Woodrow Wilson, to immigrants

The following message from President Woodrow Wilson appeared in ‘Gateway to Citizenship’, a government handbook for immigrants being prepared for naturalization. The now-familiar tropes about ‘dreams’ and ‘dreamers’ was already being employed almost a hundred years ago:

Woodrow Wilson to immgrants_Gateway

Yes, the propaganda was already there: immigrants ‘enriching us’, and ‘realizing their dreams.’ But the last paragraph shows where it was headed: if America did not commit itself to perpetual ‘enrichment’ and ‘renewal’ by ever-more-disparate immigrants, then we would be a ‘narrow and prejudiced’ kind of ‘family’, and obviously being a family is not desirable; we have to be a people of no fixed genetics or culture or history, just an ever-changing, ever in flux, amorphous collection of people(s). Such is the melting pot; such is ‘civic nationalism’.

What’s the solution?

My lack of activity on this blog for several days now reflects my state of mind about current events and my less-than-optimistic take on our future prospects as a people.

My stock-in-trade, at least in my early days of blogging, was hope in the resilience of the people of this country, and in the legacy our forefathers passed down to us. I believed that we, as a nation, had a history and a culture which was not yet lost and which could still inspire us to change things for the better. These days it’s hard impossible to maintain that kind of hope. So rather than write pessimistic pieces I’ve simply lost the impulse to write much about the news and the political chaos.

I hope I can be excused for writing a somewhat pessimistic (or is it just realistic) piece this time.

I think our system of government served us very well for a good while but as the nature of the people of this country has changed — or was changed — we’ve become estranged from what our forebears were; they would likely not recognize us as their descendants and heirs, so different have we become. Founding Father John Adams explicitly said that the (political) system they designed for us was made only for a ‘moral and religious people’ . These days, with the exception of an ever-smaller number on the right, we are neither of those things. Nor do most of us aspire to be ‘moral or religious’; those traits are despised these days, along with the Christian faith to which they were tied.

Without sound ethics and morals, and without a sense of being an organic nation, a nation ‘descended from a common stock’, what is there to hold us together as a people?

For this reason, I suppose, many on the (new) right are happy to see the old order die, so that they can build, on the ruins, something more up-to-date and suited to their tastes and needs. I suspect that the ‘new and improved’ America that some on the right envision would be post-Christian and post-modern, hence not at all like the country that existed only a few decades ago.

Even if the right does not gain ascendancy in this country or elsewhere in the West, it looks as though the future will be framed along egalitarian lines, with more coerced ‘equality and brotherhood’, something like the Harrison Bergeron dystopia envisioned by Vonnegut.

Is there any chance that an ascendant right would ditch egalitarianism and the ‘leveling’ impulse? I see it as unlikely because it seems most Westerners have absorbed egalitarianism into their worldview, regardless of whether they are on the left or right end of the political spectrum. I remember writing a blog post some years ago in which I mentioned that I saw no reason why some sort of aristocratic order should be rejected out of hand, and that monarchy was not in itself evil as most Americans seem to think. Some of my readers got quite irate that I wrote such things.

Nevertheless since I wrote that fairly innocuous, yet apparently ‘heretical’ piece years ago, I’ve become less and less favorable toward ‘democracy’ and I have never been a fan of ‘equality’ because it is a false ideal; it can’t be attained, except in the narrowest sense, and temporarily.

So why, then, are most Americans still opposed in principle to an aristocratic order or to the very idea of monarchy? How has our electoral system served us in giving us men of character and integrity, men of ability and courage? As far as I can see, in recent times it’s given us, at best, a succession of mediocrities, time-servers. At worst we’ve elected (or had selected for us) venal, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant men (and women), who have undermined if not destroyed everything of value.

With a maleducated, mind-conditioned, dumbed-down electorate, there is not much chance of our prospects improving.

Given that it’s extremely unlikely that our population will reconsider their false gods ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’, it’s only a remote possibility that we could turn to another system.

And maybe the answer is not political, in any case. There would need to be a benevolent despotism to bring about such a change, absent a change of heart and mind in such a cynical populace, but in any case, we seem to live under an anarcho-tyranny, so what do we have to lose?

My misgivings were valid

Or so it appears now, what with Trump’s launching of missile strikes on Syria. Now we can watch Lindsey Graham and John McCain gloat over getting what they wanted, and we get to hear Newt Gingrich’s smug statements about the ‘decisive action’ Trump is taking.

