Right wingers, "conservative" ideas you reject?

What are some mainstream conservative ideas forum right wingers reject?

I reject many libertarian free market arguments when they are used to justify many things in our country, because we have a corporatist/oligarchal market, not a free market.
The most obvious are the recent "Corporations should be able to silence whoever they damn well please" posts around the internet/National Review.

Libertarians also sometimes argue that the markets should decide the borders. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/l...en-borders

-I don't like blanket support of LE. While I don't think police should be abolished (I've never called them but weaker citizens or victims of serious crimes should have the option) there's way too many fucking (ridiculous) laws for them to not be a problem unless they are of particularly high moral character, willing to break the rules and not make a jaywalking arrest. The "thin blue line" also seems like a James Bond license to kill or Omerta code of silence at times.

-"Judeo-Christian" - I'm not going to get too deep into it but this is an oxymoron. The Messiah is Jesus, but the Jewish messiah is the antichrist.

Our "Greatest Ally" is like that one buddy who you helped out of the kindness of your heart who gets hooked on the sauce and steals your checkbook. (And several hundred thousand/million members of your family get killed over arguments you started while they are at it.)

Any of you got anything?

Quote

That Civic Nationalism will save us all.

That immigration from non-ethnic Europeans into Europe or the Anglosphere is good, as long as they're conservative.

That (Paul Watson tweet) "England is represented by a set of beliefs, values and traditions (classical liberalism), not skin colour or ethnic background."

That England will still be England when it's less than 50% British.

That as long as you speak the language and understand the culture, you can magically become German. Or Nigerian. Or Japanese.

That different groups of people, who evolved separately and isolated over the course of thousands and thousands of years, are all 100% the same with no differences between the groups of people at all.

That race and ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a region of the world the way it is.

That immigration, of any kind whatsoever, is a God given right and that we must have immigration going on at all times.

That it's ok if Europe becomes 20% white, while Asia stays 99% Asian and Sub-Sahara Africa stays 99% black.

That Europeans do not have a right to maintain a very stark or complete majority in their ancestral homelands.

If Europeans in Europe and whites in the Anglosphere only want to have 1.4 kids per household, that we should just start having more babies to have a population race to "compete" with the non-whites who are popping out 6 kids per household.

That whites, in terms of economics, should just "compete and focus on self-improvement" as The West imports millions and millions from the third world.

That whites in the Anglosphere and Europeans in Europe should just put our heads down and clean our rooms, at a time when groups like Black Lives Matter are being pushed to the forefront in America, while across the pond the Muslims clearly vote, live and work as a collective block over in Europe.

Yes, I focused a lot on race and ethnicity here. That's the biggest problem that I have with conservatives - they act like it's irrelevant, and that it does not matter. It does, and this was common sense for pretty much all of world history. In fact, this is still common sense in every other part of the world to this very day outside of Europe and the Anglosphere.

Race and ethnicity matters. Period. Until Asians and Africans start importing millions and millions of people and start becoming minorities in their ancestral homelands, Europe especially needs to be off limits. I don't give a damn how conservative the new "Europeans" are, they can't come.

And if they do come, they gotta go back. Otherwise, there's literally no going back if The West is to be saved.

Quote

Well I consider myself more of a strong white dude or a patriot, no disrespect to my fellow RooshV’ers of color as I’m not racist (as in dislike you personally) at all, but aside from that I naturally consider myself a leftist economically. This puts me on uneven ground in the US. I support Trump as a man of my background and social vision on immigration/trade etc, but if the country were white I’d probably oppose him. I hate the growing wealth disparities, particularly of the top % which IMO can threaten democracy eventually. I favor a strong social net, favor universal healthcare, and a cut to the needless defense complex instead of social programs in idea. Hell, I’ve been on social programs myself

Quote

I also disagree with "Judeo-Christian" term. There cannot exist any Judeo-Christian culture just as there is and cannot be a no Christian-Muslim culture. Interestingly there can exist Judeo-Muslim culture as both these religions can mutually recognize each other as part of their culture. Muslims can be noahites in Judaism and Jews can be dhimmis in Judaism. They have existed this way in middle east for a long time. While Christians can be dhimmis in Islam, Muslims have no Place in Christianity. And while Jews can be "chosen nation" in some cucked forms of Christianity, the Trinitarian Christians cannot be noahites in Judaism. So Christian relationship with the other Abrahamic faiths can always only be one sided, while Jews and Muslims can actually build mutual relationships. This is why Jews like Muslim immigration in Christian countries and prefer Muslims to Christians even trough Muslims abuse them, but at least they do it based on some rules.

I do believe in Israel displacing Palestine, because Palestine are not a nation, but just generic Arabs, who should be taken in by other Arab nations. However I think that all Jews with Israeli citizenship should renounce their other citizenship and stop their shadow activities and lobbying and cultural subversions in other countries and Israel should survive on it's own and not leech of USA and other countries. They already do have brain power and enough of conventional and nuclear arms to pull that off.

I also disbelieve in Christian future for white countries - we should look into our Pagan past more and practice spirituality that comes from our own ancestry and is more compatible with Nature - both external Nature of the planet and internal Nature of the human being.

