Conservatives of ModDB group

People don't merely support a regime because it has useful or good formal rules, regulations, bonds, codes, laws, but because they believe in the myth and understanding of what the regime stands for, its ideas, values, tenets and precepts. What informs us with the what and why we should follow the regime and how we abide by a reason for existing, direction or the purpose behind the system. What makes sense of natural law and thus a sense of how to take concerted personal actions to break obstacles is a good step forward i.e. the obstacles that holds us back from forward momentum, whats keeping us from continually moving the ball forward and making the reality we desire or are passionate about, to be passion to produce the ends we wish to achieve, so that we believe in something compelling and true. Otherwise we are sacrificing for vanity or sacrificing yourself to feel important and unintentionally may be strengthening the regime we may oppose. All people within our system for it to be long-lasting needs a good enemy, they need someone to blame for shortcomings, and something to rally against when the goals have failed. Without an enemy to flex our goals in opposition too, we could be acting as a tool for the enemies purposes without being cognizant of it.

We're in great danger to be useful tools for the enemies purpose of being soft, easiness, complacency by accepting a progressive agenda, by just going along with "politeness" of social justice when it works against our collective interests, goals, will and identity. It also sometimes overrides individual rights which gets other groups riled up.

In the cosmopolitan view of man religious sect, local community, family, social class, ethnic identity, moral or virtuous character, are at best subordinate considerations and are considered to also be much of the time to be against the fulfillment of human potential. They see those things as artificial and obsolete barriers. Cosmopolitanism thus rationalizes the adoption of a mass framework of a modern regime and the collective disciplines that characterizes the managerial regime and homogenization of production and consumption, through which the multinational organizations and economics of which managerial capitalism operates in.-Samuel T. Francis "Leviathan and its enemies"

The real affect of mass managerial political and social reforms is to level the bourgeoisie differentiations to liberate the masses from tyranny of bourgeoisie or prescriptive institutions and homogenize the mass population and bring it under the control of the mass organizations, the alliance of mass and managers against the bourgeoisie is the basis of managerial caeserism.-Samuel T. Francis "Leviathan and its enemies"

Contrary to public opinion, the banks, the military and defense contractors aren't the problem, they are neutral on political-cultural issues in America.

Equality is flawed because it seems to produce a intention to destroy differences between human beings, to wipe away all the cultures and values that are inherent to particular ethnic or racial groups around the world, which is exactly what Free Masons and Globalists want to do. They at best want to accelerate that erasure or eradication of culture. Marxism for instance is for a complete equality, erasing the principle of ethnicity and personality. The culture, tradition, heritage and ethnicity makes a country stamped with unique civilisational traits, nothing like it can come about again if its erased. They try to tear down national independence, cultural elevation and economic independence with coercion and impossible solutions to things that are not honest social evils. They make demands which not only overshoot the goals but their realization is also practically impossible or ruins the economic independence of the nation.

"Of course it is not. It does not rest in formal interpretation of texts. It rests in ethical judgments. It is the job of the legislator to make ethical judgments, and the California Supreme Court is doing its job. It’s a pity it has to carpool with such a large bodyguard of lies, but that’s the modern world for ya.

And we know where these ethical judgments come from. They are Inner Party judgments, and the Inner Party’s ethics are Christian, Protestant, and Quaker in their origins. Fine. We all need ethics, and “applied Christianity” will do as well as anything else. What interests me is when these ethical judgments come about.

Imagine, for instance, that the California Supreme Court had decided in, say, 1978, that it was unethical—I mean, unconstitutional—for California to prohibit its male citizens from marrying each other. Is this a thinkable event? I think not. And yet the court’s writ ran just as far and was just as powerful in 1978 as in 2008. And ethics, surely, have not changed.

The Living Constitution does not adapt with changes in ethics. It adapts with changes in public opinion—as long as that public opinion is shifting in the direction of “applied Christianity.” Public opinion was ready for abortion in 1973—barely. It was ready for gay marriage in 2008—barely. It was not ready for gay marriage in 1973. What will it be ready for in 2033? One can see this as a noble concession to the great principle of democracy. One can also see it as the Cathedral getting away with whatever it can get away with, and nothing else.

