several different versions of individualism .”

        as you contend that

        “It is simply FREE THOUGHT, or reason.”

        Individualism is a big deal in the world of geopolitical affairs . It is in perpetual conflict with the collectivist/socialist/communist elitist assumption of supremacy over any and all individualist rights including also those of the world renown 1776 declaration

        …” unalienable Rights , that among these are Life , Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness —” .

        Needless to say , Synagogue of Satan worldwide sponsorship of collectivists is prevailing in the conflict with individualists largely because Westernworld individualism is not only a more abstruse subject than collectivism/socialism/communism but it also is typically not a properly taught subject and therefore it is not a well-understood subject even among proponents of individualism . The high IQ Frankfurt School marxist jews and their marxist college professor henchmen certainly knew that collectivism/socialism/communism would sell easily to the Christian sheeple herds in contrast to the hard-sell of individualism by anti-marxists proponents of it .

        I worked on my comment to which you have replied for three days and it still is not perfect . Regardless , I have no desire to attempt to make up the egregious Westernworld deficiency in explicating the subject of “individualsim”. The Wiki article on it is not that great of an explication but it is importantly the most globally readily accessible one . However , have no doubt that the any defeat in the conflict with collectivism will continue to have nothing less than deplorable consequences for the losing side .

  10. Eric Novak
    Eric Novak says:

    This one gets bookmarked and printed for notes. We have an election coming up this year! This is among Mr. Joyce’s best fireworks. Well done.

  11. Sanjay
    Sanjay says:

    This article describes the transformation of a traditional Group Selected Christianity to a contemporary Individually Selected version, aka Libertarian/Rosenbaumist Christianity. What I find interesting is how contemporary Europeans’ appeal for this new version of Christianity adds weight to the body of evidence that modern Europeans have genetically evolved towards a state of Individual Selectivity. Contemporary Christianity does not view its deities as the deities of the race that are looking out for its ethnic interests, but rather as deities that have personal relationships on an individual basis with each human organism. The deities are believed to not require any effort by the followers, except to sincerely accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Thus, followers are not required to be altruistic/ethnocentric or to work hard. If current Europeans are indeed now Individually Selected and possess relatively low altruism/ethnocentrism, as well as low Industriousness, then a religion that allows for Psychopathology (low altruism plus laziness) would appeal to the European masses.

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      The ancient Aryan belief in Metempsychosis ?

      At least it does not claim ownership of earthbound, tawdry Elmer Gantry – style miracles.

Comments are closed.