The dangerous concept of "conservatism"

There was a time, not long ago, when most whites felt good about their own race, when they objected to miscegenation, racial integration and the notion that all races are equal.  Since these attitudes are largely those of the past, they are now often associated with other attitudes of the past such as opposition to: feminism, new styles of music, body art, pornography, atheism and homosexuality.  It was, of course, the leftists who were largely responsible for relegating those attitudes to the past in the first place.  By seizing control of the education system and government, they were able to change prevailing attitudes about such things.  Once this was accomplished, they were able to describe the displaced attitudes as “old-fashioned”.  Another word for “old-fashioned” is “conservative”.
While there is plenty of variety of opinion amongst those who call themselves “conservative”, the powers that be have succeeded in associating the term with certain values in the eyes of the general public:
1)  An adherence to traditional religion or, at least, a respect toward it
2)  A lack of tolerance toward sexual minority practices
3)  A preference for a certain way of dressing and certain music
4)  A respect for the rule of law domestically but a “my country right or wrong” attitude internationally.
5)  A deference toward one’s own race, especially the white race
It might be accurate to describe the lumping of all these together, under the umbrella of “conservative” as the “Archie Bunker Complex”.  Though I might risk sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I believe it is possible that the left intentionally nurtured this wider notion of “conservatism” as part of a strategy of divide and conquer.
When I met Matthew Tait in Virginia this February, we had a short conversation about socialism and race realism.  I told him that I disapprove of socialism and that the BNP does seem to be socialist in nature.  We agreed, in the end, that our most pressing concern should be the preservation of the true British in Britain.  Everything else is secondary.  If the British people (or white people in general) become extinct, then the political and social trappings of white civilization will fade away as well.  At that point, libertarianism would not be viable.  So, if the only movement capable of rescuing the British people happens to be a socialist one, then so be it.  If a person is trapped in a burning building, and a firefighter arrives to rescue him, is he going to concern himself with the creed of the firefighter?  So, even though the BNP is not “conservative” in the political sense, still we should consider them allies in our racial struggle.
Why do non-religious race realists go out of their way to bash homosexuals?  I can understand Judeo-Christian ones doing so – it’s an “abomination”.  But the advancement of an anti-white agenda is a far more serious “bomb in our nation” than homosexuals and why make enemies when you could make friends instead?
It should be obvious that only the practice of heterosexuality can propagate our species and race.  In that sense, it is the sexuality that is “normal” on a societal level.  That being said, I don’t think we should condemn individuals for leaning that way and we certainly should not reject them from our movement.  So my stance on this is that homosexuality should not be promoted amongst our children and it should not be portrayed as equal to heterosexuality in virtue.  But we should not try to make life miserable for those who practice it – whether we hold such urges to be a matter of choice or not.  I don’t see the point in wasting pixels condemning homosexuals either; they’ll do as they please with or without our approval and it really is none of our business.  As for those who parade about publicly half naked to show their pride, they invite ridicule upon themselves but that’s where it should stop: ridicule and exercising our own rights to freedom of association.

This entry was posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The dangerous concept of "conservatism"

  1. Patrick says:

    As far as the parades go the thing about them is is that they are strategies for recruiting people into their lifestyle.
    Homosexuals can’t breed and so they don’t reproduce themselves biologically. They reproduce themselves by persuading others to adopt their sexual preference.
    And so they have these parades to send the message “look how fun it is to be gay” and this message is primarily directed at the youth and is designed to recruit people into the gay lifestyle.
    In reality being gay is not fun and people who are gay often have diseases and have sexually transmitted diseases to a much higher degre due to their promiscuous lifestyle.
    Furthermore the act of anal sex whether done to a man or a woman is very unhealthy. It creater cuts in the anus which can result in fecal matter mixing in the blood stream which can lead to health problems. It can also ruin a persons anus so they can’t defecate properly.
    This is why I encourage homosexuals to engage in mutual masturbation if they are going to be sexually active and to not engage in anal sex.
    So basically my stance is that homosexuals should be taught proper ways of sexual behavior so they don’t hurt themselves but gay parades should be banned.