Praise from that bunch is equivalent to anathema, from my perspective. And it seems a lot of people on the alt-right agree with my feelings about this, while many of the ‘true believer’ diehards are sticking by Trump — but these seem mostly in the GOP faithful category. Like the FReeper who posted this, in response to those disenchanted with the ‘god-emperor”:

To: TrumpisRight

All the anti-Trump drama queens around here tonight should be listening to Newt on Fox right now.

He just said this is a historic week. Gorsuch confirmed, successful meetings with Egypt and Jordan, meeting today wirh China, and decisive action in Syria that just made Russia, Iran, Syria and NK take notice. Newt said Trump has a strong SoS, SecDef, and NSA and Trump is stronger than all of them. People trashing Trump tonight need to just get a life.”

I’ve not posted much about the Trump administration and their doings. I voted for Trump with some misgivings; I was not pleased to see the coterie of neocons and globalist-types that Trump gathered around him, and it seems as if one by one he was backing off his promises or half-promises, caving on too many important things. I refrained from blogging about that, hoping these things would just be aberrations, but it seems they were not.

Is Trump the passive victim of a ‘coup,’ as some say? Is he being ”played”, duped, given bad advice by the crowd of wormtongues around him, or is he consciously participating in a preplanned operation?

Early on I began to wonder: what if? What if he is a participant in some kind of psyops directed at the right, probably at the alt-right, as the media seemed obsessed with calling attention to the ‘evil, fascist’ alt-right during the campaign? Might the powers-that-be not have purposely run a candidate that could be made to appeal to the nationalist, non-PC, anti-globalist right wing, so much feared (it seems) by TPTB? By running a candidate that would give signals that he supported a populist, nationalist right agenda, maybe they thought they could corral and ‘tame’ such a movement, or co-opt it, making the alt-right feel they had a stake in ‘the system’, in mainstream politics, rather than in opposing the system.

They could thus de-fang the feared alt-right/populist right and, when the latter inevitably found out they were being gaslighted and fooled, disillusionment and demoralization would follow, and maybe a schism in the non-PC right, or even amongst the harmless, ‘cucked’ GOP, who would likewise break down into dissension and thus spend their energy in infighting (pro-Trump loyalists vs. disillusioned ex-Trump supporters). Or maybe I have read too many ‘conspiracy’ oriented speculations, and become too cynical.

Maybe we’ll never know. I do think our trust was betrayed, though as I said I was a skeptic already.

Meantime we have to wonder if this Syria thing will lead to war with Russia, and for Christians, whether this is the ‘Gog-Magog’ scenario we’re embarking on.

No predictions, but…

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?


An inside job

No doubt I’ve grown more suspicious and cynical about politics over the last couple of decades (especially in the post-Clinton years) but this media-created Trump scandal smacks of an inside job, probably planned by the GOPe/Never Trumpers. Ted Cruz is now ‘considering’ withdrawing his half-endorsement of Trump; I think he only did it knowing full well this ‘bombshell’ was coming in October, then he could affect a stance of moral outrage and withdraw his support. Likewise, Ryan.

And it’s possible, at least according to this, that the whole thing may have been co-ordinated with Hillary’s people, who may have given a ‘heads-up’ to the GOPe.

This is all just more evidence that both parties are hopelessly corrupt and that they are in fact a ‘uniparty’ who merely put on a ‘pro-wrestling’ type of show of being antagonists, each claiming to represent the people. To them, we are just dupes and fools, apparently. A plague on both their houses.

Trump should really run as an independent although I am sure that would prove to be more difficult than it sounds.

Putting paid to ‘birtherism’

As I often do I am going to take a contrarian position on this whole story, which is being discussed here, on Steve Sailer’s blog, among other places.

Does it all end with a whimper, after, what, 8 years of controversy? And all because one man steps before a microphone, saying it isn’t true?

I am sure that ‘resolution’ makes certain people in high places very happy; now the issue can be declared dead and laid to rest. And even more to the point, the whole issue of the ‘natural-born’ requirement for presidential candidates is now declared irrelevant, according to those who were always opposed to the so-called ‘birthers.’

The consensus on the ”right” seems to be that the whole controversy originated with Hillary Clinton, or her campaign in the person of the sleazy Sid Blumenthal. Therefore, goes this line of ‘reasoning’: Hillary started it, and therefore it was bogus and it was a lie, hence it’s delegitimized by being associated with her or her lackeys.