Larry Auster, probably the most imaginative and interesting right-wing writer on the planet, who also happens to be a converted fundamentalist Christian with all the theopolitical baggage that you, dear open-minded progressive, would expect from such a person, has a good term for this: the unprincipled exception. Briefly, an unprincipled exception is a policy that violates some absolute principle of ethics held by the policymaker, but is not openly acknowledged as such a violation.

For example, dear progressive, why is racism wrong? Racism is wrong because all humans are born simply as humans, having done nothing right or wrong, and it is incompatible with our deeply-held ethical principles to mark these newborn babies with indelible labels which assign them either privileges or penalties which they have not earned. Such as the privilege of being able to drink at sparkling-clean water fountains marked “Whites Only,” or the penalty of having to go out back to the horse trough."

"We hit that one out of the park, didn’t we? Okay. So why is it ethical to label newborn babies as “American” or “Mexican,” due to nothing but the descent and geographical position at birth of their parents, and give the former a cornucopia of benefits from which the latter is barred—such as the right to live, work, and drink from drinking fountains in the continental United States? What makes Washington think it is somehow ethical to establish two classes of human, “Americans” and “Mexicans,” based only on coincidences of birth that are just as arbitrary as “black” versus “white,” and treat the two completely differently? How does this differ from racism, Southern style?

You think this is ugly? Oh, we can get worse. Let’s suppose the US, in its eagerness to treat these second-class humans, if not quite as well as possible, at least better than we treat them now, establishes a new guest-worker program which is open only to Nigerians. Any number of Nigerians may come to the US and work.

There are certain restrictions, however. They have to live in special guest-worker housing. They have to go to their workplace in the morning, and return before the sun sets. They may not wander around the streets at night. They must carry special guest-worker passes. Obviously, they can’t vote. And they are strictly prohibited from using all public amenities, including, of course, drinking fountains.

Is it a more ethical policy to have this program, or not to have it? If you think no Nigerians could be found to take advantage of it, you’re quite wrong. If you have the program, should you cancel it, and send the Nigerians home, to a life of continued poverty back in Nigeria? How is this helping them? On the other hand, our program has all the major features of apartheid. And surely no-apartheid is better than apartheid.

There is a very easy resolution to this problem: adopt the principle that no person is illegal. This rule is perfectly consistent with “applied Christianity.” It is taught at all our great universities. It is implied every time a journalist deploys the euphemism “undocumented.” And I’m sure there are dozens of ways in which it could be incorporated into our great Living Constitution. There is only one problem: the people are not quite ready for it."

"But perhaps in thirty years they will be. Perhaps? I would bet money on it. And I would also bet that, by the time this principle is established, denying it will be the equivalent of racism. Us old fogeys who were born in the 1970s will be convulsed with guilt and shame at the thought that the US actually considered it ethically acceptable to turn away, deport, and otherwise penalize our fellow human beings, on the ridiculous and irrelevant grounds that they were born somewhere else.

So the Cathedral wins coming and going. Today, it does not suffer the political backlash that would be sure to ensue if the Inner Party endorsed opening the borders to… everyone. Still less if it actually did so. (Unless it let the new Americans vote as soon as they set foot on our sacred soil, which of course would be the most Christian approach.) And in 2038, having increased North America’s population to approximately two billion persons, none of them illegal, and all living in the same Third World conditions which it has already inflicted on most of the planet, our blessed Cathedral will have the privilege of berating the past with its guilt for not having recognized the obvious truth that no person is illegal. Ain’t it beautiful?"

-----

So what does all of this mean, and what can we do about it?

A progressive resolution cannot override the civil rights that has been built up. "No person is illegal" will inevitably be propagated through the basically its propaganda "wing" of culture power. i.e. through the media, academia and serious artists, whom all work together on the manufactured "truths", that this social networks Mencius Moldbug calls "the brain" (the aforementioned media, academia and serious artists). Leftists of all kinds including progressives seriously believe in this proposition and push it whenever they can. Even libertarians that where on this group before but had no argument to push back on this point where shooed away from the conversation when it is was backed up against this stonewalling inalienable universal civil rights suggestion that we've been stuck with.