  2. Patrick says:

    And I am definitely against the idea that its patriotic to support a flawed foreign policy. I’m with Ron Paul on foreign policy… it’s a good idea to just stop meddling in any way with what goes on in foreign lands.

  3. fred says:

    I could write a book on this but I’ll be brief. Homosexuals should be part of society and not stand outside as an outlier population with their own agenda. They should not have to hide or live in fear. But they should act appropriately and be discrete (ie non-promiscuous). I similarly oppose heterosexual misbehavior.

  4. Conservatism is ancient, is a class philosophy, and was rationally restated by Burke as a modern political philosophy. Hayek stated that he was not a conservative, but a liberal (libertarian would be the term we use today). However, he created the line of thought that explained the value of traditional knowledge. Unfortunately, Hayek, Popper, Mises and Parsons all failed at developing a new political science, and so the combination of socialism and english interventionism (via Keynes) became the economic political science of the 20th century and now 21st. However, this line of thought simply further justified empowering government. White guilt, due to european expansion, (no other race would have felt guilty about it – which is ironic), and most importantly, the revolt of white women against men under the auspices of democracy and feminism, further weakened white men politically. But white men are overwhelmingly conservative. If men were still the only voting block, we would not have socialism.
    However, Conservatism is effectively a sentiment that refers to the Civic Republican Tradition, and is therefore a sentiment of meritocracy, individualism, civic responsibility, and military duty. The primary political purpose of conservatives is to avoid giving power to the government, and reserving it for individuals of merit. Libertarianism is the creative middle class’s form of conservatism This is the same problem faced by the Greeks, who did not want the Persians controlling their lives.
    The relationship between christianity and conservatism is largely one of practicality. on at least three different levels: 1) political alliance in support of traditions that have evolved, not been engineered – it is a form of skepticism leading back to greek warnings against the egoistic error of Hubris. Conservatives see liberals not only as thieves, but as committing the error of hubris. 2) Political alliance against public intellectuals who have killed the church (fine) but also become interventionists (not fine). 3) The simple fact that whites have become fat dumb and happy and while they were a global superclass, they are on their way to becoming a global middle class. They did it in Rome. They’re doing it again.
    Freedom is a minority aspiration. That is why the minority must maintain military power, so that it may preserve it’s freedom. Freedom is maintained by violence.
    I champion a less militant solution: If we BREAK THE DOLLAR WE BREAK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. If we break the federal government we will allow the south and middle to align, and let the northeast and west coast pursue different strategies. If that happens we break the empire. In fact, the only reason our government has been fooled into operating for the past hundred years, is because the south voted for the democratic party. Now that it’s over, the south and mid states are conservative and the west and east leftist.
    It turns out it’s pretty easy to break the dollar. We just need to get one state to do it. (Texas).
    I’m a libertarian. I want whacky little communes, urban jungles, and little towns with white churches to choose from. I want silly towns Like San Francisco that celebrate Gay Hedonism, and dry conservative towns that forbid it. I want religious enclaves. I want people to be free do move to a town and so as they please. I want barrios where the idiots talk at volume about drivel, and quiet places where bad manners will get you put in jail overnight.
    I want choice. I do not want, nor should any man want, others to live as he does.
    Utopianism is not only a false promise, it is the route servitude.
    It is the myth of utopianism that the state is using to deprive us of that choice.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Well said! It turns out that the people who run “silly towns like San Francisco” are now calling the shots on a national level and their unholy union with neocons (is bringing about massive destruction. The U.S. is far too big to be just one state; it needs to be divided up (much as it was originally intended).

    • Patrick says:

      I dont like the word conservatism because I dont ascribe to the two party system in america and the republicans co-opted the word conservatism.
      I would like to comment on your notion of conservatism minus the military duty thing you mentioned because Imnot too into the military thing.
      Basically you said that such tendencies empower individuals as opposed to the government. I dispute this notion because instead of the word individuals being used the word used should be families.

