tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post6284562018975521869..comments2023-10-31T14:07:04.482+00:00Comments on Conservative Swede: Ferdinand Bardamu: "White people are their own worst enemy"Conservative Swedehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-40712303360219944332011-06-24T03:31:41.524+00:002011-06-24T03:31:41.524+00:00You New,
Thanks for your kindness, but this is th...You New,<br /><br />Thanks for your kindness, but this is the sort of comment that I do not want at this blog (since it's just an open-ended question).<br /><br />I want comments that <i>contribute</i> something. By taking something I wrote and develop it further, or provide historical examples, or convince me that I'm wrong about something.<br /><br />By posting an open-ended question, you expect nothing from yourself, and everything from me. You demand of me to contribute more, while you offer nothing yourself. That is neither fair nor constructive.<br /><br />From people commenting here I expect that they are familiar with my previous writing. Familiar enough not to ask very basic open-ended questions. So do your home-work first, and then come back with more educated questions.<br /><br />I hope you understand.<br /><br />PS. The clue to the answer, anyway, is how political power rests on the shoulders of military power.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-43075642013377765012011-06-24T00:41:22.796+00:002011-06-24T00:41:22.796+00:00ConSwede,
Very nice post and thread.
Could you ...ConSwede,<br /><br />Very nice post and thread. <br /><br />Could you explain how the EU would implode upon the breakup of NATO as you suggested? I'm not able to envision how those events would be connected.Sol Ta Trianehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09910835358667411129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-22833668261152227442011-06-23T06:21:09.650+00:002011-06-23T06:21:09.650+00:00The complete link for the movie is:
http://www.yo...The complete link for the movie is: <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVkVQnAY64Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-15867813847803894272011-06-23T06:03:48.992+00:002011-06-23T06:03:48.992+00:00CS, regarding the JQ as an intelligent discussion,...CS, regarding the JQ as an intelligent discussion, I don't know if you saw the documentary "Defamation", directed by an Israeli. It can be found on YouTube. Anyway, forget about the pro-Palestinian, Norman Finkelstein-ish parts of the movie (which are not very long anyway), and concentrate on the parts about how the mechanisms of guilt-tripping work regarding Europeans and Americans. I'm very curious about your insights, if you didn't see the movie before.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-54457374630093238282011-06-23T00:47:14.950+00:002011-06-23T00:47:14.950+00:00Yet some more from Rebellious Vanilla:
What we ne...Yet some more from <b>Rebellious Vanilla</b>:<br /><br />What we need to return to is basically something similar to an organic society - in which people have different roles, but they have roles nonetheless. A criticism of capitalism that Marx had and with which I agree is considering the worth of people based on their part in the economic system, which is flawed. I'm sure that all of us are better described by our interest in music, alcohol, our hobbies or whatever than our jobs, yet when we are asked what we are, we generally answer with our job. This needs to end. So classical liberalism is far from being a solution. On the other hand, there must a difference in between an organic society and an organic state. In order to get there, we must do what Confucius called a rectification of <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names" rel="nofollow">names</a>. Mind you, the liberals did this in a twisted, inverted way, in which the achievers are evil and the like, which is a great cause of misery for both us and nonwhites because while we are demonized, they are set to a standard that they can't possibly achieve, which can only breed resentment.<br /><br />Other problems that are fundamental to us is that we have to adjust our values to modernity, which is what I mentioned earlier. The problem is that the whole modern way of life is built on economic life and mass consumerism. We need to return to a state where we can ostracize people who externalize their costs or help them if they are worth it and are doing so because of freak occurrences in their lives (e.g a woman got raped, unemployment or whatever). This is fundamental because people who used to do great deals for the communities they were part of(e.g. merchants) because great social liabilities. No business owner wants mass immigration if he has to live in the community of the immigrants. He wants them provided OTHERS have to live in those communities. A lot of our problems stem from this issue. This is why I don't get people who think voting will change matters - we need to fundamentally change the way our societies function.