Now what’s the name of that logical fallacy again? Whatever it’s called, it is dishonest and just not valid to say that because person X makes a statement or raises a question that the claim is automatically discredited, or obviously a lie. The fact is, too, that nobody offers proof of the statement that Hillary (or Blumenthal) started the controversy, or that they were the first to ask the obvious questions about the birth of a presidential candidate.

Those who’ve read this blog know that while I didn’t write much on the ‘birther’ issue I expressed my disgust with the very vociferous ‘anti-birthers’ who acted as ”concern trolls” whenever people posted blog pieces or forum topics on the birth controversy. If those antis had had their way, nobody would have been allowed to discuss it, lest ”we look ridiculous to the left”. “You’ll make us a laughingstock; we’ll lose the election if you don’t shut up!” Such was the tenor of their ‘arguments.’ Sad. More than sad.

Does the Truth matter to more than a handful of people on this planet anymore?

I do remember that during the 2008 election the birth issue was raised by a number of bloggers, one being a blogger known as Dr. Kate. There were a number of others. A lot of scholarship and investigation went into the question on the part of some people, whose efforts are now being repudiated.

The only reason, as far as I can see, that the GOP establishment did not take up the hue and cry is political correctness. Then, as now, they were running scared from the ‘r-word’, just as I knew they would. They refused to touch the issue, while Hillary felt more free to exploit the obvious doubts, being more protected by the media and her constituency. That does not mean she invented ‘birtherism.’

It is by no means self-evident to me that Hillary started it all with a big lie as most are happy to accept. I need to have that proven to me, but then again there will be few people who will touch the subject now. Nobody likes being smeared as a ‘conspiracy kook’, a ‘birther’ (why should that be a slur, anyway) or a ‘Sperg.’  I really hate that last childish insult. It’s a low kind of ad hominem aimed, I guess, at people who are deemed too ‘nitpicky’, what the Freudian idelogues call ‘anal.’ So you see, standards and rules are important only to people with Aspergers, or autistic people, or ‘anal’ people. Thank you, social “sciences”, for creating new labels to discredit differing opinions and the personalities of those who hold unpopular opinions.

I know that the younger ‘rightists’ say that the Constitution has become an idol and that we need to get over our obsession with the Constitution — but that’s much like what C.S. Lewis warned about when he said that each age paradoxically argues against the very things that are all but defeated and extinct. For example, a libertine and licentious age rails against ‘puritanism’ and ‘prudery’, as is happening now, things which most know full well are on life support. The antis just want to make sure that the old standards are good and dead, and in no danger of resurrection. They are determined to put a stake in the heart of anything traditional lest it recover and spoil their party.

So to most ”rightists’ of whatever stripe, the Constitution is something best forgotten, including the requirement that our presidents be natural-born. They say they do not care. And during the primaries the Cruz supporters declared that the ‘birthers’ who objected to a Canadian-born, half Cuban immigrant candidate were crazy or out of bounds to even raise the question.

Anti-birthers, you won, and now the field is officially wide open for anyone from anywhere to be elected presidents. Thanks to the anti-birther concern trolls, who’ve won the day by shouting down the people with legitimate unanswered questions.



Could it be done today?

The New American has an article on Operation Wetback, the 1950s deportation program, under which some 100,000 illegals were sent back home, and 700,000 more self-deported.

Despite it having been done once, there is always a stubborn opposition mentality saying that it can’t be done. And then of course there is the group (which sometimes overlaps with the ‘can’t be done’ crowd) who say that it shouldn’t be done, because The Children. Breaking up families. The usual rhetoric. And let’s not forget those who argue from economic self-interest, often cheap labor employers, who argue that they can’t get lazy or greedy White Americans to fill their needs, or who argue that it would hurt our economy generally or make our produce and other foods prohibitively expensive.

But mostly people tend to say ”they could do it back then, but it’s different today.” And in part that’s true, because back in 1954 the news media was not so monolithic and so overwhelmingly left-wing and hostile to White Americans as is the case now. Now, the ‘lying press’, the Enemy Media, would work to generate outrage against any large-scale repatriations. Protesters, some professional, hired rent-a-mob types, would be agitating and attempting to provoke incidents. But should we just give up in advance and let that side continue to control events?

Some think so. Take a look at the Free Republic thread on the article. One poster dominates the thread with arguments on why we ‘can’t’ deport people on a mass scale.

Suppose you started tomorrow.

