Among The Cucks

I’m fairly confident that no one associated with the Alt-Right spends more time watching them – reading their websites, following their Twitter circle jerk – than I do:

“It would also be a disaster for conservatism to become associated with white identity politics. American conservatism, unlike traditional European conservatism, is liberty-loving because we are defending the revolutionary ideals of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism holds that the individual is sovereign and that he or she should be judged on his own merits, not according to his tribe, his class or faith. Identity politics is hemlock to this vision. I’ll say it again, conservatism is about more than classical liberalism, but a conservatism that doesn’t conserve classical liberalism isn’t worth conserving.

I’ll say it again, conservatism is about more than classical liberalism, but a conservatism that doesn’t conserve classical liberalism isn’t worth conserving. …”

According to the cucks, we’re the champions of “white identity politics.” That’s their way of acknowledging that we identify with a peculiar ethnic group and its culture. We see ourselves as champions of our nation. We are a hard-nosed group of people who believe in our interests. We’re proud to be White – something so uncouth, so racist that they could never bring themselves to say it in public if their lives depended on it. We’re motivated by a sense of honor – this is all about the duty we owe to our ancestors and descendants.

In contrast, a cuck is a status seeking ideologue. Whereas I identify as a White Southerner, they identify with “Freedom” or “Equality” or “Human Rights” or the “Constitution.” They see the world in terms of their abstract principles. We see the world through the concrete interests of our people. They’re the champions of a failed Enlightenment ideology. They are proud of, say, “American exceptionalism.” It’s all that plus an insatiable yearning to be seen as “respectable” – “one of the good ones” – by leftists who despise them.

We want to “conserve” our people – for example, I get up every morning motivated by the future welfare of my descendants, which I think about every single day. They want to “conserve” liberal abstractions. We’re unphased when we are called mean names because we haven’t lost our self respect. We’re not embarrassed to pursue our interests. They are mortified because they are secretly guilty and ashamed of their heritage. They don’t give much thought to the world they are leaving behind.

Philosophically, a cuck is a classical liberal who has an unqualified, childlike reverence for “freedom” or “liberty.” In contrast, the Alt-Right would agree with this passage from George Fitzhugh’s Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters:

“Further study, too, of Western European Society, which has been engaged in continual revolution for twenty years, has satisfied us that Free Society every where begets isms, and that isms soon beget bloody revolutions. Until our trip to the North, we did not justly appreciate the passage which we are about to quote from Mr. Carlyle’s “Latter-Day Pamphlets.” Now it seems to us as if Boston, New Haven, or Western New York, had set for the picture:

“To rectify the relation that exists between two men, is there no method, then, but that of ending it? The old relation has become unsuitable, obsolete, perhaps unjust; and the remedy is, abolish it; let there henceforth be no relation at all. From the ‘sacrament of marriage’ downwards, human beings used to be manifoldly related one to another, and each to all; and there was no relation among human beings, just or unjust, that had not its grievances and its difficulties, its necessities on both sides to bear and forbear. But henceforth, be it known, we have changed all that by favor of Heaven; the ‘voluntary principle’ has come up, which will itself do the business for us; and now let a new sacrament, that of Divorce, which we call emancipation, and spout of on our platforms, be universally the order of the day! Have men considered whither all this is tending, and what it certainly enough betokens? Cut every human relation that has any where grown uneasy sheer asunder; reduce whatsoever was compulsory to voluntary, whatsoever was permanent among us to the condition of the nomadic; in other words, LOOSEN BY ASSIDUOUS WEDGES, in every joint, the whole fabrice of social existence, stone from stone, till at last, all lie now quite loose enough, it can, as we already see in most countries, be overset by sudden outburst of revolutionary rage; and lying as mere mountains of anarchic rubbish, solicit you to sing Fraternity, &c. over it, and rejoice in the now remarkable era of human progress we have arrived at.”

Now we plant ourselves on this passage from Carlyle. We say that, as far as it goes, ’tis a faithful picture of the isms of the North. But the restraints of Law and Public Opinion are less at the North than in Europe. The isms on each side the Atlantic are equally busy with “assiduous wedges,” in “loosening in every joint the whole fabric of social existence;” but whilst they dare invoke Anarchy in Europe, they dare not inaugurate New York Free Love, and Oneida Incest, and Mormon Polygamy. The moral, religious, and social heresies of the North, are more monstrous than those of Europe. The pupil has surpassed the master, unaided by the stimulants of poverty, hunger and nakedness, which urge the master forward.”

In the words of Thomas Carlyle, “Have men considered whither all this is tending, and what it certainly enough betokens?”

Fastforward to 2016: what George Fitzhugh and Thomas Carlyle denounced in their day as Radicalism, which now flies under the banner of Conservatism at National Review, is being reassessed and challenged from the Right. It’s being challenged because every negative thing thinkers like Fitzhugh and Carlyle said about it has come true. They were PROPHETIC in their analysis of it.

I mean … here you have two men who saw clearly the nature of the MONSTER that is classical liberalism as far back as the 1850s. They saw the -isms and -phobias of the 20th and 21st century coming generations ago. They saw how reducing every human relationship to “freedom” and “equality” – what they called the “assiduous wedges” – would undermine and unravel the social fabric into an atomized mess. They predicted the sudden outbursts of revolutionary rage which would shatter the weakened social fabric and lead to leftist victories in the culture wars.

In their day, they saw “woman’s rights-ism” and “Free Love” coming down the liberal pipeline, and Radicalism/Conservatism being powerless to defeat it. In our own times, the sudden outbursts of revolutionary rage have been transgenderism – the notion that your biological sex is purely voluntary – and the Black Lives Matter movement.

In the words of Robert Lewis Dabney in 1897:

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”

“There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.” Our Constitution! Is Dabney talking about Ben Shapiro’s latest columns?

The Constitution, which enshrined classical liberalism as the foundation of the American order, has been utterly useless in resisting each new leftist innovation, and through the 14th Amendment has been a facilitator of social revolution.

A culture that is based on freedom, equality, and rights is going to be a weak culture. Such a weak culture, which is an attack on authority, hierarchy and order, will be unable to resist the pressure of organized leftist mobs. Because it is so vulnerable to hijacking by wealthy interests (see our Jewish problem), it will inexorably lead to a leftist dystopia, which is what we have everywhere classical liberalism has ever been tried.

Their response will be: “that’s dark.” Ours will be: “it’s true.”

Note: Yes, Shapiro and Goldberg are hiding behind it for their own self-interested reasons. It’s their camoflauge.

40 Comments

  1. In the space of a year Benji has gone from being the wunder-kike of the conservative movement to a pathetic, irrelevant joke. Conservatism, as he and his kind define it, means importing millions of useless black and brown people, exporting millions of American jobs and waging endless wars on behalf of the Zionist Entity. How is any of that crap supposed to appeal to American voters?

    • They couch it in bizarre esoteric terms like liberty, democracy, and the free market to make folks swallow the pill much easier.

      Remove the mask, and you have the far-left as it was maybe 10 years ago.

      That’s all the modern cuck is these days: a Marxist traitor that invokes God a little bit more often than a true blue communist.

      • The poison of Jeffersonianism which was a stupid idea to begin with means that you end up with chaos as everyone is merely on the honor system to do the right thing. Jefferson somehow believed that by allowing America to be a place where all ideas freely flowed that it would be a wellspring of freedom. Intellectuals never understand reality and never will.

        • The way you describe it makes it obvious how Jews managed to seep their poison into the entire nation, because for the longest time they were clustered in just a few states (California, New York, Massachusetts to some extent, etc…).