<br /><br />If any of you recall, I asked the commentators at Gates of Vienna, why would a Western man die to preserve the West, which is anti-male and anti-white? Faced with a binary choice in between this dystopia and Islam, any rational man would choose Islam, if rebuilding his own country in his own image isn't a possibility. When communism was dropped in China, it was replaced with the message "let's make China great". We need an inspiring message for our men if they are to do anything - a heroic West that needs to get reborn out of the ashes of the current apathetic one. These are the problems I see for us. The question is how can we rebuild this West once the current paradigm unravels. While the latter is a certainty, the former is an open ended question that someone will have to answer.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-76314336239533553312011-06-22T21:58:39.462+00:002011-06-22T21:58:39.462+00:00Rebellious Vanilla continues:
Another problem of ...<b>Rebellious Vanilla</b> continues:<br /><br />Another problem of nationalism is that it makes all Swedes equal. I think that Conservative Swede prefers where he lives over the Swedes in other cities of Sweden. I prefer the dwellers of my city, or would have preferred if the communists wouldn't have moved the whole country here, over those of another city. We must remove ALL kinds of egalitarianism from our thinking. At least I reject it completely. Take someone who isn't involved here. If I was Fjordman, this is how I would view the world: me -> my family -> my city -> Norwegians -> Nordics -> Germanics -> Europeans -> mixed people with my co-ethnics -> the rest. Mind you, this doesn't mean that every Norwegian is better than every Nordic. If I was him, I'd prefer Conservative Swede over a Maxism spewing Norwegian. We must view the world as inherently unequal and hierarchical from both a descriptive and normative points of view.<br /><br />To finish it off because I think this already will have to be broken into two comments. We must have what Nietzsche said, a reassessment of all values. And it doesn't stop at how we see the world, but at what matters in it. We must return to typically European things of value - honor, glory for men, chastity and submission for women(not the Islamic kind - even with its gender egalitarian culture, even in the Nordic countries women respected and obeyed their men) and duty for us both.<br /><br />ConservativeSwede, the polite way of talking of the bourgeoisie is something I realized reading Nietzsche. He said that to a genteel woman, what can't be talked in the presence of police society doesn't exist. This is how WE are acting. Race doesn't exist, gender differences don't exist, the Earth is warming because I'm driving an Accord and not a Civic. And the others are just as bad. The opposite of the warmists are the silly cornucopains, for example. Or the socialists and libertarians - both knowing as much economics as my pet cat. There are two black holes in any debate and both are polar opposites of each other - and both are wrong. Dual thinking is completely foolish: it isn't just the debate of the Judeophiles and the people doing the sieg heil in their sleep, but every single debate about anything of substance is pointless to have because to quote a living philosopher someone with a raging hardon always storms in the room.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-1661696665814855022011-06-22T21:58:01.991+00:002011-06-22T21:58:01.991+00:00More from Rebellious Vanilla (who maybe should get...More from <b>Rebellious Vanilla</b> (who maybe should get her Google or Open ID account fixed?):<br /><br />To continue what I wrote earlier. Prior to the age of republicanism and of mass conscription, war was basically the realm of knights, kings and professional armies. The commoners had nothing to do with them besides paying taxes and the only wars in which they were involved were the ones in which you defended your own territory - since Armance is Romanian, she probably knows that most of our battles against the Turks involved having peasants conscripted into the army. I believe that this is one of the parts of the huge advantages that the defenders had, unlike the attackers(combined with the knowledge that if you lose, your women will become slave girls and all that).<br /><br />So the question really is this. How can one return to a society in which the majority of the people actually mind their business and live their day to day lives? Politics and war are two sides of the same coin(von Clausewitz realized this too and said that war is simply politics in which you employ all the means available) and they should be handled by a professional class/caste. Since Conservative Swede is Swedish, he probably knows that the Norse had their society organized like this. I don't recall the names of the castes, but the warrior caste was at the top. Another problem is that our current castes of warriors are either degraded(the Swedish monarchy is a joke) or destroyed(the Hapsburgs). This system only works insofar as you have a caste that resembles the general population and is moved by a certain mythology not to abuse it(if you had the Swedish king become an absolute monarch, he'd probably continue the multiculturalist insanity).