Conservatives of ModDB
Entertainment & Press
We are a group of Right-Wing advocates of freedom and individual liberty, the right to life, right to own and carry firearms, freespeech, net neutrality, individual rights, constitutional republic government, separation of church and state, limited government, anti-globalist, freedom of association, property rights, the free market, mandating transparency, preservation of western culture, Christianity and the European people against feminism, Islam, marxism and political correctness. For those on Mod DB if you're a conservative, libertarian, traditionalist, reactionary, Christian, Orthodox, nationalist or New Right, for US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or European nations join us to help defeat progressives.
Source: Youtube.com
Red Ice Radio - Redice.tv
The left is collectivist, they don't care about the individual they simply desire different groups, they throw away their heritage for new insane groups ruled by their own masters. Feminism is a collective group, BLM, the Gay Pride groups. All are collectivist groups, they're just not the old ones.
In addition, while having a collectivist mentality isn't a bad thing on a social level, when it reaches government it becomes a deadly and terrible one, as witnessed by every socialist Regime whether Soviet or National, and the terrible body count they have left behind.
Nationalism is collective too, they don't ignore the individual but individualism is a rejection of collective interests/goals of which we need in order to defeat leftists, third world immigrants, feminists, BLM, gay rights activists etc. Doing it alone or rejecting our common interests is a sure way to lose since liberalism/marxism/zionism is all on the same side working against us. Nationalism accepts tradition, culture, common history, spirit, religion, respecting our ancestors, engaging in myth making & bringing heroic figures back as role models for future people. We need these kinds of localities back, we need that European spirit of striving for greatness and then we need to unite politically in order to win. Otherwise we'll just have more leftism until it gets permanent like with the third world migrants artificially increasing the size of the left & all this race-mixing in the media and immigration is turning us into minorities permanently. The left are the ones that massacre people - its because of their inclination towards moral depravity, atomising people, and ethnic-conflict. Things the right goes out of its way to (generally) to protect against - nationalists have to be willing to stand up - not 'keep it to ourselves'. That mentality got us into this mess!
Reading list: Rightrealist.com
Rules: Rightrealist.com (moderate is weakness)
excellent political movement group: Vanguardrenaissance.com
I don't disagree that social values should be upheld and that communities should work together, as a Christian myself I hold dearly that the Christian community should have the backs of those in it and those who need help.
American culture is one of the greatest on the planet, we have historically had the ability to take the good of other cultures and weave them into our own while tossing aside the elements that are morally wrong.
We have a proud history of standing for freedom and liberty, as Southerner, I am proud of my ancestors who stood against the Tyrant Lincoln and his desire to trample the rights of States in favor of a Hamiltonian Central government.
And we shouldn't be ashamed of the good in our culture, nor blindly harsh about the heroes of the past and should try ourselves to lead as good examples for our posterity.
However, you seem to think the left is the only ones with blood on their hands, it's not just the left, it's every type of powerful Government. Socialist, National Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Soviet Socialist, Monarchy, Republics, Empires. All of them have needlessly slaughtered millions of their own citizens, not enemies, but their own people.
Which is why I am so against a Nationalist and powerful government that enforces cultural hegemony at gunpoint, because historically whenever a government does, it leads to killing anyone who doesn't fit what the Government deems as the correct way to live, even if that itself is against the spirit of the country's culture. After all, as just about every politician in history has proven, the government is filled with a bunch of power hungry liars, and even those who are good politicians are often followed by another liar.
I also disagree with your statement on Race, people are born with skin color, but culture is learned, a Chinese person raised in America is more American than a White person raised in China, culture and environment are far larger factors to how someone will act or the social circles they will stay in compared to their skin color. You speak as though mixed race is a bad thing, or different races intermingling is a bad thing, yet in the end race is simply an aesthetic, and the real issue is the values and morality they hold.
Final point. You say that Communism and Marxism only accept the family as a distinct group, and perhaps that is correct in the Communist theory, but in practice every single time it has been attempted it has been incredibly nationalistic and preaching devotion to the government and the party.
"culture and environment are far larger factors to how someone will act or the social circles they will stay in compared to their skin color."