      • James says:

        At first Conservatism does not look bad. Then merged with the Bible belt here in the South it can be very dangerous. Jesus says nothing about Abortion and homosexuality, but others in the Bible do. Where does a christian stand? With Jesus I hope or else it’s all over. Jesus is called a radical also in the Bible and he was! He turned the establishment on it’s head and we should too. A radical compassion should dwell within us as we are believers in Christ. I dislike it when otherwise good people are name calling and spreading lies that they have heard on their favorite biased news show at Churches across the south. I am disturbed by the excuses NOT to help the poor coming out of our churches on Sunday. It’s not fair they say that someone works hard for their money and then gives it to someone without. I ask who is the poor and the needy God? I have to ask myself then what am to do while i am being blessed? By being a blessing to others with a glad heart. I believe that every poor person and every downtrodden soul is a miracle just waiting to be. I have found Jesus eyes looking back at me as I passed a homeless woman with a small child in her arms. You would not believe what she said without speaking as I turned and shared a moment encouraging her. “It’s going to be alright” I told her. “I do not know how or when but God loves you and he is sharing your load right now and he loves you”. “It’s hard to believe sometimes it’s true but he is right here with you, so it is going to be OK”.We have to ask, Are we as Christians worshiping Christ or the Bible? So Pat Robertson leave us alone! Jesus Christ knows better than you!

  5. Gaurav Ahuja says:

    Homosexuality is our business in the broadest of senses since it is bad behavior. We must condemn bad behavior even if does not seem to affect us directly. Patrick stated some of the bad reasons why it is unethical, if not immoral. I do not agree with the view about having socialism to save the White race. It is nonsense to even state such an action because bad things do not lead to good things in the long run. If socialism could save the Whites, I would be against it. Anyone who is a real libertarian is against socialism on moral principle.

    • jewamongyou says:

      I think you misunderstood me about socialism. I didn’t mean that socialism can save the white race, only that if some of our allies happen to be socialist, we should still accept their efforts. Not BECAUSE they are socialist, but in spite of them being socialist. As for the hypothetical question about socialism being able to save whites, I guess we disagree on that. People can recover from socialism. A race cannot be restored from oblivion.

  6. Californian says:

    Why do non-religious race realists go out of their way to bash homosexuals?
    Very simple. The political arm of homosexuals has aligned itself with what is commonly termed “political correctness.” Homosexual organizations present themselves as part of a wider coalition of “oppressed” minorities struggling against the White male power structure.
    But now they are facing a dilemma. Since Muslims are also part of this coalition, and Muslims have attitudes that are anti-homosexual (to put it mildly), some homosexuals are finding themselves questioning their positions. Perhaps if homosexuals would reorient their public politics towards an appreciation of Western civilization, and use their not inconsiderable organizational talents (including, apparently, the support of much of Hollywood) to support the West, we might see a realignment of attitudes on this number.

  7. WR the elder says:

    Is so far as homosexuality is concerned, where I draw the line is with homosexual marriage, because that implies a right to adopt children. When I was a 7 year old boy I didn’t want to have two daddies, and that is not something I would want to impose on other children. Other than that my attitude is basically live and let live as far as homosexuals are concerned. I believe that most of them are born that way so condemning a person for being homosexual is like condemning a person for being near sighted.
    In Great Britain today people have a choice of four socialist parties — Labour, Liberals, Conservatives, and the BNP. (The Conservatives will not do a thing to dismantle the vast socialist edifice that is Great Britain today.) Given that only one of those parties has any concern for the indigenous population of Great Britain, I would have to vote for the BNP, with misgivings.