<br /><br />In the same time, we got to the point where we MUST use the force of the state in an ethnic manner. In Sweden you had too many immigrants to intermarry with them and still be by all intents and purposes Swedish. So ethnic cleansing is inevitable if Swedish is to stay Swedish. Sure, you can keep the mixed kids, the completely assimilated people or some other small minority of Europeans that will blend into Swedishness eventually(or you can do what the Norse did and have a servant caste for them :P). So there's a lot of real work to be done in this regard too combined with a redefinition of citizenship and of voting systems. I'd like to point out that there's no inherent problem with voting - the Holy Roman Empire was an elective monarchy. The problem is having that 80% who isn't active politically vote and having the 20% who are involved be moved by the proper mythology.<br /><br />One of the things we must avoid, I think, is being reactionary in the sense that we want to return to a certain point in history. This was proven to be a failure every single time it was attempted. What we need to do is take traditional-historical values and have a modern manifestation of those.<br /><br />Armance, there's a fundamental problem within democracy, even within the same ethnic group. Do you really want the miners who had plancards with we don't think, we work in 1990 to rule you or some other group of fools? Being ruled by fools sucks, even if they are fools sharing your blood. So while nationalism enables democracy, it isn't really something we want. Hence why we need an ethnic society with a ruling caste. While we can deplore parts of our history when the monarchs were insane, as a rule, we were far better off then. Mind you, monarchs can't take as much power as the democratic state either since the people are inherently suspicious of them because they can't affect policy, even theoretically(practically, we can't now either). So even with bad monarchs, the policies affect you less. Do you honestly think that if Wilhelm was to say yes, we must bring a bunch of Somalis and Pakistanis to the Reich to enjoy the gifts of diversity the German people would have took any of it?! Ethnic feeling being divorced off politics allows it to be more cultural and hence more important.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-84073732133515355442011-06-22T21:36:02.954+00:002011-06-22T21:36:02.954+00:00I have to add two premieres brought by the French ...I have to add two premieres brought by the French Republic in Europe. One is probably well-known - citizenship for a whole minority. The second premiere was:<br /><br /><i>To build an alliance with the gens de couleur and slaves, the French commissioners Sonthonax and Polverel abolished slavery in the colony. Six months later, the National Convention led by Robespierre and the Jacobins endorsed abolition and extended it to all the French colonies.</i><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HaitiArmancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-72057175291189579662011-06-22T20:30:53.172+00:002011-06-22T20:30:53.172+00:00Yes, now it makes sense. France was the first mode...Yes, now it makes sense. France was the first modern nation state and as I said in a post above, the political structure of the nation state is derived from the Enlightenment: Constitution, collective and individual rights, elections for broader and broader categories of citizens (and citizenship for minorities, as it happened immediately after the French Revolution). The nation state and the proposition nation are two sides of the same coin, egalitarianism.<br /><br />Then, for the first time in European warfare, we had the "general conscription", "crush your enemy, impose your institutions" type of war: Napoleon. The Napoleonic wars were the prologue to WWI and WWII.<br /><br />We've tried to explain America: now, this is France.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-30982758229345409292011-06-22T19:50:12.585+00:002011-06-22T19:50:12.585+00:00Armance, interesting book! Another book I came to ...Armance, interesting book! Another book I came to think of during our discussions here is John Grisham's "A painted house", where there is the presence of white "hill people" as described above.<br /><br />Regarding what you and RV have said about nationalism and the ethnostate: Egalitarianism (and it's sibling Universalism) is like gangrene that will spread step by step and destroy the whole body. It might start as a nation state (indeed a bourgeoisie egalitarian concept), but the gangrene will continue spreading so it is bound to end up in universalist multiculturalism etc. <br /><br />RV mentioned in another thread also the politeness culture of the bourgeoisie, hence polite way of talking, and this is one of the fundaments of Political Correctness. Someone mentioned also America as the triumph of the average (the not to sophisticated middle class), and with all these things in the melting pot a brew of more poisonous gangrene developed.