Tag: nationalism

The Death of Conservatism

It’s not just in the USA. Conservative parties all over the world are dying because they have betrayed their nations and conserved absolutely nothing of value:

The most noticeable feature of politics in the West in recent years has been the swift and irreversible demise of traditional conservative parties. The disappearance of these parties has been dramatically illustrated by the grim fates that now await the UK Conservative Party and the Liberal/National Party coalition in Australia.

The Conservative Party governed the UK from 2010 until last year. The Coalition government held office in Australia from 1996 to 2007, and from 2013 until 2022. Both of these parties were soundly defeated at the polls by ideologically unified social democratic parties that were led by uninspiring and pedestrian politicians – namely Keir Starmer and Anthony Albanese.

This suggests that voters rejected the conservatives, rather than warmly embracing their social democratic opponents. UK Labour’s rapid fall from grace since last year’s election victory and the party’s current unpopularity confirms the correctness of this view.

More troubling for conservatives in the UK and Australia is the fact that both of these once dominant parties – so shortly after losing office – now find themselves in such acute states of internal disarray and that they have no realistic prospect of regaining office in the foreseeable future. In fact, it is clear that neither party has a viable long-term future at all…

These conservative parties – although in power for most of the past two decades – have resolutely refused to implement the kind of radical economic and social reforms necessary to remedy the serious economic inequalities and social problems that continue to bedevil all Western liberal democracies. In fact, despite their professed commitment to traditional values, conservative parties have – just like their social democratic counterparts – enthusiastically embraced and implemented the economic, cultural, and foreign policies of the new and now dominant global elites.

However, the death of the conservative parties is just the harbinger for the main event, which is the death of Western liberal democracy itself. The only question is if the global elites will somehow manage to hold on to power once their vehicle fails, or, as is much more likely, the new model nationalists will replace them in the West as they have already done in Russia, China, and elsewhere.

It’s telling that none of the self-styled champions of democracy ever advocate genuine direct democracy despite technology that obviously permits it, but instead, always exert their utmost efforts to prevent any and every aspect of direct democracy with the excuse of stopping “populism”.

DISCUSS ON SG

Destruction or Diversity

It’s really rather remarkable to observe how many people, even today, when faced between a clear, stark, and unavoidable choice between the collapse of society and diversity, will genuinely prefer complete societal ruin to accepting the reality of their moral and material obligations to prioritize the survival of their families, their religion, their nation, their language, and their culture.

However, the younger generations increasingly reject the Boomer ideals of integration and so-called “civil rights” because, unlike the Boomers and Generation X, they have grown up in an increasingly dystopian reality that has proven to be considerably different than the rainbow utopia previously conceived by the elderly demographic idealists who preceded them.

They are literally a rot that is killing every one of our cities. And most of the population lives in cities. Cities are the beating heart of a nation. It’s where the economy runs, where people are educated, where careers are built, where the entertainment is. If the people live in the cities, if a country is its cities, and if they are killing the cities, they are literally killing America. It is a death spiral.

It’s depressing. Paris, one of the world’s most beautiful cities, ruined—by this. Same with New York, same with LA. Look at what they’ve done to them. All because we’re afraid of being called racist. Well, I’m part of the new generation, and I can assure you I don’t give a single fuck about being called racist. I want our countries back. If that makes me racist, so be it. And increasingly, that’s how people feel about this.

We tried integrating. It didn’t work. This is the result. Who wants any part of it? Not even them. What’s the first thing they do when they make a lot of money? They get the fuck out of the ghetto. Why all the fuss about education? So they can send their kids to White schools. They want to live near us because they want our tax money. They want reparations because they want our money. It’s a toxic relationship. We want out.

Honest to God, what’s the benefit? What is the positive? All I see is a heavy net dragging in the water behind us, full of risks, resentment, and a constant storm of chaos and danger we can’t escape. They’re inflicting it on us, and we’re expected to tolerate it, and we’re being penalised for having an issue with it. We’ve argued, pleaded, bent over backwards, sacrificed our own to keep it together. For what? The weight on our backs is too great, and we’ve carried it long enough. The water’s up to our necks, the storm’s already here, and no one’s coming to save us. Either we find the courage to fix what’s broken, or we cut the net loose. Otherwise, we drown with it.

Because history doesn’t reward the timid. And if we don’t carve out our own future, far from the storm, we’ll be nothing but bones beneath their boots, mourned by no one, forgotten by all.

My suspicion is that most people who prefer societal collapse to segregation do so because the former is both a) in the future and b) comprehensive while the latter is a) in the present and b) personal. It’s not so much that they prefer the former to the latter as that they don’t believe the former is inevitable because they are incapable of seeing anything beyond their current personal perspective. Although this isn’t always true, as we’ve seen far too many mealy-mouthed Churchians dutifully mouthing the diversity dogma over the dead bodies of their children.

And this Churchian response underlines both the subversion of organized churches and the way in which Churchianity is actively contributing to the decline and fall of the Western civilization formerly known as Christendom.

I am reporting this post because it spreads hate and promotes racial stereotypes that are false, harmful, and dangerous. The content dehumanizes an entire group of people based on race and encourages fear, division, and segregation. It goes beyond expressing an opinion about crime or public safety; it scapegoats an entire community and normalizes prejudice as a survival strategy. As a Christian and someone who values personal responsibility, truth, and the dignity of every individual, I cannot allow content that encourages hatred to remain unchallenged. The post conflicts with the principles of justice, love, and moral courage that are central to both faith and a strong, free society. Reporting it is an act of standing for truth, community safety, and the protection of innocent lives from the toxic influence of racism.

Somehow, I don’t think the wagging fingers of outraged Boomers and self-righteous Churchians are going to impress the furious younger generations at all. Seldom has a society more deserved its inevitable fate than the post-WWII USA. The same is true of all the converged Churchian organizations, from the Roman Catholic Church to the Southern Baptist Conference. Neither the society nor the faiths, such as they are, will survive the 21st century. Some may not even make it to the halfway mark.

Germany’s chancellor Friedrich Merz has suggested ‘anyone with daughters’ would support his call for mass deportations of migrants from German cities. The conservative leader implied Germany faces a growing problem of sexual attacks linked to migration – remarks critics branded ‘dangerous’ and ‘deeply irresponsible.’

Those remarks may or may not be “dangerous” or “deeply irresponsible” but the only question that matters is if they are true or not. This, of course, is the question that the anti-American Nationalist Christian side now assiduously avoids.

The great irony here is that regardless of what the sum total of everyone’s professed preferences turn out to be, the end result will be pretty much the same. Because what follows ruin will look very similar to a nationalist authoritarianism instituted through political or military means, only it will come about after a long period of violence, economic catastrophe, and war.

Carthago semper cadit.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Post-WWII Moral Order

Since 1945, World War II has been the basis of Clown World’s civic religion, but with the observable decline of the West, neither the native masses nor the foreign invaders believe in it anymore:

Every civilization rests upon a sacred order, something that transcends the merely mortal and provides the framework through which value is arranged and meaning conferred. It is not a fiction but a sacred order that defines good and evil, memory and destiny, and determines what may be preserved and what must be condemned.

For the modern West, that faith is the Second World War.

It is remembered not as a conflict among nations but as the moment in which a new moral order was born. The war is treated as revelation, the event from which the moral legitimacy of the Western Regime descends. From it emerged a political theology that shaped institutions and public life, binding the Western world to a moral interpretation of its own survival.

Within this framework, Hitler ceased to be a historical figure and became a moral archetype, a new antichrist whose memory must be condemned. He stands as the emblem through which modern virtue is defined and the warning through which conformity is maintained. His image serves as the foundation of the postwar faith, a reference point invoked to justify authority and to police the boundaries of thought.

Through this transformation, a human tragedy was elevated into doctrine. The victors fashioned from their triumph a permanent narrative of righteousness that turned history into morality and memory into commandment. The faith endures because it explains the modern West to itself, granting coherence to its institutions and meaning to its exhaustion. It teaches that virtue lies in suppressing national will, that peace depends upon the renunciation of power, and that remembering the past too fully risks exposing the myths on which the present order rests.

The cult of the war did not remain confined to remembrance. It grew into a civic religion, woven into the structures of power and instruction. Its language pervades public life, where law and policy alike are judged against its moral vision. The past is recalled less to understand than to admonish, and history itself has been moralized into a sermon.

From this grew an orthodoxy that defines the limits of permissible thought. Nations may exist only as administrative zones and marketplaces, peoples as abstractions, and tradition as surface decoration. The religion grants the ruling order its moral immunity, for to question it is to profane what has been declared sacred.

As I pointed out to Louise Mensch, no one cares about World War II, the Nazis, or the Holocaust anymore than people cared about the Boxer Rebellion in 1939. Events that took place more than 80 years ago are simply not relevant to their lives or to their experience in any way, shape, or form.

This wasn’t true 30 years ago. When Spacebunny and I bought our first house, the man from whom we bought it was nearly brought to tears when meeting my grandfather, a Marine who fought in WWII, because he’d lost his brother in Normandy on D-Day. And an elderly British man of our acquaintance could barely hear the word “Israel” without his lip curling in disdain; he’d lost a brother in the Irgun’s bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946.

But nearly everyone with personal experience of WWII is now gone and the false moral order that was imposed in its aftermath is not only fading, but obviously bankrupt. We don’t know exactly what will take its place, but we do know that the post-post WII period is going to be very different than what preceded it. And we can be certain that the nations will rise again.

DISCUSS ON SG

Another Sign of the Inevitable

Turkey’s nationalists are beginning to openly push for a break with NATO and the Clown World West:

For decades, Turkish nationalism marched under the NATO flag. But now, one of Türkiye’s most influential right-wing leaders is calling for a turn East – toward Russia and China. His proposal may mark the country’s clearest ideological break with Atlanticism since joining the Alliance.

In September, Türkiye’s political landscape was shaken by a statement that many experts called sensational and potentially transformative. Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and a long-time ally of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan within the People’s Alliance, proposed the establishment of a strategic trilateral alliance involving Türkiye, Russia, and China to counter the “US-Israel evil coalition.”

Bahceli emphasized that such an alliance is “the most suitable option, considering reason, diplomacy, the spirit of politics, geographical conditions, and the strategic environment of the new century.” The proposal extends far beyond the usual nationalist agenda, positioning Türkiye as a player capable of initiating new formats of international cooperation.

To grasp the importance of this statement, we must note the historical context. Turkish pan-Turkism has traditionally been oriented toward the West, and nationalists were seen as staunch defenders of the pro-Atlantic course. In this light, Bahçeli’s call for an alliance with Moscow and Beijing marks a symbolic break from that tradition, reflecting growing distrust toward NATO and the US within Türkiye’s political landscape.

Bahceli’s comments are not random. Over the past few years, he has steadily ramped up his criticism of the West, advocating for Türkiye’s sovereign development “beyond blocs and alliances.” But this is the first time he has explicitly named Russia and China as preferred partners.

This obviously isn’t even remotely surprising, considering that I predicted it was going to happen over a year ago. But cooperation with an increasingly irrational and aggressive NATO is obviously not in Turkey’s best interests, given its past history of military conflict with Russia, and Turkey also has very serious reason to doubt that its allies will take its side in its coming conflict with Israel.

One thing that has escaped the notice of the mainstream analysts is the way that the fall of the Assad regime in Syria has set up an inevitable conflict between Turkey and Israel. Turkey clearly has a stronger historical claim to Jerusalem than the modern Jewish state, which was only held by the right of conquest by the Davidite dynasty for 270 years, less than the Romans (700 years), the Caliphates (332 years), or the Turks (401 years).

The elimination of Syria as a functional buffer state between Turkey and Israel means that war between the two states is inevitable. And both Erdogan and Turkey know that an AIPAC-dominated USA is going to side with Israel, which explains why the Turkish nationalists are now openly favoring an alliance with Russia and China, neither of whom are particularly enamoured of the Israelis in light of how Israel has been a) destabilizing the entire Middle East and b) attempting to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the region.

The fact that NATO has been comprehensively defeated by Russia almost certainly factors into the new Turkish perspective as well. What use is an alliance that can’t effectively defend you and is more likely to take the side of one of your primary enemies than yours? Logic dictates that the break will come, but it’s impossible to say when it will come. But the fact that the Turkish nationalists are now openly calling for it suggests that it will come sooner rather than later.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Lesson of Lepanto

A reminder that God loves His warriors and helps those who help themselves:

In 1571 as the Muslim fleet threatened Europe, Christendom was deeply divided. Protestants fought Catholics. France fought the Holy Roman Empire. Christian princes even allied WITH the Muslims against their Christian brothers.  They were all too self seeking to see the threat and and answer the call. 

But one man—a bastard with no lands and barely even a title—takes weapons from the wall and rides to the sea.  Don John of Austria.

Who was Don John? He had no throne. He was the bastard son of Charles V and a burgher’s daughter from Regensburg. Raised in obscurity, not even told who his father was. When his half-brother Philip II finally acknowledged him, it wasn’t with lands or title, just a name and a small allowance. Among the princes of Christendom he was the last man you’d pick: No inheritance, no wealth, no claim to rule.

Yet when the Ottoman fleet gathered in the waters just beyond Italy, this forgotten son was the one who answered. Because no one else would.

Yes, the Pope called for the defense of Christendom, and that is more than we have today.  But no one sent Don John personally. No one gave him the wealth to outfit an army. The most likely outcome was that they’d all die.  Don John went because someone had to.

That’s the pattern of every important battle in Christian history. One man, alone, often betrayed by his Christian brothers, under resourced, with only a small band of bedragged warriors, standing in victory against the pagan hordes.

No Crusader victory was ever a triumph of Christian unity. Most of Christendom sat Lepanto out. France stayed home. Protestant Europe stayed home. Even most of Italy stayed home. The Holy League was a minority of the willing. A handful of ships and a handful of men who made the decision to go. And that’s the truth.

History turns on the ones who go. Not on the ones who wait for orders. Not on the ones who whine about the hierarchy. The ones who go. Western man today stands on another shore. The pagan fleets are at pur shores again.  Our clergy are cautious, our politicians are compromised, our institutions asleep.

So what now?

The Churchians aren’t going to save the civilization they despise. The foreigners, immigrants, migrants, and refugees aren’t going to save the nations they hate. The governments aren’t going to defend the peoples they have betrayed. The priests and pastors aren’t going to defend the faith they subverted.

And yet, all we need are twelve.

DISCUSS ON SG

Nationalist or Feminist

Time will tell. Given the disastrous historical performances by female leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, it’s hard to have any confidence in Japan’s next prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, despite her ideological superiority to her LDP rivals:

Japan’s ruling party picked hardline conservative Sanae Takaichi as its head on Saturday, putting her on course to become the country’s first female prime minister in a move set to jolt investors and neighbors.

The Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled Japan for almost all of the postwar era, elected Takaichi, 64, to regain trust from a public angered by rising prices and drawn to opposition groups promising stimulus and clampdowns on migrants.

A vote in parliament to choose a replacement for outgoing Shigeru Ishiba is expected on October 15. Takaichi is favored as the ruling coalition has the largest number of seats.

Takaichi, the only woman among the five LDP candidates, beat a challenge from the more moderate Shinjiro Koizumi, 44, who was bidding to become the youngest modern leader.

Being more influenced by their social surroundings than men, women in positions of political leadership also tend to “grow” more in office because the influences on them once they become a broad spectrum leader, they are suddenly subject to pressure from a much broader range of interests and ideologies.

Margaret Thatcher violated her most precious principles when she sold out British sovereignty and permitted Great Britain to join the precursor to the European Union. Angela Merkel was the most conservative major party leader when she invited the invasion of Germany by the mass of third-world migrants in 2015.

So, I would not expect too much from either Takaichi or Alice Weidel of Germany’s AfD party. Because no matter hardline or conservative they are now, they are still women and they are still subject to the same social pressures that so easily manipulate their more liberal sisters.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Political Conundrum

If you say or imply that foreign people can’t be British, then we will fight you with everything we have because you are the enemy. 
—Keir Starmer

Why come no one will vote for me?
—also Keir Starmer

Here is an epiphany for the conceptually-challenged Prime Minister. Foreign people can’t be British, for the obvious reason that if they were British, then they wouldn’t be foreign. A Pakistani who moves to Britain is still Pakistani. A monarch butterfly that migrates from Canada to Mexico does not cease to be a monarch butterfly on the basis of its southern residence.

A child of a Pakistani immigrant is still a Pakistani. So is a grandchild. Because what determines nationality is genetics, not geographic location. A child born in the Antarctic is not an Antarctican and a foreign child born in Britain is not British.

Neither paper nor governments dictate what a nation is. The nations existed before any of these governments or their papers existed. And they will last long after these governments and their papers are gone.

DISCUSS ON SG

Germans First

GERMANY FIRST sounds like a good slogan, but if we’ve learned one thing over the years, it’s that the civic nationalists will pervert and adulterate genuine nationalism every chance they get. GERMANS FIRST would be better given the globalist attempts to redefine what a nation is.

Germany’s interests do not match those of its “Ukrainian partners,” and Berlin should pursue a “Germany first” policy, deputy head of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party’s parliamentary group, Markus Frohnmaier, has said.

Frohnmaier made the remarks on Wednesday in an interview with Rossiya 24, suggesting that Berlin should admit its economic woes largely stem from breaking ties with Russia and try to fix them.

“We are genuinely interested in normalizing relations with Russia,” Frohnmaier stated. “We simply have to acknowledge that energy prices for industry, as well as for private individuals in Germany, are now too high.”

Berlin, should it manage to display the “political will,” could “achieve a lot,” including the restoration of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, he suggested.

“The interests of our Ukrainian partners, for instance, do not match those of Germany. And I call for a final return to a policy that puts Germany’s interests first,” he stressed.

Germany should not get involved in the Ukraine conflict in any fashion, Frohnmaier said, arguing that it should not even consider deploying its military since most Germans strongly oppose such an idea. The politician also lamented that Berlin had abandoned its longstanding “tradition” of not supplying weapons to war zones.

In any event, it’s good to see the AfD’s inexorable rise, even if some elements of its leadership are deeply questionable and tend to indicate the usual paradachutists being sent in as gatekeepers. The fact is that the nations are rising and nothing is going to stop them from doing so over the next three decades.

DISCUSS ON SG

Conservatives are Waking Up

It’s taken them a long time, but we may have actually reached a point where conservatives finally agree more with us than with the sworn enemies of Christendom and civilization.

I am told that as a state representative this is the moment where I’m supposed to express my heartfelt condolences and then stand in solidarity with those on the other side of the aisle as we condemn political violence and stand unified as one people. But we aren’t “one people” are we? The truth is we haven’t been for some time now, and there is really no point in pretending anymore, if there ever was. We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end.

I convinced myself for a long time that whenever the left called me a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a fascist, a “threat to democracy” for even the most innocent of disagreements, that it was simply hyperbolic rhetoric done for effect. And now the “effect” is a widow and two orphaned children, because the left couldn’t bear the thought of a peaceful man debating them and winning. I don’t think they realize it yet, but murdering Charlie is going to be remembered as the day where we finally woke up to what this fight really is. It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose.