How many years to get through all the court filings to stop the deportation? We simply didn’t have all the various feel good groups willing to file cases to stop/slow down the deportation back when Ike was prez.

How long before the nightly dose of crying mothers and screaming kids on the 5 PM news being separated from their families and carried off to Mexico reaches the point that the people demand that it be stopped?

Then, what you going to do if Mexico refuses to allow the buses/trucks/planes carrying these deportees to enter their country? While the media films the deportees stuck at the border?

9 posted on Monday, August 29, 2016 10:04:53 AM by DugwayDuke (“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”)”


Well, Dugway Duke selected an appropriate tagline, anyway.

So, as one more sensible commenter says sarcastically, we should just give up; if we can’t deport them all, then we can’t deport any.

Dugway Duke and those who think along the same lines seem more concerned about how the left, the bleeding hearts, and the lying media perceive them, more than about what is best for this country and its rightful people. They care more about public opinion, (even as dishonestly represented by the media) than about their posterity. Granted, the word ‘posterity’ is a little abstract for most people; let’s say instead, our children and grandchildren.

But then again, Free Republic is the internet home of a lot of people who are at best, at best, civic nationalists, proposition nationalists, who think that even if America is populated mostly by Central American mestizos, Somalis, Middle Easterners, as long as they speak English, salute the flag, and vote Republican, they are the same as you and me.

As to the discussion about whether ‘self-deportation’, induced by cutting off public benefits to illegals, is more feasible, I see no downside. Illegals, or even legal immigrants and ‘refugees’ should not receive public benefits. In the past, immigrants had to prove they could support themselves, and not become public charges. They had to have sponsors who agreed to assist them if they had no assets to speak of, no marketable skills. But now just about every immigrant family except for the wealthy ones use some form of public assistance. Many well-to-do families with aged parents put the older generation on SSI, which they are entitled to by law, now. So grandma and grandpa, though they have affluent adult children who are employed or in a profession, get SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, and Section 8. And these are legal immigrants, not illegals.

So yes, end benefits for immigrants, regardless. Republicans often think that no American should receive assistance in any form; I dare them to take such a tough stance with immigrants. They usually don’t. They reserve the resentment for their own, sad to say.

But having benefits taken away may or may not cause the immigrants to self-deport. Why? Because many do work, but ‘under the table,’ paid in cash by Americans who don’t want to pay more to a fellow American to care for their children, or for their aged parents, or to do their yard work and home repairs. True, you don’t get value for money when you hire cheap foreign domestic help. Children are not as well cared-for, and they may grow up speaking broken English if left with foreign “nannies”. Home maintenance jobs are often ineptly or carelessly done.

It all comes at a cost, yet Americans continue to hire illegals. How can we stop this, when it’s going on covertly to some degree?

And then there are plenty of illegals involved in some way with the drug cartel activities, even in my town. There are illegals who are involved in property crimes as well as more sophisticated schemes connected with immigration: human trafficking, identity theft, forging documents, and so on. We all know this. And this is the source of income for many illegals who are not getting social service assistance. If welfare, SSI and all the rest were the only enticement or their only source of sustenance — but that’s not the case.

Then, too, there is the fact that many, many illegal alien criminals were deported and yet they returned, multiple times. The illegal who killed Kate Steinle in the infamous San Francisco shooting incident is but one example of many. Another was Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, the serial ‘railway murderer’ of some years ago. Our ridiculously porous borders are not serving their purpose.

So then must we resign ourselves to this intolerable situation because of the bad press that would accompany any efforts at fixing the problem? I have no easy answers, no magic fix. And if we wait until the majority comes to a consensus about this, we will be lost for sure. What I will say is that political solutions, at least in a ”democracy” with a sorely divided electorate, will likely never be the answer.

At last

At last, here’s one blogger who sees the situation somewhat as I do. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would say it.

On Wednesday, Donald Trump betrayed his supporters on the issue that has defined his campaign: immigration. Unfortunately, with Hillary setting her campaign on fire left and right, this has gone mostly unnoticed. We need to make noise about this everywhere and immediately.”

Well, here I am, making noise about it in my quiet little corner of the blogging world, if it will do any good.

Why is there so little commentary from the (real) right on this issue? Are people especially quiet because they are uncomfortable with acknowledging the situation after investing so much in the Trump candidacy? Is it peer pressure or a desire not to rock the boat?