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-25712334895237396112011-06-22T17:56:03.377+00:002011-06-22T17:56:03.377+00:00you can't have nationalism, which is ethnic st...<i>you can't have nationalism, which is ethnic states, without democracy and republicanism.</i><br /><br />This is the thesis of the French political philosopher Pierre Manent, developed in a few books, such as "Democracy without Nations? The Fate of Self-Government in Europe" (http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=d9eda640-7c4c-4cdf-8fcc-92ae3993bfed&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).<br /><br />The main idea is that modern European ethnic states cannot exist outside democracy and, the moment you throw away the nation state, the basis for democracy ceases to exist.<br /><br /><i>Another problem built into republics is the need to carry out ideological wars and all ideological wars require total victory, the beheading of your enemy's elite, building your own institutions in their country and the like.</i><br /><br />The best example of an ideological war would be Napoleon, spreading the ideas of the Revolution in Europe, under the French national flag.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-68415322541744893082011-06-22T16:16:36.638+00:002011-06-22T16:16:36.638+00:00Rebellious Vanilla,
This comment by you is so bri...Rebellious Vanilla,<br /><br />This comment by you is so brilliant. I have been heading towards these conclusions myself, but you are here unlocking new insights for me, connecting the dots. I can now see the long winding history of humanity yet a bit clearer than before. You have dissolved another of those apparent paradoxes. I will have reason to get back to this later on.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-62166939002922397602011-06-22T16:10:14.713+00:002011-06-22T16:10:14.713+00:00Another comment by Rebellious Vanilla:
Armance, t...Another comment by <b>Rebellious Vanilla</b>:<br /><br />Armance, the problem is built in nationalism itself. Leaving away the fact that a lot of whites are attracted to Swedish, white, etc nationalism solely because of its egalitarian and claiming benefits just for being in a group, instead of viewing everything in a hierarchical fashion - not just groups, but individuals in groups, the real problem of it is that you can't have nationalism, which is ethnic states, without democracy and republicanism. You can have an ethnocentric population, but an ethnocentric state is hard to have. Take Hapsburg Austria. It was a multi-ethnic state, yet every ethnicity within it had an identity and was pretty much separate. I'm not exactly sure if republicanism creates nationalism at first or the other way around, but they are interconnected. And republics always do total wars. One of the inventions of the French Republic was national conscription and from then on all countries had to have it or they'd lose. National conscription meant the vote for all men. And mind you, when the whole country is involved in war, there are no civilians and the whole population of your opposing country becomes your enemy. From here you have the mass slaughter and mass rapes. The typical European wars were wars of professional armies with expensive soldiers and due to armies being a big cost, generals had to protect their soldiers. The way we used to war rewarded military genius when you made your enemy's army collapse. Since the rise of nationalism and nation states, we were rewarded with WW1 and mass killing and slaughter. Another problem with an ethnic state is the mania of how many non-ethnics should there be in the state. Sure, the state should make in Sweden, Swedish culture normative and be an agent of the Swedish people, but if you make it an openly ethnic state in nature problems of this nature will arise. You want an ethnic society, not an ethnic state.<br /><br />This isn't a problem of national feeling in itself, but it is a problem of how Europeans understood nationalism and something typical to Europeans - egalitarianism. Another problem built into republics is the need to carry out ideological wars and all ideological wars require total victory, the beheading of your enemy's elite, building your own institutions in their country and the like. Japan offered conditional surrender in WW2 and the Americans declined it and nuked them into unconditional surrender.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EobSmwgVRuA" rel="nofollow">Here's a video</a> you might appreciate - ConSwede already knows his ideas.<br /><br />Oh, and to sum it up, I don't like Russia. But not in the American way. I hate the current Russia and the 20th century Russia, not the historical Russian people and how Russia was. As ConservativeSwede points out, we shouldn't hate the Russian people nor the American people for their leaderships though.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-48264230864405043982011-06-22T15:56:54.468+00:002011-06-22T15:56:54.468+00:00Armance,
I've read The Redneck Manifesto. It&...Armance,<br /><br />I've read The Redneck Manifesto. It's thesis is roughly as follows:<br /><br />Well, the South <b>is</b> the land of hillbillies. Only a few were "aristocratic" land-owners, duh! The vast majority were poor white (trash), many of which had been deported there just as forcefully as the black.<br /><br />The real upper-class are the bourgeoisie of New England. The most "egalitarian" ones in their ideological zeal, yeah. But we know this is all phony babbling. They have always played blacks and rednecks against each other to distract the attention of all the troubles that they caused themselves.<br /><br />The plight of the rednecks is: 1) to first having been forcefully deported to the U.S. South working as slaves, and next 2) being demonized as the ones being guilty of the slavery in the South (which is now depicted as a race issue).<br /><br />This is all patently absurd, and completely at odds with truth, but it serves the interests of the bourgeoisie class of New England to describe it in this way.<br /><br />It's so nice being the ruling class in a society. You can 1) enslave the poor people, and then you can 2) blame the same poor people for the slavery taking place. When you have the power of the word (media) and the gun (military), what you say is true by definition, even if it's self-contradicting and impossible. These are the principles for all sorts of bullying.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-4378479517925482782011-06-22T15:31:13.920+00:002011-06-22T15:31:13.920+00:00It's interesting, from the link you provided a...It's interesting, from the link you provided above, The Redneck Manifesto, how the former aristocratic-prone South is perceived by the progressivists as the group/land of the hillbillies. But actually there's no surprise here: one of the lies of the progressivists is that aristocrats are completely disconnected from the commoners. Actually, it's exactly the Jacobins that were perceived as illegitimate, coup d'état types by the people (for obvious reasons). Basically, the French Revolution meant a few dozens revolutionaries whose only allies were a few thousands homeless of Paris: meanwhile, the peasants of Vendée were massacred for defending their king. And that's why the most patriotic, crown-lover types in the UK can be found among the drunkards of the working class. Equally, that's why the Bolshevik Revolution started with a mass-murder of the most reactionary class: the peasants.<br /><br />The "elitist" sophisticated progressivists know they don't have any legitimacy in the eyes of the people: that's why they use the "redneck" cliché.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-26031204877715983302011-06-22T15:30:01.825+00:002011-06-22T15:30:01.825+00:00Armance,
CS, unlike you, I don't think the JQ...Armance,<br /><br /><i>CS, unlike you, I don't think the JQ is exactly a dead end.</i><br /><br />Well, obsession about Jews, Muslims or Hispanics will block the minds of people to look for the real "man behind the curtain".<br /><br />These sort of obsessions are rather symptoms of the disease than the cure of it.<br /><br />The JQ is worse than the others in the sense that not only are the ones obsessing about the Jews being useless and disruptive in the discussion (given that the purpose of the discussion is to look for a cure), but it distracts everyone in the room from thinking clearly.<br /><br />Thus, the JQ is a dead end for public debates.<br /><br />I would also claim that the JQ, even in a distinguished and intelligent discourse, is only a way of describing the symptoms of our civilizational disease, and does not address the needed cure. Thus, it is a dead end when searching for a cure.<br /><br />But there are no rules against discussing the JQ intelligently at my blog when it's on-topic. And I believe it's on-topic now. So speak your hearts content!Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-19869821295265223942011-06-22T15:18:06.838+00:002011-06-22T15:18:06.838+00:00Armance,
I should add the Southerners/the Confede...Armance,<br /><br /><i>I should add the Southerners/the Confederates on the black list of demonized groups, along Germans and Russians.</i><br /><br />Well, Jim Goad's <a href="http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/description/simon033/97007865.html" rel="nofollow">The Redneck Manifesto</a> sheds an interesting light upon that.Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-6069050987598989132011-06-22T14:53:57.028+00:002011-06-22T14:53:57.028+00:00And will give them something better to think of th...<i>And will give them something better to think of then the Jews.</i><br /><br />CS, unlike you, I don't think the JQ is exactly a dead end. I think that't one the best ways to exemplify the perils and dangers of the proposition nation or the aftermath of Jacobinism. I could write a few long posts about why I think this way, but since I take into consideration the rules that you established on your blog, I'll leave it like that.