I am also all for free market in almost every situation, but I do believe in some places for government regulations these would be:
1)Keeping strong borders and fighting illegal immigration.
2)Limitation of monopoly powers, both conventional like energy production and new ones like information technologies.
3)Limitation to pollution, enforcing environmental norms.
4)Providing of basic free healthcare for the poor (citizens and ensured legal migrants only) so they don't die on streets. Ambulance calls must be free if they are justified. A private medical system of higher quality services could and should exist in parallel for those who can pay.

Quote

Muh abortion cuckery. Minorities abort their babies at 5 times the rate whites do, with the difference being most pronounced in the most dysfunctional, democratic leaning segment of the minority population-ghetto blacks. Abortion is just about the most powerful demographic weapon we have, so I view anyone of the right who wishes to overturn Roe vs Wade or otherwise make abortion more difficult to procure as either a cuck or an idiot.

Quote

^ Yes, the Democrats have won the popular vote going back to 2000. If it weren't for abortion they would have the electoral vote too. In another thread I did a rough calculation that abortion has taken out about 8 million net Democrat voters (factoring in age and people who don't vote).

My position on abortion is I would not do it. If I happened to get a girl pregnant there would be two options: 1) marry her and have the kid; 2) pay for her to have the kid and then get it adopted.

Leftists on the other hand, go ahead and end your family line. This isn't a civilisation:



But it's a cornerstone of the leftist ideal.

----

At the current time beyond immigration, I don't care too much. A term of democratic socialism would probably be a good bit of bad medicine if it did't come with the likely open borders.

The Libertarians are the most deluded. The only country that I think could be called libertarian is Hong Kong. It has less than 15% government sending to GDP, one of the world's most open business environments and isn't notably legally restrictive on how you live your life. I think a key factor of why this is the case is the average IQ is 110, which means 50% of the pop. are mentally able to undertake professional jobs. Whereas in The West that figure is about 25%. In Serbia it's about 7%; in Saudi (native) 2% and 1% in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The reason such countries have their various standards of living is the have a greater or lesser ability to complete the tasks that lead to living standards.

Quote

Agree mostly with the above.

Abortion, while I feel is immoral and would never advocate in my own life, is necessary to prevent dysgenic population growth.

The autistic libertarian view that all humans are interchangeable and GDP growth is the highest goal in policy also irks me. Nations and institutions come from the people if you replace the the people it is no longer the same nation. If you would sacrifice your nation for .1% more GDP growth you are a traitor of the highest order.

Quote

A lot of the differences posted here by Brits/Europeans will be the differences that exist between the European right and the US one. Private health care, an obsession with free-market/neoliberal economics (profit over people), lack of concern for the environment etc. Now of course, as people above have demonstrated, plenty of those on this forum who are on the right and American also diverge from mainstream 'conservative' US thinking too.

The thing is, EVERYONE on here would be labelled a far right nazi if we went public. It's a meaningless term these days. If Alex Jones is a Nazi, even though he espouses similar stuff to that wrongheaded PJW tweet, then everyone is. Talking about that tweet, I don't know whether PJW believes it really, since he often retweets things that run counter to it. I.E Salvini's recent "We don't want Africans, we want Italians to have more babies" statement. I think, like Tommy Robinson, his private view is something closer to the latter, but he's protecting himself from banning and possibly playing into the left's frame by acting defensively.

Anyway I'm waffling. Things I disagree with that people on the "right" are supposed to support:

- I like universal health care (though acknowledge it, like other things, works best in a mostly homogeneous society where groups are working together rather than competing)
- I dislike neoliberal free market economics in the way they've been practiced for decades (humans as economic chess pieces)
- I like nationalisation of the railways and public utilities (it works very well in some euro countries, much better than UK)
- Guns... complicated, and don't want to derail thread
- Don't care about abortion
- I'd regulate the tech companies (though like most people I'm a hypocrite, if it was the Young Turks being banned like AJ, I'd be happy. The 'right' have played nice for decades and lost every culture war as a result. I'd rather soft Sharia than gay Pride parades every year. Most here would, which is interesting given how much we hate on Islam (to the point of encouraging it's destruction in some cases).)
- I'd like to see fascism tried again. Nazism was tried once, it ended with the holocaust - therefore everyone says "that's where it leads to". No, fascism in Italy didn't lead to anything like that. Communism has been implemented dozens of time and every time at the worst it leads in mass murder, at best in complete ruination of a country and its people. China today is not communist, it's state-run capitalism of a sort.

I could continue, but it feels like semi-autistic 'If I were a dictator' rambling.

(09-15-2018 06:15 AM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  The autistic libertarian view that all humans are interchangeable and GDP growth is the highest goal in policy also irks me. Nations and institutions come from the people if you replace the the people it is no longer the same nation. If you would sacrifice your nation for .1% more GDP growth you are a traitor of the highest order.

100% agree. I don't think it's just libertarians though, basically every Western politician (economists in fancy suits) since the war believe in this.

Quote

We need serious divorce reform. Conservatives put women on a pedestal and that pedestal needs to be taken down. No alimony, no child support you leave with what you earned yourself.