No, Chinese people are Chinese in character and culture more often than not, same goes for blacks who after 100's of years still have not integrated into "Americans" - they still have ghetto's, gang culture, they still responsible for over 50% of crime, and over 90% of interracial crime, they still self-segregate, they still have huge levels of abortions, single-motherhood/fatherlessness, they still engage in riots even after so many decades after being freed of slavery except now under a new label of BLM, etc
America was almost 90% white in 1965 (and historically). Now we're 62% white European/American (not counting hispanics/latino's), and dropping to under 50% in 20 years. This is a major problem for the future of America and humanity because dark-skinned people have much lower average IQs, test scores and incomes, higher testosterone & smaller brains). They have great difficult in sustaining employment.
Most hispanics or latino's is concentrated in the Southwest region, mostly composed of Mexicans. That is what liberals are bringing in regardless of what they claim is for "diversity". Hispanics regardless of Mexican or not also overwhelming vote left (80% vote democrat for handouts), so they aren't diverse in the only way that matters ie political beliefs and certainly not in terms of American identity/values.
Even if it was truly "diverse" immigration its still not beneficial to us in anyway shape or form except turning whites into a minority within 20 years if we count latino's as a ethnic subgroup separate from white European Americans (I don't consider all white people to be the same - ie I don't believe races are the same OR ethnicities within races). As such you can't really claim that non-Europeans are American or deserve citizenship. Temporary VISA's must be enforced and anyone who overstays has to be deported - including Islamists/Asians and bring back net neutral immigration that existed between 1924-1965. EVEN IF it would be economically beneficial, it would put us into a weak economic/political position on account of being OUTNUMBERED by non-whites IN OUR OWN COUNTRIES! Non-whites are not going to treat us as fairly as we treat ourselves and other races. Those races will replicate their own societies WITHIN our own country, therefore places like the US will turn into Asia, Africa, Middle-east or almost as bad, into Mexico.
" incredibly nationalistic and preaching devotion to the government and the party."
Devotion is supposed to be tradition, culture, masculine virtues and spiritual values. Nationalism is linked therefore to monoculturalism and ethnicity, race or blood WITHOUT that it CANNOT be nationalist in any meaningful way. Not to state or merely the "party" - the right-wing represents things that are inherent to who we are. Virtues such as: strength, courage, loyalty, fidelity, honesty, honor, faith, sacrifice, prudence, meritocracy, absolute responsibility and genuine authority etc
Which does not occur under leftism in any examples you can give. They reject these things overwhelmingly, they massacre people for not being equal enough (ie not being of a certain class, not being atheist, being against the party in power etc) and have a terrible economic system to boot. I don't consider this kind of pseudo-nationalism that occurs under leftism to at all be traditional, spiritual, religious, monocultural or racial at all. If anything it DENIES that these things have any value. Things like National Bolshevism and National Capitalism are a absolute joke - it is by its nature LEFTIST, i.e ignoring race, religion, culture and traditions - it is internationalist by its economics, trade & reliance on global finance system - based on debt and usury.
The Bolsheviks also starved people - by raiding all the grains from farmers like the Ukraine's in the Soviet famine of 1932-33.
Your examples of Communism or Marxism - the thing is that only accepts family's as a distinct group. Marxism as a ideal, is socially/ethically based on liberal capitalism, Marx views both capitalism and socialism not as a ethical world view, but in strict terms of economics. That is the delusion. Not collectivism - if we belong to a natural group be it gender, race or ethnicity & have common history/religion then we are collective in some sense & with it a basis for nationalism. Denying all collectives except family - that there is a end to history, a utopia. A temporal reaction at the moral/social decay that society inevitably led toward (culminating in Marxism, Freudanism, & Darwinism) in the attempt to try and defeat nature, to tame it. There is only consistency with living with who we truly are. We must stay true to ourselves and the best version of our-self is based on our capabilities, which differs from person-to-person, race-to-race, gender-to-gender, ethnicity-to-ethnicity etc. Racially mixed people are usually the ones who aren't nationalist for the reason of having conflicted identity (having contradictory natural groupings) - but even they can be awakeneed.