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-16395534725719871522011-06-22T14:37:32.723+00:002011-06-22T14:37:32.723+00:00I we take your "the Civil War was America'...<i>I we take your "the Civil War was America's Reign of Terror" seriously, that suggests that the Americans of the Southern tradition are as badly demonized and bullied into silence as Germans are post-WWII.</i><br /><br />But they are! Actually, I should add the Southerners/the Confederates on the black list of demonized groups, along Germans and Russians. It's enough to read a mainstream newspaper, to watch television, to see the typical Hollywood movie, etc. The Southerners are portrayed as Klansmen/stupid hillbilies, the same way Germans are portrayed in Nazi roles or the Russians are dangerous, mafia-types, weird, insane. Yes, the Southerners are a good example of a demonized white group, strongly disliked and loathed by the New World Order.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-7461718361605507912011-06-22T14:19:31.173+00:002011-06-22T14:19:31.173+00:00Armance,
Interesting comments. This is your comme...Armance,<br /><br />Interesting comments. This is your commentary to the discussion about the Proposition Nation. The first two were like Nietzschean diatribes (for good and for bad). If you write the whole thing together as one piece, I'll publish it as an article.<br /><br />What you say here is of course an old theme of my own, but at least initially you express it more strongly, and you add many interesting perspectives to it.<br /><br />The remedy for Europe is to get America out of the way, so we can have a more pronounced presence of Germany and Russia here, but also of traditional European conservatives in all of our countries. And that spells exactly the reversal of NATO, which purpose is precisely "to keep America in, to keep Russia out and to keep Germany down."<br /><br />For the Americans an implosion of NATO is just the start of the remedy. For the freedom of the Americans the breakdown of the USA would be as essential as the breakdown of the USSR was to the freedom of the Russians. The USA is so much worse for the Americans than the EU is for the Europeans. This since the EU is such a weak creation. Which would self-implode the moment NATO is gone. Well, most likely before.<br /><br />The dissolvement of the USA would free the "Confederate" Americans of the Southern tradition. I we take your "the Civil War was America's Reign of Terror" seriously, that suggests that the Americans of the Southern tradition are as badly demonized and bullied into silence as Germans are post-WWII.<br /><br />Whenever America is discussed Baron brings up these other Americans who reside in the "flyover" country. And quite as there were Russians who hated the USSR, I'm sure there are Americans who hate the USA. But we do not hear much from them do we? As Sean pointed out, there are no longer any writers in this Southern tradition. And on the Internet we do not hear from them either (in spite of the numerical dominance of Americans).<br /><br />Or is it that those of Southern tradition, who are not completely bullied into self-hate and silence, will turn up at Stormfront etc.? I'm sure it is better to meet these people in real life, as the Baron does, than to see the result of their obsessing about Jews etc. when sitting in front of the computer.<br /><br />The criticism of the Proposition Nation is a call for freedom for these "Confederate" Americans. And will give them something better to think of then the Jews. It's the USA they should hate, and I'm sure many of them already do. In order to reach them we should be careful in making the distinction between USA (USSR) and America/Americans (Russia/Russians). We wouldn't want to be some sort of inverted Republicans and hate the Americans (Russians) for the faults of the USA (USSR).Conservative Swedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307427516065904295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-21867768244116999882011-06-22T14:06:12.698+00:002011-06-22T14:06:12.698+00:00I was I, a European commenter, who gave the exampl...<i>I was I, a European commenter, who gave the example of Fitzhugh - a Confederate pamphleteer. There's a few others but they are all from the Southern tradition, which is a dead tradition.</i><br /><br />Thanks, European commenter, and sorry for my mistake. Anyway, I could bet that Fitzhugh was a Southerner since you mentioned him on GoV, considering my post above about the South vs. the Judeo-Jacobins :)Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-48879533541349230782011-06-22T11:20:39.297+00:002011-06-22T11:20:39.297+00:00"An American commenter gave an example of a t..."An American commenter gave an example of a thinker that seems a genuine conservative, to the point of rejecting the Constitution (one of the tenets of the Proposition Nation)."