          • Actually before 1850 most Jews were in the South BUT for the most part these Sephardic Jews who had come from Spain via Holland to UK during Cromwell were making alot of money off the slave system ie selling clothes and supplies to planters so they didn’t openly bear the system ill will. These Jews were afforded full rights as white men in Antebellum Dixie. After the war these families sort of just faded away assimilated although some did maintain their identity.

            Following the war, E Euro Ashkenazic Jews swarmed into the South and opened up or ran hundreds of dry goods and company stores but as they were scattered about, often having to travel 40 miles for synagogue or to see another Jewish family in some instances, they had no real beachhead.

            Whereas the South had enfranchised and even elected Jews to high office, the North scorned and isolated them but a funny thing happened. The Jewish ghettoes grew with every year because of Jeffersons open borders which remained open from 1802-1924 accumulated money and by 1900 many of these Jews had bought newspapers or were city or state political powerbrokers though in the North they seldom served in office openly. When the 1920s rolled around, these ghettoes had grown so large, they could tell entire cities what to do and at this point they began electing their own to office, even to Congress and the Senate.

            After WW2 these Jews then did another odd thing. They moved to Jewish-owned suburbs, but kept the ownership of their old homes in the city and began subdividing them and renting them to Negroes. Every Negro or Muslim ghetto began as a Jewish one, this is true in USA, Canada, UK and in Europe.

            The key to Jewish Power is Concentration. They concentrated their power in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, grew their numbers and formulated a long term plan. The Yankees treated Jews like dirt but the Jews knew two things, ONE THE YANKEES HAD A LOW BIRTH RATE and TWO THEY WERE ABANDONING THEIR CITIES. All the Jews had to do was keep the borders open and have alot of babies which in the early generations they did. They scorned education in the early generations concentrating on financial power, then moved into education. Yankees never took the Jewish junk dealers seriously until that junk dealer bought up an entire city block and sent his kid to Yale.

            That is the secret to Jewish Power

          • In the graphics below, Billy Ray, are two written passages from one year, 1922. Each of them has to do with the emergence of the Jews as a conspicuous element in New York City. The first is fiction and is from “The Beautiful and Damned,” F. Scott Fitzgerald’s second novel. The latter is from “The Jews,” a non-fiction work by Hilaire Belloc; it shows Belloc examining a theory to the effect that modern conditions will allow for the absorption of the Jews at last.

          • In the graphics below, Billy Ray, are two written passages from one year, 1922. Each of them has to do with the emergence of the Jews as a conspicuous element in New York City. On the left is fiction, a passage from “The Beautiful and Damned,” F. Scott Fitzgerald’s second novel. On the right is a passage from “The Jews,” a non-fiction work by Hilaire Belloc. Belloc is examining a theory that modern conditions will allow for the absorption of the Jews at last.

          • The Jewish presence in New York City was worried about as early as the 1840’s as NYC has always been our Paris and London rolled into one, a center of culture, fashion and finance. The thing was in 1840 there were more Jews in DIXIE than in the North, but these Southern Jews were dispersed among the people. The Northern Man, he despised the Jew so he said, I will leave the Jews my slums and stews.

            When the War began in 1861 it could have been argued by some that the Confederacy was a tool of the Jews as Judah P Benjamin was unofficially the second man in the entire government and he was seen by some as the Rasputin over Jefferson Davis and many of the Generals hated him. The North on the other hand like Henry Ford years later, were fine with Jews in the army but never in politics. Their insane abolitionism, which did have a well hidden deep Jewish component btw, these same Negrophiles often badmouthed the South as a Jew run nation.

            After 1865, the war had greatly enriched the Ashkenazic Jews in the North and many went South, displacing the Sephardics who had been there since the 1600s. Driving Miss Daisy was about a German Jewish family, one that had went south following the WBTS. The ones who stayed in the North began using their money from their junk businesses and other things to get into finance and the media and they began buying up bankrupt newspapers.