Individualism makes you easily manipulated and taken advantage of by the collectivists. Because individuals are not unified under principles that can take firm stances on social or existential issues and they consequently find it more difficult to convince people or engage politically. Communism is extreme form of collectivism (denial of individual talents or merit) and liberalism is a extreme form of individualism (denial of collective organically formed group objectives or identity). Leftism is oppression vs atomisation/mammonism, in all its forms its unnatural.
The answer is we are collective in the sense we have group interests and should respect and carry on traditions (traditionalism), respect our ancestors (spiritualism), be free to pursue the goals of our collective group grounded in geography & a particular ethnicity, culture or religion (tribalism) and we are set apart as individuals for our inherent nature be it world-view or our spirit, our soul which is our way of life, behaviour and talents - our nature also being genetic which determines our capability to a certain extent based on racial/ethnic/gender but also artificial mainly the social & political group we recognise. Culture is also created but its organic - slow but much more stable and reflects the inner nature of the people that created it.
Empires manufacture easily consumable but ultimately weak 'social' mass consumer 'cultures' like sport culture, modern abstract art, lack of peotry, popular music, thug or porn cultures, news media, entertainment media and controlled opposition political groups.
By Liberalism do you mean the current Liberalism that pretends to be Individualist, yet in practice is simply large segments of group think and herd mentalities all delusional into thinking they're unique or do you mean Classical Liberalism which was the ideas of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson?
Tradition and respecting our past and culture is a good thing, however, it is also important that we recognize when they need to change. Japanese culture historically was one of abject tyranny and utter devotion to the state, certainly there were many good historical aspects that should survive, but the totalitarian system that was ingrained for so long in their culture was one that held them back.
Water, despite being necessary for life can still kill you in too large a quantity, especially when someone shoves it down your throat. We must be careful in that our resistance to the rampant destruction of culture and values from the left, is not to drown ourselves in the opposite.
The single most important part of culture and heritage is values, everything else is simply aesthetics. If for example, China and America have the same moral values or at least compatible ones, then there shouldn't be any issue between the intermingling of the cultures. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm critiquing individualism period & what it entails. For instance civic nationalism doesn't sustain the nation, it may it give it a tone or colour, but it won't consider the long-term. Civic nationalism merely says that the nation should be safe now in the moment - which may include providing lots of free things to entice people to stay and take up residence. This should be achieved by insisting that all citizens should be part of the nation and be proud of it, but it doesn't insist on the foreigners to accept and engage in the culture - thus civic nationalism does not equal monoculturism. Theres 2 problems; you can't insist for people to be proud of a nation when they don't have a ancestral link to it, and if you don't insist for them to adopt the culture then they won't. What it boils down to is simply a impotent insistence that the foreign people accept and obey the laws. Which does not require internalizing values or customs, rather it requires memorizing certain prohibitions or formal rules. You've turned the country into nothing more than a country club, public shopping mall or marketplace - no meaning or value just transforms a nation to a civic amenity, to be used for transferring resources or moving labor units. This results in the nation ceasing to be a nation in any meaningful sense of the word. There is no attachment to the people who founded or originated that nation, it does not sustain the nation and it does not sustain the people.
Liberalism inevitably leads to progressive liberalism, the problem lies in Liberalism itself: Moddb.com
I actually saw that a couple of weeks ago but it was posted here not long ago.
Of course Marxism accepts a economic distinction like Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, which may be empirically true since its predicated on individuals exercising property rights & a state willing to enforce it but that isn't a natural collective. The 'extreme collective' of Communism is its denial of those natural collectives completely in favor of economic ones - assuming we are all equal - while recognizing merely the family which it wishes to supplant with the state anyhow. Communism decided your role for you & your reward was what everyone else got as the mantra goes "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ~Karl Marx. Which isn't at all how human beings are, we strive to do better because we expect reward, to avoid punishment, responding to coercion or manipulation, and finally theres social pressures where our honor is at stake. Communism merely dished out capital punishment by rounding up millions when it felt like it - or when drugs, gambling, prostitution or gang activity got sufficiently worse in the Soviet residential blocs. When they weren't first seizing all your possessions. Thats what happens when you got no private housing, or venture capital start-ups by and for local people.