Of course there are some comments (I knew there would be) defending Trump’s ‘going for the centrists’ or trying to ‘get more votes’ because it’s all about ”winning.” I’ve heard all this before, when G.W. Bush was in office and campaigning for re-election. The Bushbots said all the same things, and they used the same blustering tone to shout down anybody who dissented. But the dissenters were right all along, as time has shown, while the Bushbots never, ever acknowledged that their guy was indeed selling out not only his base but the American (White) people. But he won, you see, he got re-elected despite his devotion to the ”immigration reform” (amnesty) cause.

As I said then, if we ”win” by compromising, selling out, whoring after minority votes or ‘squishy centrists’, what will we have won? Winning the election is not an end in itself, although politicians seem to see it as such.

And in retrospect, what did we win, by winking at Bush’s moving to the left?

I said before, when the Univision story appeared,  that I would give Trump the benefit of the doubt, and hear what he had to say. What he has said since then has not convinced me that the initial story was ‘a lie’, as his devout followers said.

As to his latest promises to deal with criminals (“cartel members, thugs”) it very much sounds as if his plans to deport immigrants will apply only to illegals who are known criminals. This will leave tens of millions of un-vetted illegals and legals, people with no valid identification or with forged IDs (many of them have multiple fake IDs, which can be purchased most anywhere where there is a large Latino colony). Deporting only known or convicted criminals who are here illegally will be a mere drop in the ocean.

And what’s to stop them from returning multiple times, as so many criminal aliens have done, and are doing?

As for the plan not amounting to ‘amnesty’ because ‘they will have to pay a fine, and back taxes‘, as Trump said, this is much like the earlier amnesty proposals (which the pols said were not amnesty); it’s not much different from the ‘Gang of Eight’ plans.

Trump is supposed to make another statement soon on his immigration plans. But I have a feeling that he will again parse his language carefully so as to mollify his supporters, throwing a few crumbs to his White base. I am open to being proven wrong, but as I’ve said before, he can’t serve two masters. He seems to have betrothed himself to the ‘black community’ whose plight he has expressed so much concern for, and to those ‘terrific people’ who just happen to be here illegally.

G.W. Bush redux.

Update: here’s another blog piece on the subject, from the Unorthodoxy blog.

Conservatism and ideology

Where to begin?  This piece is in response to a lengthy discussion here, and as I can’t usually get a blog comment published on Blogger, and as a blog comment can’t cover the subject, I’ll say my piece here.

Recently I wrote a piece about the necessity of some countervailing force to the ‘progressives’ who are demolishing our country. Especially is this true in our decaying society wherein the Left has been careening out of control, unchecked, so that our society is unrecognizable from what it was even 20 years ago. If those who say that ‘conservatism’ per se is useless and must be destroyed offer no alternative to it as a preserving force in society, what will check the hell-bent-on-change ‘progressives’?

Firstly, the comments I linked above seem mostly to agree that conservatism is useless because it has ‘no ideology’, being based only on ‘feelz’. But is this true? Is it true that conservatism has no ideology? The paleocons (are there still any surviving?) would say conservatism has no ideology, because ideology is opposite from conservatism and vice-versa. I’ve never encountered an old-time conservative who said otherwise. It is only the neocon, present-day Republican faithful who always rattle on about “conservative eye-dee-ology“, insisting that it’s what new immigrants (and black Americans) must adopt to succeed. I’ve had my share of disputes with such typical Republican, neocon, pro-war ‘conservatives’ over this ‘conservative eye-dee-ology’ which is a sine-qua-non. In my experience it’s only those now labeled ‘cuckservatives’ who yammer about ‘conservative ideology‘ and its paramount importance. It is the Cruzbots and the Never Trumpers who are the ones who always go on about the ideology of conservatism. Cruz was their guy because he is a ‘strict Constitutionalist’, a devotee of the Ideology.

As they believe in the ‘proposition nation’ they have to believe in ideology; that’s after all what holds a ‘proposition nation’ together, however tenuously.

An ideology is needed where there is no natural, organic bond and consensus among a people.

By contrast, most paleocons (who, for the uninitated, were the conservatives who are most closely akin to the Alt-Right, being racially aware, noninterventionist, against open borders, and anti-free trade and globalism) disagree.