"No person is illegal" will be pushed harder then ever before. And will berate people for not creating a better state and version of things in the perverse affair that everyone will share in the dismal lackluster standards. Joseph McCarthy thought he was attacking a bunch of communists but he was really attacking the informal American cultural elite and elite establishment for continually moving further and further towards the left, heading towards this miserable utopia. Even if Trump materially approves of a staunch opposition or clash with these utopian changes, and materially improves the situation on legal restrictions on entry, punishing and expelling visa overstays, creating the wall. These culture power groups can overcome any of these challenges to instituting sanctionary cities, decriminalizing overstays, cancelling deportation and laxing these legal restrictions for illegals over time because these can become through their influence, control and dominance change the system to their suit agenda.

Trump may have been in office and may become president again but hes not the holder of power. The only way to win is complete reformation of the system from within. That is until the political components of the system are dismantled. "The Cathedral" which is all those elites who hold sway over the culture, which is the academia and the press, then theres political component of the civil service, the judiciary, congressional staffers, NGO's, corporate monopolies, corporate contractors, and congressional are the top-level bureaucracy that actually decides the supreme court justices that wield alot of power. It isn't the top-level of the bureaucracy that rotates every four years that we have to focus most on, the bureaucracy needs to be changed which sets the rules, budgets, the organization and makes the rules followed to the letter all over the country. Even Communist USSR was destroyed from within partially because many different ethnic groups where not molded into the bureaucracy, ethnic tensions in the Soviet Union where common place and still are prevalent in Russia. I.e. laws, customs and formal rules where not made to pander to separately to each ethnic group in each of its regions, that have different perspectives and tastes.

Someone commented awhile ago: "The soviets had a friendship of the people's notion (Order of Friendship of Peoples). Which was a ethno-national regional idea where they would emphasize ethnic cultural differences among regions." But even this did not stop that from happening and dismantling the USSR. Balkanisation or succession is likely to be future for the US rather than complete distrust and overhaul of the status quo if things remain moving towards "the Cathedral's" agenda.

Culture is organic in the sense that it has an individuality, and a soul which permanently stamps anything that it creates with its character, a spiritual essence that cannot be reduced down any further, with their own individuality. Since this is the case that culture cannot ever be reproduced, its a one time phenomenon. I don't believe most people are actually illegitimate in their cultural thoughts, this is primordial. The popular opinion is mislead by the bourgeoisie, it isn't the cultures fault that they try to replace it with a soulless corporatised culture or design by committee. The culture represents what people have been conditioned to believe they have been taught or absorb the most. If they the people absorb healthy things then the aggregate output from our individual actions will be healthy too. Better health of the people and absorbing knowledge is what we want to do. They demand dominance of ethnic culture and control of education to spread educational benefits, culture benefits, protection and a high standard of living. A culture of honor, strength and joy. Beauty and traditional values. Spirituality and community. Hierarchy and familialism. Liberty, fraternity and family. We support culture, tradition and heritage.

There is a destiny that is dependent on who a people are, their particular common ancestry, common will (their interests), common history (their founding myths, their struggles, their symbols), cultural heritage (their best values) and common identity.

Nationalist culture is even more specific. Its anti-materialist in that we oppose a purely physical or material view of man, man needs more than bread. It puts value in the citizen as untapped potential and spiritual being. He has a intellect and a soul, man needs ideas which is what gives him nourishment also. Anti-materialism opposes the view that things happen because of material needs or the need for economic fulfillment. Rather we are a person that looks for spirituality and higher meaning in life.

Secondly, the principle of idealism. That ideas are what turn the tides of people's support for things, people are captured by ideas and ideas make the world either a better place or hinder rather than help. If only certain ideas propagate and take hold that we can be sure that the future belongs to the people rather than a parasitical class. Idealism is nation, tradition and capitalism, which forms Western civilisation.

The third element is that all nationalists believe in a patriotic duty and obedience to serve the nation, uphold the national sovereignty, autonomy, living space, protect the health and thriving of the people, improve the people's wellbeing. That always means try to consolidate and create military power, protection, educational benefits and cultural benefits, i.e. freedom, and a highly regarded standard of living. That is all in the pursuit of the common good. Common good is above all other considerations.