            A flood of Russian Jews, most of whom were primitive largely to New York City and North Jersey but other streams to Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and countless other towns. These Jews were kept out of prominent places by the German Jews, the German Jews held the media to themselves and finance as well. So the Russians knowing their co-ethnics hated them figured out a way around them. These Russian Jews got into the theatre and into music publishing. Later they got into movies eventually moving to Hollywood and the rest into Organized Crime. An unholy alliance of the Mafia-Movies-Music-Theatre was born in the 1890s and was solely an EASTERN EUROPEAN non German game.

            These Russian Jews used this flow of money from crime and entertainment to pull their people up, give to the synagogues and Jewish relief funds and by the 1950s their people were elevated and even began to displace the German Jews. Today the process is almost complete. The axis of Jewish evil

          • Interesting that the presence of the Jews in New York was being discussed in the 1840s. I have a very-vague memory that I once identified some Union generals of the Civil War as Jewish: even vaguer is my recollection that they were “Forty-Eighters,” i.e., revolutionists who’d fled to the U.S. after the 1848 revolutions in Europe. Wouldn’t vouch for any of that.

            Below are two more written passages, both non-fiction. The one on the left is from “Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation 1838-1839,” by the actress Fanny Kemble. Kemble remarks that Southerners “much insisted upon” the Jewish origin of slavery. When I read that, I was reminded how startled Mr. W., our host here, at Occidental Dissent, seemed to have been, a few years ago, when he discovered the Jewish roots of the Caribbean slavery from which Southern slavery descended. Evidently, those roots were well-known antebellum.

            The other passage, on the right, is another from Belloc’s “The Jews.” When you mentioned the influx of Russian Jews to the states, I was reminded that Belloc had remarked that that migration had been organized like an “army on the march.”

            Kemble, as maybe you know, was an English-born actress who married the American who owned the Southern plantation she visited in 1838-1839. Her book, which consists mostly of letters she wrote during the visit, was not published until the Civil War, when she was long separated from the man. I gather a Southern historian, female, discredited the book, in part, at least, many years ago, mainly because Kemble speaks as if she’d witnessed a duel that actually took place some months, I think, before she visited Georgia.

            Another interesting fact that Kemble relates is that many of the Southern plantation owners were absentee landlords, who resided in Northern cities such as Philadelphia and New York. (She indicates they were unwelcome in abolitionist New England.) She and her husband were themselves Philadelphia residents, I think, when they made their visit to Georgia, in the late 1830s.

            Anyway–here are the passages …

          • “It was but a postponement of the evil day.” Belloc was prophetic. The Jewish tragedy is that they remember every aspect of their miserable history but learn nothing from it.

          • Yes, that statement of Belloc’s is stunning when you know it was published a decade or so before Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. If nothing is done about the “quarrel” between Jews and Europeans, says Belloc, on the first page of the book’s first chapter, then “we shall come, unexpectedly and soon, upon one of these tragedies which have marked for centuries the relations between this peculiar nation and ourselves.” That’s about as prophetic as you can get.

            At https://friendofbelloc.wordpress.com/introductory-chapter-to-the-third-edition-of-hilaire-bellocs-the-jews-1937/ is the text of an intro Belloc wrote for the book’s reissue of 1937. (It had been reissued in 1928, I think.) He says the situation he’d discussed in the book has been intensified by three things: the European Revolution’s advance, in the form of what we now call the Spanish Civil War; the counter-revolutionary actions, including anti-Jewish actions, of “the government in Berlin”; and “the maturing of the Zionist experiment in Palestine.” You might find that, too, interesting reading.

            Here’s that first page of Chapter 1, from 1922 …

          • Yes, that statement of Belloc’s is stunning when you know it was published a decade or so before Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. If nothing is done about the “quarrel” between Jews and Europeans, says Belloc, on the first page of the book’s first chapter, then “we shall come, unexpectedly and soon, upon one of these tragedies which have marked for centuries the relations between this peculiar nation and ourselves.” That’s about as prophetic as you can get.

