Can conservatism be conserved?

Some of you may have read an article by David Azerrad on the subject of the ‘failure of conservatism.’ Of course a piece written to condemn conservatism’s failure will get a lot of ‘Amens’; people on the right (or the ‘right’) have been denouncing conservatives and conservatism for years now but it looks like the ‘respectable’ conservatives who write these kinds of think-pieces are now realizing this.

Talk is always dirt-cheap, and it’s easy to jump on a bandwagon rather than to start a new movement. And it’s quite safe and easy to say ‘conservatism is a failure because “conservatives never conserve anything.” We can all recite it in unison; we know it by heart.

But do the people who say ”conservatism never conserved anything” really want conservatism to conserve anything? Is there anything left that they would conserve if they could? I see no sign of that, except maybe among social conservatives (who are pretty thin on the ground now) lamenting the loss of morality, civility, civic order, decorum, manners, good taste — and also the apparent loss of the guts or the gumption to even try to preserve or conserve anything of value.

I do see the ‘sour grapes’ attitude among the critics; they are prone to say that America is the villain in every international dispute or war; that America was on the wrong track from the start (the Founders were all Masons or atheists like Thomas Paine (he was a ‘humanist’, it’s said.)

The attitude of disaffection is another reason why conservatives never conserved anything; the will is not there.

But back to the author of the piece on the failure of conservatism. I’ve been looking at what he has to say, and what I am seeing is that he ultimately wants Americans to embrace ‘born-again’ multiculturalism under other names. He is promoting a kind of civic nationalism in which we accept ‘Brotherhood’ as the rightful order of things; we forget any cultural/ethnic/religious differences and just learn to live together as we are all Americans.

The Canadian-born Azerrad refers at times to influences that lead to divisiveness. He warns against ‘identity politics’ and even Identitarianism. Identity politics is seen as a bogeyman among mainstream Republicans and ‘conservatives’; I remember in my younger days believing it to be bad, but is it ‘identity politics’ per se which is bad? I would say it’s unhealthy only if it’s ‘grievance politics’ or the politics of victimhood, of constant racial guilt accusations, the politics of reparations for past wrongs, real or imagined. That’s what is bad and it’s what we have had far too much of, yet it only ever escalates, as it is doing now.

And yet Azerrad seems to think grievance politics good when Frederick Douglass or MLK espoused that attitude. He has written of his admiration for MLK.

Azerrad seems to be taking both sides; he writes as if he opposes political correctness, the victimhood cult, and all the dishonesty and hypocrisy therein. But then in the next sentence he sounds like another multiculturalist who believes in diversity and all the baggage that it carries with it.

I notice that he emphasizes ‘Unity’ and ‘Brotherhood’ and in this he sounds very much like ‘Q’, who stresses those things frequently. Is ‘brotherhood’ undesirable or is unity bad? If we had an organic unity, a natural unity, that would be the only genuine kind. The Bible has the precept about being ‘unequally yoked’ and I know those things are there for a reason; we ignore them to our detriment.

And what about this:
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Amos, 3:3

We are hardly in agreement with those we are asked to ‘walk’ with. And even less are they ‘agreed’ with us.

I see this idea of compulsory ‘unity’ and ‘brotherhood’ being pushed by increasing numbers of people on the ‘right’; this is being preached to counteract the dissident right, or as a lure to those people who are inclined to want to like and be liked by everyone. It appeals to the ‘civic nationalists’ who never met an ‘Other’ they didn’t like. It’s popular amongst women.

I risk being derided for saying the following, but I see a Masonic influence here; the language used by Freemasons (as well as their emphasis on unity and brotherhood}, as well as the desire to be ‘inclusive’ and universalist.

TPTB are trying to preserve, or salvage, their Babelist empire, by persuading us that we just need to work a little harder at the multiculturalist project, or as one Q follower said, we have to lose our ‘tribalism’ and learn to live with people from every country.

A Patriot doesn’t see race”, so they say over at the Q channel.
So, round and round we go; more of the same of what we’ve been conditioned to over the last few decades.

Not much is being ”conserved” except for the multicult and ‘colorblind’ civnattery.