Charlie tried to win that fight through argumentation, through discussion, through peaceful resolution of differences. And the other side murdered him. Not because he was “extreme” or “inciting violence” or any other hyperbolic slur they hurled at him. They murdered him because he was effective. Because he was unafraid. Because he inspired others and made them feel like they had a voice, that they were not alone. And he did it at the very institutions which have fomented so much hatred toward conservatives.

I don’t want to “stand in solidarity” with the other side of the aisle. I want to defeat you. I want to defeat the godless ideology that kills babies in the womb, sterilizes confused children, turns our cities into cesspools of degeneracy and lawlessness…and that murdered Charlie Kirk. Social media is aflame right now with leftist celebration of Charlie’s death.

I wonder if any among them understand what has just happened. If there is a Yamamoto somewhere in their midst warning, that all they have done is awoken a sleeping giant. I doubt it. I think they gave up such introspection and self-awareness long ago. I don’t know exactly what will happen next. I just know that it won’t be the same as what has happened in the past. There will be thoughts and prayers…Charlie would have wanted prayers. Not for himself but for those left behind and for the country that he loved. But then there will be a reckoning.

My Christian faith requires me to love my enemies and pray for those who curse me. It does not require me to stand idly by in the midst of savagery and barbarism…quite the opposite. So every time I feel tired, every time I feel discouraged or overwhelmed, I am going to watch the video of a good man being murdered in Utah…I will force myself to watch it…and then I will return to the work of destroying the evil ideology responsible for that and so much more.

Rest with God Charlie, your fight is over. Ours is just beginning.

DISCUSS ON SG

Conservatives Reject the Proposition Nation

It’s more than a little late, but conservatives are finally beginning to shake off the absurd idea that America is not an actual nation of people, but an idea:

It the recent NatCon conference in Washington, D.C., Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri delivered a powerful speech about American identity, arguing that our nation isn’t merely an abstract proposition about human equality and rights, but a distinct people with a shared past and a common future.

“For decades, the mainstream consensus on the Left and the Right alike seemed to be that America itself was just an ‘idea’ — a vehicle for global liberalism,” Schmitt said. “We were told that the entire meaning of America boiled down to a few lines in a poem on the Statue of Liberty and five words about equality in the Declaration of Independence. Any other aspect of American identity was deemed to be illegitimate and immoral, poisoned by the evils of our ancestors. The true meaning of America, they said, was liberalism, multiculturalism, and endless immigration.”

Not so, argued Schmitt. America’s principles, he said, are not abstractions. “They are living, breathing things — rooted in a people and embodied in a way of life. It’s only in that context that they become real.”

This is absolutely correct. Those who would reduce America to an abstract proposition either misunderstand or misrepresent our history and heritage. As I argued at NatCon last year, nearly everyone who argues that America is a proposition is wrong about what the proposition is and what it means. “All men are created equal” is a specifically Christian claim, not a universal call to multiculturalism and mass immigration. It emerged as a political ideal from Christian Europe, and arrived in America by way of settlers and pioneers who came here specifically to establish a nation where they could practice their Christian faith as they saw fit.

In other words, America isn’t a grab-bag of Enlightenment tropes about free speech and equality, but the product of Christian Europe. The ideals that animated our founders are universal in the same way that the Christian faith is universal: God created all men equal, they all bear the imago Dei, the image of God, and are all His children. But the only people who ever took that self-evident truth and used it as a foundation on which to forge a new nation were the English colonists in America.

The fundamental falsity of the proposition nation can perhaps be most obviously seen in the way that “a nation of immigrants” has subsequently been applied everywhere from England and Sweden to, most recently, Japan, of all places. It’s a psychological operation, not a philosophical truth.

DISCUSS ON SG