            At https://friendofbelloc.wordpress.com/introductory-chapter-to-the-third-edition-of-hilaire-bellocs-the-jews-1937/ is the text of an intro Belloc wrote for the book’s reissue of 1937. (It had been reissued in 1928, I think.) He says the situation he’d discussed in the book has been intensified by three things: the European Revolution’s advance, in the form of what we now call the Spanish Civil War; the counter-revolutionary actions, including anti-Jewish actions, of “the
            government in Berlin”; and “the maturing of the Zionist experiment in Palestine.” You might find that, too, interesting reading.

            Here’s that first page of Chapter 1, from 1922 …

          • Worse than a couple Yankee Jewish Generals who had little to no say in Government affairs was a Jew 2 heartbeats away from running the Confederacy Judah P Benjamin. The Southern Aristocrats, inheritors like the Yankees of British racial definitions, identified Jews as Whites. Benjamin was successful in keeping a mention of JESUS CHRIST out of the Confederate Constitution and defeating a Confederate Loyalty Oath swearing allegience to Jesus Christ. I believe Stonewall once remarked that the Confederacy would be defeated unless it implored Christ and was strongly critical of the defeat of this measure.

            A few Confederates saw the Jewish issue I believe Stonewall did and commented on it and I think an Independent South would have extricated itself from it, but the Jews especially in Charleston and New Orleans had grown like a cancer on the Southern body politic. After the war their influence was largely shattered and slowly forgotten, but it began to grow again by the 1920s but this time it was Ashkenazics not Sephardic Jews.

        • Some say Jefferson had Asperger’s which I took to be rewriting history by special interests the same way people make wild claims saying “X” from history was gay, etc. I thought while Isaac Newton certainly fits the bill, no way could someone who became President have such a debilitating social disfunction. But then when you hear of so many of Jeffersons dumb spacey ideas, and how he ran his business into the ground I can say there might be something to it. Hamilton clearly turned out to be the one who was rooted in reality and accurately saw how history would unfold. Adams was also correct in seeing how pernicious the French thing was and it’s danger to America. Jefferson’s continent populated by a few sparse farmers never happened, and if it did would never have been strong enough to defend such prime real estate.

          • Thomas Jefferson was brilliant but he was another example of why brilliance is often a failure at leadership. I don’t think looking back I can ever forgive Jefferson or Madison for their failure with Great Britain who while yes was a major problem, was also fighting to defend Christian Civilization. Their defense and praise of Revolutionary France, which had Negroes sitting in its government and full equality was bizarre for Southerners who claimed to revile such an idea.

            Their open borders led us to our present problems too, remember Jefferson opened the border wide in 1802 without any enforcement whatsoever and it remained this way largely until 1924. Before 1924 if your feet touched American soil you could stay, it was almost impossible to deport anyone which was why anarchists ie commies like Emma Goldman were free to stir trouble for over 20 years before anything was done about her. That was Jefferson’s baby. Adams on the other hand wanted to enforce the border strictly and have the power of deportation of dangerous aliens.

            In the long run Adams and Hamilton, both with their shortcomings were correct

        • Yes, but white nationalism is hated as much as NAMBLA. You’re both writing things that promote violating other people’s rights according to current laws.

          • According to both NAMBLA and white nationalism, the laws have to be changed to live the way you want to live; otherwise, you’re in violation of the law. In the case of white nationalism, it would be civil rights violations.
            I’m not saying that either group is in violation. I’m saying that they both want to change existing laws in ways that nearly everyone finds both demented and outrageous.

  2. Classic OD: its so nice to have historical referrents other than Hitler and Pinochet!

    On a note substantive note: notice how technological productivity makes possible and drives this phenomena then and today. The “old relationship” of slavery had become, impractical, obselete due to mechanization of agriculture.