Uncharted waters

Does it seem as though the world is getting darker and darker? I mean, in the sense of becoming murkier, more uncertain, more unsettled. I’ve been saying this to people for some years now. It’s just something that’s palpable to me, and it’s distressing.

It seems so many recent events are odd, unprecedented, and things are spiralling out of control. Maybe some few don’t feel it, and think I am exaggerating or magnifying things.

The line from Yeats, ‘Things fall apart; the center cannot hold‘ comes to mind. Well, for years I’ve been quoting the rest of that poem, especially the part about ‘the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Was Yeats prophetic? I ask rhetorically, though Yeats was unlikely to have been divinely inspired; he was a dabbler in the occult — more than a dabbler, actually; he was involved with the Aleister Crowley cult, Crowley touting himself as the world’s most evil man, or something of the sort.

At this point, it’s people who dissent from the present day’s orthodoxy who are considered ‘evil’ — people who question the leftist, PC consensus. It’s they and their subservient media who control the narrative and the dialectic.

Thinking back to when I began blogging — that was 13 years ago, I think — there still seemed to be reason to hope that America might wake up from its stupor and see what was transpiring, but no; it seems in retrospect that people were reluctant to open their eyes, and wanted to remain in the dark.

But when I began, I thought there was hope in trying to awaken our folk to our history, our heritage, our traditions — and yes, we did and do have a culture. I hoped to exhort people to some kind of healthy pride and awareness of where we came from, and what we had in our way of life and our very identity. But as time went on, and with the changing of the guard — the passing of the older generations and the new ‘young adult’ generations — there no longer seemed to be a receptive audience to the message I tried to convey. Cynicism is the order of the day, and to be honest it’s partly the fact that some of the younger ones never learned the history of their folk or of this country. History and heritage don’t sell. There is no demand for that it seems.

The pietas to which Cambria Will Not Yield often alludes must be found and restored. But are we ready to do that?

If I had my wish, I would focus on our history, and on our fellow-feeling, our love for our own, for our folk. That, to me, is of value; the political situation is very worrying and maddening at times. I don’t believe there will be a political solution to our crisis.

It seems we’re far from home, without a compass or a map.

Acknowledging we are lost is hard in times like these, at least for those who, like me, tend to be optimistic — though cautiously, much more cautiously so, in these times. We have to be honest and acknowledge that we are in uncharted waters. But then we can’t lose heart and lose hope.

Having just read CWNY’s latest post, his last paragraph says some of what I am thinking:

There are no supports left for the Christian European. Everything Christian and European has been torn asunder. Only our hearts are left. Inside His Kingdom of the heart, we must find the strength to resist liberalism and cling to our European hearth fire. All is indeed cheerless, dark, and deadly – we have only our “trembling faith,” and His promise that He will be with us “alway, even unto the ending of the world.” +

Who are we?


Back in spring of 2006 I began my first blog by writing about the question of American identity. Who are we? What does it mean to be an American?

Immigration was the one issue that started me on this journey, and over the past decade I have re-thought a great many things, things that most of us take for granted and never really question because our society would have us believe that certain things just ”are”, and should not be questioned.

As I began to notice that the city I lived in then was increasingly full of people from the Third World, as I began to notice neighborhoods changing (for the worse), as I began, at times, to find myself apparently the only person of European descent in the immediate vicinity in certain places — I began to wonder how America had morphed into something else while I wasn’t paying attention.

Immigrants are implicitly assumed to be ”victims”; after all, the vast majority are non-White, and thanks to cultural Marxism, therefore said to be victims (of Whitey), most people assume that immigrants are entitled — they are entitled, first of all, to our sympathy. They are entitled to charity from us; not just kind treatment, but tangible charity: social services, handouts, special assistance. Above all, they’re entitled to a place in our country. After all, goes the story, we are so rich; they are poor. We have a vast country with wide-open spaces; they live in crowded, overpopulated hellholes. How dare we not give them a place in our country? Are we heartless? And aren’t we all immigrants? This is a ”nation of immigrants”, is it not?

Actually, no, it is not.