  8. the friendly grizzly says:

    Let me fill some of you in on something: all this talk of a “homosexual agenda” is mostly nonsense. I say “mostly” because it is the agenda of activists. But please keep this in mind, and I cannot emphasize this enough: the “agenda” of most of us is to get up in the morning, have our coffee, read the news, get in our cars and go to work, and otherwise lead the same lives as everyone else.
    As for all this “Heather Has Two Mommies” in classrooms goes, look at the activists, not all of us. Or even more important, look at your cowardly school board. As for me, I believe classrooms are for reading, civics, math, and science. I no more want “the homosexual lifestyle” taught in a classroom than I want all this enviro-nut propaganda, or, especially, all this whites-are-bad-people stuff.
    And speaking of “lifestyle”, it isn’t. And as for this talk of recruiting, stop listening to Dr Dobson and listen to one who knows firsthand. It is who you are. There is no “hey, kids…!” Some paeophile may try getting kids to do things, but that is who they are: paedophiles. Not every gay is a paedophile. Speaking for myself, I can think of few crimes more repugnant than sexually molesting a child. If such had ever happened to one of my nieces or nephews I’d be the first one wanting to string up the perp. For every child molester that is gay, there are a heck of a lot more uncles, grandfathers, and clergymen doing it.
    For every marcher in a gay pride parade, you have 100 other gays staying away.
    The burning building JewAmongYou uses as a metaphor is a good one. If the guy next to you is a race realist, is pro-Constitution, is pro-rule of law, are you going to ask what he does in his bedroom first?
    I have long thought what JAY has expressed here: the left has done a very good job of defining who we – the conservatives, or probably better defined as classical liberals – are. By doing so, they have, quite successfully I might add, divided us, thus making us less effective. They are correct in knowing that while they are doing their damage, many of us argue among ourselves about who is allowed into the movement to put this country back on the rails.
    In closing, I do not care one way or another whether some of you approve of how I live my life. But rest assured I have every bit as much at stake in this fight as you do, if not more. One socialist regime stuck folks like JAY and me with the wearing of armbands, then ultimately hauled us away. In my case, it’d be two armbands. No thanks.

  9. FrankBD says:

    I think I agree with Mr. Grizzly. Homosexuality is just a way people have sex; it’s not a demographic group like Indians or Jews for whom anti-discrimination laws are intended.
    I have no particular desire to regulate anyone’s bedroom conduct (with usual caveats), but I wouldn’t want to go to an Oral Sex Awareness Seminar at my workplace.

    • Ryan says:

      I completely agree with you in theory and the way it ought to be, however it has been turned into its own demographic group. People of all races tend to identify with being gay/lesbian first before their race. Though in recent times I have read comments from homosexuals who have become race realists. Also let us not forget Pim Fortuyn. So perhaps this is changing, because more people are waking up to see what is happening to our nations.
      Homesexuality has become another form of division that we endure. I’m not sure who the biggest voice of support for this comes from. In my mind Liberals would applaud gays for their diversity, while Conservatives would either cringe, or at best silently acknowledge that they exist. Regardless, I think people should exist however they want, so long as they are not forcing their will over others.
      So do I personally acknowledge their existance? Yes, but no more than I would for hetrosexuals. And I think that was the point at first, to become equals. But as we can see, every Liberal change the west has gone through in the last 100 or so years has gone way beyond their intended goal.

  10. Harry Krishna says:

    BTW, I think it should be mentioned how insanely homophobic virtually all black males are. Liberals deplore gay bashing, but few come to grips with the fact that almost all of it is perpetrated by feral black youths.

  11. Ryan says:

    Moved this from the “Journey of Man” post.
    Lately I have been going to the BNP website to read their articles. I can tell you they are ten times more uplifting than anything on Amren. It feels like the people there are really galvanizing behind their banners, and their numbers are greatly increasing.
    The Europeans are way ahead in standing up for themselves than anything you could find happening outside of there. With the recent election results in Holland, laws enacted in Italy, and even events happening in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, i’d say that things are moving in a positive direction.
    I look forward to the election in the UK in June. I don’t think the BNP will become the new government, but I think their influence is skyrocketing, and they will get at least a double digit percentage of the vote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *