Someone posted one of my nationally published magazine bikini pictures to “shame” me as a conservative.— Mindy Robinson ?? (@iheartmindy) November 21, 2019
I’m a Redneck Republican, buddy. I’m as proud of my body as I am this country and my love for whiskey, guns, and bacon. Try again, leftie. ???? https://t.co/yzBtomeH9a
At the cores of slavery and socialism is the same premise: Someone else owns and profits from your labor.— Turning Point USA at Pennridge (@TPUSAxPennridge) November 13, 2019
We fought a bloody civil war to exorcise that evil idea from this country.
Retweet if you do NOT want it to come back! @TPUSA #socialismsucks #resistsocialism https://t.co/hIWgVI4g17
Calling @marcorubio “fascist” for offering a more solidaristic vision of conservatism is a smear.— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) November 21, 2019
Such thinking also misses the real fascist danger: unchecked libertarianism alienating ever more people, who then seek “solidarity” in race bigotry. https://t.co/jki4FZCgGm
I’ve been seeing a lot of stuff on the timeline lately which for some reason I just can’t reconcile with my intuitive understanding of “conservatism.”
According to Conservatism, Inc., it is highly taboo to be a White male. It perfectly fine to be anything else. You are free to identify as a homosexual, a drag queen, a woman, an African-American, a Hispanic-American, an Asian-American, a Native American, a Jew, a Muslim, an atheist, a stripper or even as a porn star for Trump. There is only one thing that is forbidden. There is only one thing that gets your respectability card revoked.
Being a White male is crossing the line. Associating with a known unapologetic and blacklisted White male is also enough to destroy your career. That sort of race bigotry is “beyond the pale.” It is “identity politics” and has “no place in the conservative movement.” It is much easier to come out in mainstream conservatism as a homosexual than as a White male. AEI even recently hosted the transsexual Deirdre McCloskey to defend liberalism.
The strange thing about Conservatism, Inc. and its weird definition of “conservatism” as being synonymous with liberalism is that the social base that it all rests upon are White Southerners. The South was a caste based society until the 1960s. There was no taboo on being a Southern White man. Instead, we had taboos on miscegenation and cultural degeneration and until a few generations ago the people who violated those taboos were usually hounded out of the region and driven into exile. It wasn’t until the Reagan era in a fit of backlash politics against the unwanted changes of the 1960s and 1970s that the last generation got us stuck in this bad relationship. It seems the implicit understanding was that something would be done by the Republican Party about all of these social issues which were roiling the country at the time.
Nothing was ever done about any of it. We were just milked for our votes to get the things Conservatism, Inc. really wanted like tax cuts and the Iraq War. If they are not going to deliver any of the policies we wanted and only want to conserve the status quo, what use are these people? Why should we be deferential toward them? Do we even need them anymore?
I would say that we don’t. I would argue that when we have reached the point that being a White male is taboo while being a homosexual is mainstream in Conservatism, Inc. that any case for perpetuating this racket has lost all plausibility.