<br /><br />I was I, a European commenter, who gave the example of Fitzhugh - a Confederate pamphleteer. There's a few others but they are all from the Southern tradition, which is a dead tradition.Sean O'Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02951591966900402623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-64392822938615068512011-06-22T09:59:59.847+00:002011-06-22T09:59:59.847+00:00I have to add something regarding the demonization...I have to add something regarding the demonization of the Russians and the Germans, a mindset which can be often found among Americans or Americanized European types. The same way modern France and America are incarnations of the Enlightenment ideals, the Russians and the Germans were, usually, the counter-reaction, both in thinking ("the philosophy of inequality") and in practice (defining their nations based on ethnicity). The demonization started before Hitler, and even before the Bolshevik Revolution: the Tsar and the Kaiser were the ultimate bad guys in the eyes of progressivists everywhere, and especially in Judeo-Jacobin America, the epitome of the European ancien regime, the symbols of the "dark age". The tsar even more, particularly because the Tsarist empire was sane enough to deal ruthlessly with the revolutionary types (send them to Siberia) and to find a solution to the minority problem, the Pale of Settlement. <br /><br />And that's why Republicans use the usual scarecrow: "beware of the Russians", knowing very well that it resonates with the prejudices of their voters. Plus, that's why we have the neocon hysteria regarding not only the Russians, but anybody who has a friendly or at least not hateful attitude towards Russia. Actually it's one of the few points when Republicans criticize the Eurocrats: not hostile and suspicious enough towards Russia. And that's why W. Wilson welcomed and praised the Bolshevik Revolution: for a progressivist Jacobin, the tsar being defeated is the ultimate victory.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-42840361300099374542011-06-22T08:27:37.652+00:002011-06-22T08:27:37.652+00:00Anyway, regarding the next American elections, I a...Anyway, regarding the next American elections, I agree with Medvedev, the Russian president, and I will take Obama over the Republicans any time of the day. The Democrats are incompetent regarding foreign policy; the Republicans (neocon war-mongers and evangelical freedom-obsessed idiots) are both incompetent and insane. The open hostility towards Russia and China is a threat to world stability. Or maybe I can choose the Republicans, but only if I know in advance that Russia or China will destroy them.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023482402423762474.post-1998907249768202002011-06-22T08:06:40.012+00:002011-06-22T08:06:40.012+00:00It should be noted that, in Europe, the XIXth cent...It should be noted that, in Europe, the XIXth century was the century of radicalism: the bourgeoise revolutions in 1848, Marxism, La Commune de Paris, the first ideas to introduce the universal suffrage. Following the logic of the revolution, Girondins are replaced by Jacobins who are replaced by Bolsheviks.<br /><br />One of the unfortunate occurences is that the birth of the nation states coincided with the rise of radical democracy. While based on old tribalistic or group allegiances, the political structure of the nation state is usually inspired by the Enlightenment: Constitution, elections, citizenship, individual or collective rights. In the beginning of the XXth century, assaulted by both European political radicalism and Americanization, the old order is gone, there's almost nothing to preserve. The only survivors of the old Europe are the British and the Tsarist empires, the latter dealing with a substantial besiege of revolutionary movements (and dealing with them in the only logical way: send the thugs to Siberia). WWI is the swan song of traditional Europe.<br /><br />So, the irony is: the nation state is a creation of democracy, but democracy, being more and more inclusive, is gradually killing the nation state or the ethnicity on which it is based. Then, in the 20s, a former Socialist, Mussolini, came with the idea to inject revolutionary energy in nationalism, to counter-atack both internationalist Bolshevism and cosmopolitan Americanization. Fight fire with fire: that's how nationalist regimes came to power in the 20s-30s in some European countries. Then, the new Zeitgeist is born in Europe: revolutionary nationalism versus revolutionary internationalism. Then Hitler enters the scene, after the nightmare called the Weimar Republic, which means both Americanization (some fine analysis can be found on Mencius Moldbug's blog) and Bolshevik agitations at their peak. The nightmare is followed by a tragedy.<br /><br />In 1989, after the fall of Communism, America remains the only super-power of the West, without a rival. Pax Jacobina has reached consensus among the elites, and probably it will remain so in the next decades.Armancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917726886023850294noreply@blogger.com