    Women, on average spend less than a decade of life reproducing and rearing the next generation, but live much much longer – thanks to machines and the type of medicine machines make possible. Were they expected to sit humbly at home for decades twiddling their thumbs?

    Why is this important? Because there is no forseeable endpoint to this trend! One can imagine all the leveling impulses of the Left financially underwritten by technology for decades until organic humanity has been replaced by its “rational” analog: transhumans and / or artificial intelligence.

    This is why we need to be about more than fighting white genocide, but go beyond to preserving the natural and human – with all of our “sins” such as loving our own people more than others, or acting like a real man instead of a estrogen soaked nu-male – go beyond to preserving humanity against The Beast of technology and its technocratic handmaidens.

  3. The impotence of of moderation in the face of fanaticism is quite likely a universal human phenomenon. We see the same phenomenon between “moderate” Islam and radical Islam. If there is an agreement on ends the natural tendency is towards ever strident means to accomplish those ends. The more utopian or impossible the ends the less resistance there will be to all means to accomplish those ends.

    Only radical nationalism and stop radical globalism.

    • Agree. Moderation, however noble the idea, simply isn’t strong or sustainable.

      Just consider when someone self IDs with an ism, such as conservatism, he is immediately plunged into groupthink and is compelled, not just to be a conservative, but a good conservative. As a good conservative he cannot be pro-choice to any degree for any reason. As a good conservative he cannot be a racist. As a good conservative he cannot question anything in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. As a good conservative he lets other people tell him what it means to be a good conservative.

      The same applies no matter what club identity the individual adopts. If he is a Christian who attends church he will feel compelled to be “more” Christian, and as we have seen, some fertile couples even refuse to bear their own children and adopt niglets instead. Of course adopting a homegrown niglet isn’t extreme enough, so they have to get one from Africa, who may have been kidnapped to sell as an adoptee.

      That is why we need to carefully craft “what it means to be a Southern Nationalist” or “what it means to be a good [national identity once independent].” The good thing is that SN is already based in race identity, so I don’t think it will go off the tracks as easy as an identity based in freedom and democracy.

  4. Philosophically, a cuck is a classical liberal who has an unqualified, childlike reverence for “freedom” or “liberty.”

    Yes, at least Shapiro’s stance in rational, he’s for the Jews and Israel. Our cucks don’t really believe in freedom, liberty, and multiculturalism, they’re just in it for the money at the top, and have to kowtow to Jewish/leftist media to get that money. At the bottom they operate out of fear and a misguided authoritarianism that makes them tug their forelocks in the presence of their “betters. ” A movement of cowards led by crooks. It was easy to go along to get along when whites were an overwhelming majority but now we’re on the verge of third-world government cucks at the top won’t really be needed anymore, and those at the bottom will have to choose resistance or abject slavery. They’re already slaves, they became slaves with Brown v. Board and the ’64 “Civil Rights” act, but soon their slavery will become too obvious, forcing the choice. I’m guessing that they’ll continue the practice of meekly accepting slavery, but they will no longer be able to cover that acceptance with bullshit about “freedom” and the American Dream. The Dream is over, and they clearly will be less free.

  5. Never ceases to amaze me how much these ((())) managed to hijack the natural impulses of the right in the US.

  6. Why don’t they spend more time lecturing blacks, Muslims, “Hispanics,” and Jews on the evils of “tribalism” and “identity politics”? Their beloved Israel wouldn’t and couldn’t exist if not for Jewish “tribalism” and “identity politics.”

  7. Why do you use a picture of a non-white, Ben Shapiuro (Jew) to illustrate a story about whitew identity politics? These greasy little sheenie has no business anywhere near real Americans.

  8. Hunter you nailed it. This is why I have come to REVILE Thomas Jefferson in my later years. The Declaration of Independence was a Satanic Document paying homage to the deity of Freemasonry not Jehovah through his son Jesus Christ. Jefferson was even quoted later as saying the Common Law existed without Christ among the Pagan Saxons so we don’t need Christianity.