Funny how neo-liberals tried to justify the moving of international businesses to foreign countries, to introduce a market into the countries of the former Communist bloc by quoting the Communist Manifesto in which the young radical Marx
and Engels recognized the radicalism of the new capitalist order:
“…. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere”. Marxists are never satisfied because muh economics, but you can tell that both liberals and marxists share the same ethical/social stance - muh equality, muh rights - liberals with individual rights where as marxists with a collective right to equal pay, distribution of resources completely done by the state and collective ownership, muh internationalism - marxist with 'workers of the world unite' or capitalist with 'globalize by capturing international markets, opening up borders and trade (both required in practice)', its just different degrees really.
They both reject class-based authority, communism demands loyalty to state while capitalism loyalty to international finance system reliant on money lending and therefore debt, which always increases since it always comes with interest - its lent to the government with interest.
They both want us to be slaves to a international system we can't effect or control & which barely understand - but a small elite of bankers, politicians ('selected not elected') and MNC's can.
Heres a post I made on a video I linked below about Liberalism and its devolution into something alien to our people. Well worth listening to the video in full. All the principles that we used to believe in was correct until Western civilisation started getting it wrong, and experienced de-evolution, producing ideas and trends that we end up enabling the logic behind.
Original liberalism did have gender norms, Christian faith and ethno-nationalism (atleast in the American and Australian context). Citizenship of classical liberalism and liberalism in general where based on citizenship. That once you have it, and it may be difficult in yester year to get it, but when you got it you essentially had all these rights and standards given to you and gets worked out between citizens. It didn't even need to be theorised at the time is that ethnicity, race and gender roles and all these normative markers of identity. Basically my point is that liberalism is realizing is something older than the enlightenment, as citizenship as the core locus of order, as the main political unit. There was an intention in ancient athens to break up aristocratic families or clans and breaking them up and break up their sovereign power by making them, forcing them to marry their children out and thus dispersing their wealth out to the lower classes. Then what socrates did a hundred years later is that we're going to intentionally displace that aristocracy because the people don't have the power to disperse their own prestige or political influence over society that liberalism was meant to provide them with instead a equal vote or share of the ability to choose the top reigns or the very top of the political system to order the rest of society and create its bureaucracy exactly as the people want it to be. Athenian democracy then was about pursuing the common good as opposed to "collective-like" clan interests. What was normal at the time before Athenian democracy was to create these clans, tribes, sects, covens, cells or gangs to create the most powerful ideological group, kinship group, honor group or familial group in a society.
Thats what was natural (committing to your clan, tribe or kinship group) thing to do since if you can gain power through your individual will, reputation (character) and jostle for influence by being the most true that you can be (being right most of the time compared to others) then you deserve to have a share of the power in that system. Athenian democracy threw that on its head and said, "doesn't matter how qualified you are, how smart you are, how resourceful you are or how talented you are, your say is the same as any body elses" without evidence, without a real perspective just aslong as 50 percent plus one decide that way, then suddenly the thing voted on because "moral", a "standard", "right" and "true". Again without any kind of qualities within the person to give that opinion, decidion or right any real weight to it. Just what people think and that's it. That's the end of the discussion. The incognito decision without any responsibility, legal right, in complete anonymity, just any body will decide the fate or overall outcomes for millions of people. It was ridiculous. And still is.
What eventually lead to the fall of Rome (March of the Titans and another good book on this topic is Race or Mongrel) as well when the mixed together with barbarians, and basically caused the absolute eradication of the ethnos, the culture and the civilization that they had grown. All was completely eradicated which weakened the empire since without the biology, the genetics that create that culture and civilisation, then you eventually have foreign group's interests, identity, culture, traditions and customs replace your own since that foreign group's has a stronger will to power and collective will and push to replace that culture that they don't like. Which is what has happened time and time again throughout societies that decided to go multicultural.