Fourthly its about maintaining a strong hierarchy. Nationalism cannot be complete with a meritocratic system that supports the best in people at the level of education system, right down to the corporate and familial level. Where families are taught skills and paths to instill and educate their family members about.

Fifth its about the move to improve and enhance self-development/meritocracy of the people. Building the people up to create a structure and order that outlasts the frail abstractions of other systems.

Videos on the topic that help flesh it out a bit,
*Why Nationalism?: Youtube.com
*Endurance of Nationalism: Youtube.com
*Liberalism vs Nationalism: Youtube.com

The Christian old moral order was replaced by a secular world where its unknown what the next generation's going to be like. If a order is to survive and gaurantee protection, high standards, benefits (cultural or educational) there a requirement of the following; common nature (character), common cause (common purpose) and common truth (destiny) to create a social order. We're entering a new era and its hard to say what the new era will be like because there is a race to power. The Nietzschean basic point is in the absence of a god nobody believes in, the critical thing is that it must all-powerful being, now man is left to his own devices to meek out his existence and has a existential burden on his own willing. That all living things, humans being a intermediate expression of the will to power, engage in a historical and super-historical will to power.

The future must rest on the following values as the ones we cannot compromise on; natural hierarchy, deep heritage, gender norms, microeconomics, federalism, subsidiarity, freedom, self-determination and autonomy. Its a combination of religion, individualism and nation, to put it another way, its traditionalism, capitalism and nationalism. A Neo-reactionary trichotomy.

That was alot of stuff to read but overall message I think I agree but only when some things are pointed out. There unfortunately is no good argument against "global homogeneity" and "citizenship and civil rights for everyone" by using only a hyper-individualist way of looking at things. That is only recipe for the left to win by default mode of looking at things. If you take it for granted then you have to draw the conclusion that is the only logical conclusion to that belief system. You either accept everything that it leads to or you reject it out right. Otherwise you get a California leftoid hellscape.

So anyone, unless they are of a collectivist mindset, someone won't be able to come up with a good argument except marginal structural limitations. Where we should only accept immigrants for permanent residence only when our infrastructure services can handle possibly handle it. Thats not going to stop the left. Collectivism is the only way to stave off the "march through the institutions" strategy of the left. They eventually will succeed, by pretending not to be hippies, anarchists, communists and progressives and portraying themselves as being social democrats instead at first, or lightly socialistic. Socialism is just about votebuying and the left turns many places into slums: Youtube.com

The kind of collectivism that works is nationalism to secure the nation from the parasitical class. Since it demands that people believe and follow in practice the culture and know about the national history. Nationalism requires interrelated disciplines to all work together to paint a picture of a nation's struggle via anthropology, philosophy, history and politics. Society makes individuals through the education, skills, craft, abilities and values it instills in people is what ultimately produces the best in people. As opposed to the libertarian concept (or most extreme version of it is libertarian) that individuals are creating society by merely a collection of individuals come together to contractually create this abstract order.

Nationalists think the social order is already there, its created through what the collective provides us to become the best version of ourselves. Educational benefits and cultural benefits are collective. We're taught to become virtuous people, rather than make decisions on subjective feeling or personal preference hardwired into us. How we view family, communal relations, religion, is somewhat taught. We're taught what to value based on those cultural and historical connections we make. Virtue creates liberty, liberty creates consumption and some of the culture around us. That doesn't happen right away or by individual investigation, like individualists like to believe but mainly due to educational benefits, and cultural benefits that a national system promotes and encourages.

Another form of collectivism is Syndicalism (like Sorelianism), Guild Socialism, Market Socialism, Distributism, Keynesianism and Mercantalism. I don't mention this class anywhere in my writings but it is the key elites from the very top of the state that are to blame. They have to be in cahoots with the cultural elite for anything to become sick, degrading, complacent, stagnant or degenerate. We need a masculinity injection (realizing destiny - heroism and pursuing truth) into us to stand a chance at facing these enemies. Elect men and women of virtue and discipline to ensure they won't be corrupted.