    The entire foundation of the Declaration was that all men had inaliable rights. Now lets say here we use the definition of ALL WHITE MEN and use British Racial Classification White would include Jews and Gypsies under British Common Law would any of us support that? Perish the thought yet Jefferson and even Washington unwisely supported the idea that Non-Christians could be good Americans.

    The United States Constitution gave the States all the power in the beginning which while seemingly a good idea necessitated each state to be responsible and sane. The problem is it didn’t work. Radicals could write in Boston and New York things that would get them lynched elsewhere and there was no way to stop them. This is Classical Liberalism folks Individualism do what you want ism with no real responsiblity to the Common Good.

    The 14th Amendment merely allowed the evil enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution to be forced down our throats. The Confederate Constitution on the other hand by establishing uniform laws and citizenship and things that each Confederate state agreed to practice, protected themselves from this crap.

    There is a reason everyone from Robespierre to MLK quoted Thomas Jefferson at one time or another and there is a reason JOHN C CALHOUN repuidated him in the Oregon Bill Speech. God made 2 people from that time humanity established their own societies, societies in which we are all responsible to one another. Individualism is the death of society.

    • The Declaration was a wartime document written for wartime purposes. All the equality stuff was an appeal to liberal France for their support of the war effort. The Constitution of 1787 says nothing about equality. Nor will you find it in any of Jefferson’s other writings, especially racial equality.

      Lincoln raised “all men are created equal” to a proposition which transformed the original intent of the Constitution and turned America into a proposition state. If anyone ought to be reviled it’s Lincoln.

      • Calhoun reviled Jefferson at the end of his career and I do revile both but Jefferson’s support of Robespierre and the French Revolution was an endorsement of equality as was his endorsement of interracial marriage with American Indians to solve the Indian question. Not to mention the 1784 Land Act under the Articles to which Jefferson and his allies made it mandatory that slavery be forever illegal in the western lands above the Ohio and west of the Appalachians.

        Jefferson and even Madison seemed confused as to whether slaves were property or persons as the Transatlantic slave clause in the US Constitution called them persons and under the State Citizenship laws which ran concurrently to Federal citizenship laws, states could recognize Negroes as full citizens. When Judge Taney declared slaves Property in 1857 he had no power over the states to enforce it. As citizenship and Negroes were dealt with at the state level, his words were meaningless.

        If we take Jeffersons whole point in the Declaration that King George III was depriving men of property then passing a law depriving Southrons of slaves if they moved to Ohio was the exact same thing. Unfortunatley it took John C Calhoun to make this point about 50 yrs later.

  9. For a jew to be a cuck they would support mass non jew immigration to Israel, since Shapiro does not support this he is not a cuck, he simply is a foreign enemy.

  10. It’s simple, the alt-Right rejects the Idiocracy.
    We are moving on from it, societal evolution which reaches back into history and repurposes what was good and just for today’s and the future humane living.

  11. “A culture that is based on freedom, equality, and rights is going to be a weak culture. Such a weak culture, which is an attack on authority, hierarchy and order, will be unable to resist the pressure of organized leftist mobs. Because it is so vulnerable to hijacking by wealthy interests (see our Jewish problem), it will inexorably lead to a leftist dystopia, which is what we have everywhere classical liberalism has ever been tried.”

    This sums up why I am so contemptuous of the “Constitution Fetishists” you hear endlessly on talk radio, on talk radio commercials, etc. The Constitution has CLEARLY FAILED! It lead to all this liberalism, and if one accepts the theory, is a recipe for Jews to take over and run your society for their interests. It’s like you keep hiring and venerating some football coach who hasn’t had a winning season in the last 10 years just because some past glory when the game was quite different.

  12. “it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. ” – sadly they never conceived of otherkin or animal rights.

Comments are closed.