I finally realized: no, my ancestors were not ”immigrants.” They resembled today’s immigrants in very few respects. They came here, to this continent, knowing it to be mostly uncharted wilderness, full of wild animals and hostile native peoples. They knew that the climate could be harsh, especially compared to their native England.But they were not ‘immigrants’ coming to an established country or civilization. There were only scattered tribal groups, often at war with each other. There was no organized government to whom they could make a petition for entry or for residence. There were no immigration laws because there was no civilization in our sense of the word.

Their situation was not analogous to today’s illegal immigrants, or even to the sainted ‘legal immigrants’ so beloved of the right-liberals. They were also not like the ‘refugees’ now swarming over Europe. They were people who fully expected to be self-sufficient. They were independent and resourceful people. They were not beggars. They were not looking to live parasitically off others. They were certainly not looking to ‘exterminate’ the natives, as the leftists would tell us. They wanted only to live freely and to worship freely without the dictates of a government opposed to their brand of religion.

They were not immigrants. They were settlers. They were colonists. They were trailblazers. Explorers. Pioneers. Some were missionaries.

None were ”immigrants”. None.

And they were mostly English, these early colonists. And their colonies formed the basis for the country which we call the United States of America. The English language, the Protestant religion and ethic, the English common law, English custom and lore, all of this played a part in the formation of our nation.

There were other colonists; some of the Dutch and Huguenot colonists were my ancestors — through intermarriage with my English forebears. But those other colonies adapted to the incipient Anglo-American ethos and culture, not the other way around.

So America was not begun by ‘immigrants’. The phrase ‘A Nation of Immigrants’ came from John F. Kennedy (or his ghost-writer) in the book of that name. It was a way of usurping the place of the original colonist stock and making the sainted Ellis Island immigrant the central figure in American history. Now we find ourselves being flooded with immigrants from the four corners of the globe — immigrants who brazenly tell us — tell us, the heirs of the colonists! — that this country is ”for everybody”, that it belongs to everybody, as much, or more, to them as to us. Imagine the gall. But this is ‘America’, or what remains of it, in 2016. Look at the picture at the top of this post.

Here you will find a blog post on the topic of “who is an American?” It’s an interesting discussion, somewhat meandering, but with some very good comments and some that will vex you if you are a ‘generational American’ or a ‘heritage American.’

Read the blog post and read of how one immigrant blogger regards her ‘Americanness’; typical of how some 21st century immigrants believe that they understand what being an American means better than those of us whose ancestors made all this come into being. This country and whatever is good about it is all to be credited to the original colonists, the English (or Anglo-Normans, as my Southron ancestors described themselves). Instead, immigrants have assumed a central position in the ”narrative.’ The immigrant ‘built’ America,  or ”immigrants made America great”, so we are now told. Just as we hear from other quarters that ‘slaves built America.’ Everybody built America but Americans.

No. The truth matters.

This country was great long before the waves of immigrants came a-begging on our shores back in the first part of the 19th century. This country was not simply waiting for the ‘magic touch’ of immigrants to ‘make it great’; the original colonists supplied the raw material: the people. A people make or break a country. Propositions and ideologies don’t make a country. A country is only as good as the people who constitute its inhabitants.

Bringing in multitudes of unrelated, often mutually hostile peoples, often peoples from failed or despotic countries, would hardly seem the recipe for ”making a country great”, yet that is what this country misguidedly did in the 19th century and afterward, intermittently, and is doing now. And now the mix of peoples is bringing not ‘enrichment’ but conflict, strife, bad feeling, crime, budget problems, public health crises, and countless other woes.

And if we read old history books, those not compromised by political correctness, we can see that even the early waves of immigration brought all those things albeit on a lesser scale than today. Immigration must not be sentimentalized and seen through a gauzy lens anymore.

Our country, founded by English colonists and for much of its history, based on English ways, should have been allowed to remain as it was, true to itself, with the ‘corn all one sheaf, and the grapes all of one vine’ as Kipling said. But it was not. And now America is unrecognizable, becoming more so.

But because America has been sold out from underneath our feet and is being transformed against the collective will into something else, that does not change who we are. Americans are born, not made. Documents and propositions do not a people make. Nor can they ever. “American” is a matter of blood and heritage as well as culture. One cannot be American just by declaring oneself to be, any more than I can declare myself Queen.