What was radical (yes radical) about Ancient Athens is that we're going to intentionally displace that which makes your people, your blood, your soul, your nation, your power, your identity, your happiness, your prosperity, your mind, your education, your overall perspective on the world, we're going to demand that those things instead of being utilized for a homogenous people to decide what goes on, your going to have it replaced by a rootless cosmopolitanism and citizenship idea to replace all of that with foreign cultures that aren't as individualistic and completely overthrow the old order. You can't have a specific identity, state of your own (nation state, i.e. ethnos with a state), history, tradition, culture and heritage if your white but if your non-white (or if you where a barbarian in ancient athens or Roman empire) then your culture still matters and you're allowed to vote and undermine the formerly majority white European culture, aslong as that foreign group is allowed to vote as a big voting block or coalition of foreign interests that can undermine all of that then you are disallowing a true singular identity or order to reign. Instead you get balkanisation or intergenerational ethnic conflict until the civilisation dissolves and increasing welfare spending outstripes the capacity to get money through taxation as the amount of incomes you can get is heavily reduced because the spending required to buy votes is outstripped by the amount of people who are no longer productive who can keep the net gain of prosperity for that society to keep going. Which results in defacing the currency by huge money printing now but used to be by reducing the amount of actual gold or silver in the coins, so that they can keep on issueing more and more money to the public to buy their votes while the actual coffers of wealth for the nation overall and of the state are drying up. Rome suffered severely from this. Instead the other non-white foreigners have a net negative on the overall prosperity of the country and instead decreases the net contribution to that country (i.e. per capita lifetime budgetary impacts of whites, blacks and hispanics). I.redd.it
In other words, there is no culture and civilisation for European people without the white working class or middle class to help build up the wealth and keep that culture and civilisation going. Thus suppressing the white majority eventually as the foreigners out vote you, outstrip you of your rights (basically cause balkanisation where different national cultural enclaves exist which want different norms, culture and rights i.e. non-white norms, culture and rights) just because they hold citizenship then they are just legitimate as you are in creating something completely foreign to your culture and civilisation. I got redpilled on this by Joel Davis:
Snippet here: Youtube.com
Full video here: Youtube.com
Merely cultural and heritage values are good, there is aesthetics too but the bulk of it is values and we simply cannot hold onto to those values for long without a system in place to promote a worldview that takes into account spirituality, philosophy and metaphysics that we can be proud of.
The more important argument against this Leftist position is that the dominance of an ethnic super-majority group in society ought not render that group politically nor morally impotent. On the contrary, to be the historical majority elevates the importance of that majority's interests in the society and culture above all others. The founding people of the nation ought to have the primary say in the future and direction of the nation, and to argue otherwise is to favor subversion and ethno-cultural destruction over self-determination and traditional continuity.
According to Oswald Spengler personal liberty is an issue with individualism and liberalism; "Liberation from all bonds of civilisation, from every kind and form of custom; pride and quietly born poverty, silent fulfillment of duty, renunciation for the sake of a task or conviction, greatness in enduring ones fate, loyalty, honour, responsibility, achievements, all this is a constant reproach to the humiliated and insulted", i.e. hes saying that liberty as a quest to remove all bonds, all rules, all codes, all laws, all compulsions, all restrictions, all prohibitions and therefore to place before us only a conception of hedonistic antinomian goals are flawed conception and they as a philosophy group of third position want instead a realization of the liberty of Spirit. i.e. to believe in the superior conception of an cult of an ideal. That was Thomas Carlyle, it's resolute growing of defeat of what stands in the way of survival and to adhere to our inherent traits. Thats what the ideal of the spirit comprises of.
Very different yet its not a quest to be freed from everything that could curtail your desires, aspirations and egotistical ambitions but rather a quest to affirm what is most important in man to find himself or herself again and stand proud as a worker, innovator or creator. The things we most ponder as our purpose or goal as part of a integrated whole rather than merely as individuals. I think alot of people would say that infringement on personal liberty is going to be a common argument for those who disagree with collectivism. It balances responsibilities with liberty rather than going full on with either one, taking care to take into account both individuality and collectivist ideology and synthesizing the two.