I’ve said that conservatism is an instinct — a gut instinct, nothing to do with feminine-type feelings, or ‘feelz’, but visceral and bred-in-the-bone. Certain peoples are more conservative by nature, just as some individuals. Some seek change for its own sake, seeming to crave novelty and the exotic, loving risk and danger, while some are innately averse to such things. I believe this because it comports with what I’ve observed in my years of living and working, not because a psychiatrist says it and invents pseudo-scientific labels for it. Needless to say, liberals are often risk-taking types with all the ‘dysfunctions’ that implies. Conservatives are people who prefer order and stability over thrills and unpredictability. And though there are exceptions there is still a general rule. And we as a people (even ”conservatives”) show evidence of the risk-taking, thrill-seeking temperament, compared to our forefathers. (Yes, they took risks and braved dangers beyond the endurance of today’s coddled thrill-seekers, but that’s not the same impulse.)

Conservatism is a temperament. But ideology? It’s a systematic set of beliefs codified by some person or persons, not an organic set of principles that grows amongst a  people based on shared innate tendencies. Some modern dictionaries give more liberal definitions, implying that an ideology is more of a spontaneously-arising group consensus.

The word ideologue, for most people, implies rigid beliefs, dogmatic and doctrinaire tendencies. Notice that leftists by whatever name had purges of their peers who are found guilty of wrong-think, violation of the Sacred Ideology which must not be questioned. ‘Correct’ ideology is a must with leftists. And lately we’ve seen ”conservatives” or cuckservatives doing this as Trump and his supporters have been ‘read out’ of the conservative ‘movement.’ Personally I hate that term ‘the movement’ because I associate it with the radical left. The Sixties left always referred to itself as The Movement.

So the conservatives being condemned in the discussion thread are really liberals or ‘neocons’ in conservative clothing, not people who would have been by any measure considered ‘conservative’ in previous eras. They simply subverted the Republican Party (and that was one of the stated ‘Goals of the Communists’ as reported by Cleon Skousen in his writings) and proceeded to destroy it from within and discredit the very label “conservative” by polluting it with their own un-conservative policies and, yes, “ideology.” The neocons are ideologues par excellence, as are their leftist brothers.

Part of the neocons/cuckservatives ideology is the idea that everybody everywhere is capable of ‘democracy’ and that if we only send our armies in and ‘give’ them democracy, they will be good Jeffersonians in no time. Another tenet is that blacks and all immigrants can be real Americans if they salute the flag, wave the Constitution (like Khizr Khan, that good American) and thus celebrate Conservative Eye-dee-ology.

Obviously, their “conservative ideology” shares the blank slate, magic dirt tenets with leftist-liberals.

One of the better conservative thinkers, Russell Kirk, was adamant that conservatism is not an ideology, though I see that the commenters on the VP thread don’t like Kirk for the most part, lumping him in with today’s  ‘cuckservatives’. But if you read Kirk, which I have, he was very opposed to multiculturalism, globalism and political correctness, and he was racially aware, though in the context of his time. I recommend reading his work if you haven’t already, though he must be read with an open mind, not a mind already made up against him.

Kirk, while not ‘perfect’, perhaps, in the eyes of today’s impatient Alt-Righters, could be seen as a forerunner of Neo-reaction. He was not a ‘neocon’ by most measures.

In the earlier years of this blog, we had some lively discussions among the then-regulars; hard to believe, I know, but true. Many were young, and there was kind of generalized clamor among some of them that ”we need a manifesto.” I disagreed with that sentiment. I find the clamor for an ”ideology of the Alt-Right” to be the same, and while it’s understandable to a degree, I think it’s unnecessary and wrong-headed. There would no doubt be many different opinions as to what would constitute a codified set of Alt-Right principles or beliefs. There would be squabbles, considering that the Alt-Right or Neo-reaction includes some very different groups, groups who do not play well together. There are so many divides, even among American Alt-righters, for example the pro-Confederate Southrons vs. many Northerners who still blame slavery on the South, or consider Southrons ‘traitors’ for seceding. Then factor in religion or lack thereof, the divisions based on sex, ethnic nationalists vs. WNs or pan-Europeanists, Identitarians, and so on. Could such disparate groups with so many inter-group grievances work together and agree on much of anything?

It has to boil down to making survival a priority; what is good for us at this point in history — this very crucial point.In essence, our gut instincts have to take over;  our natural, God-given affinities, not some set of abstract principles. People who put abstractions and disembodied human reason above gut, natural instincts are what I call ideologues.

People won’t naturally sacrifice for abstractions; will not defend abstractions to the last man. Ideas cannot unite people, not for long anyway. Our country worked as long as it did (and yes, it did work, for a good while) because it was founded by a people with a common origin, sharing common ancestors, and a common religion — paraphrasing John Jay.