Quote

My biggest problem with conservatism is that there’s very little left to conserve. Not only that, the libertarian, fiscal liberalism is the root cause of mass immigration and female labour/ cheap competition and the primacy of consumption over production.

Globalism. Traditional conservatives protected domestic labour with tariffs.

Religion. Judaism was born after the destruction of the temple and after the Pharisees chose the SJW Barabbas over Jesus who was a Galilean not a Judean

Quote

Abortion - I am personally against abortion but overall pro choice since the govt should not be telling people what to do with their bodies.

Drugs - Just legalize/tax it already and end the bullshit war on drugs.

Big Govt - Govt is too damn big, we could cut by 50% and still get what we need done.

Military - Military is just too big and procurement is too jacked up. Recall our forces from overseas bases and use the savings to rebuild the forces we've run ragged for almost 20 years of war or if thats not good enough our national infrastructure. As a veteran I don't like the deification of those who serve, it's just awkward.

LEO - I dont care much for the police worship concurrent with the militarization of police. Militarization of police is a big issue for everyone not just "Obama's sons".

Welfare state - SS/Medicare needs to go. Govt out of our healthcare. Drastically reduce social safety net and tie to drug testing. Restrict SNAP to food staples only.

Family law - Bring back at fault divorces and get rid of alimony.

Quote

War on drugs and excessive prison sentences for non violent crimes, throwing an 18 year old in prison for two years for selling an ounce of weed or a bag of crack doesn’t do society any favours.

Quote

(09-15-2018 08:10 AM)Teedub Wrote:  The thing is, EVERYONE on here would be labelled a far right nazi if we went public. It's a meaningless term these days. If Alex Jones is a Nazi, even though he espouses similar stuff to that wrongheaded PJW tweet, then everyone is. Talking about that tweet, I don't know whether PJW believes it really, since he often retweets things that run counter to it. I.E Salvini's recent "We don't want Africans, we want Italians to have more babies" statement. I think, like Tommy Robinson, his private view is something closer to the latter, but he's protecting himself from banning and possibly playing into the left's frame by acting defensively.

Anyway I'm waffling. Things I disagree with that people on the "right" are supposed to support:

- I like universal health care (though acknowledge it, like other things, works best in a mostly homogeneous society where groups are working together rather than competing)

Good point Teedub, PJW could very well just be doing that to prevent himself from being banned and acting defensively. Of course, if that is PJW strategy, it's a failing one and is the reason conservatives have lost nearly every big battle over the last century and are essentially losers. Conservatives need to stop being defensive and grow some balls. That's a large reason why people love Trump so much, because he's his own man and isn't some cuck who will bend over and show weakness when the rabid leftists go after him.

I agree that something needs to be done with healthcare in the US. I don't know how it is over in the UK, but here in the US it's a mess. While Western European countries tax out the ass, I would rather pay high taxes all of my working life than to have to worry about losing everything that I owned if I ever got really sick.

Some people here in the US are literally paying mortgages for healthcare payments each month at around $500 per month, especially the self-employed small business owners who are getting close to retirement age but not quite there yet. It's absurd.

Furthermore, having healthcare tied exclusively to an employer is madness and is essentially slavery. I know guys that could be retired in their mid-50's because they were good with money, but still have to work to retain their employers health insurance.

Shit is broken here. We have the worlds highest GDP, an army scattered about all over the world, and yet we can't give our people access to affordable healthcare where they don't lose their home and life savings in old age if they have a prolonged illness. I don't see how lobbing million dollar missiles at the dark age Jihadi's in Syria is more important than using that money back home in the USA.

I was really hoping that Trump could fix this. I'm not nearly as smart as some of you economist on here, but his idea of letting insurance companies compete across state lines sounded really good to me. Maybe throw in a government type of health insurance option as well and break up the insurance companies that have monopolies in certain states, and that sounds like a winning recipe to me.

Just my two cents. I didn't like Obamacare, but the mess that we have right now isn't any better when it comes to healthcare.

Quote

In terms of economic policy, I lean to the right. In terms of social policy, I'm ambivalent.

When I look at it in absoloute terms, I don't see conservatism as being ethically superior to any of the alternatives. In fact, quite the opposite. I see Conservatism as a reaction to the scarcity of resources. And as an appeal to tradition in response to the negative impact of change.

I try to forget pragmatism for a second. Pragmatism is a false ethics as far as I'm concerned. I ask myself "If anything was possible, what sort of world would I want to live in? What would be my utopia?"

If I had the choice, I think I would be very happy to live in a world similar to the one Iain Bank's describes in his 'Culture' novels. For those of you that don't know, Bank's 'Culture' is a almost-utopian state set far into the future where technology has progressed to such heights that pretty much everything is possible. Most importantly, Culture is a post-scarcity society.

Without scarcity, would mass immigration still be wrong? Or a free health service? Or welfare? The reality is that without scarcity we probably wouldn't even have terms or concepts for these things.

So for me it's fine to recognise that in the world we live in now we have to make compromises and have certain rules. But to say that it is ethically superior doesn't cut it for me.


~~written on phone

Quote

(09-15-2018 01:52 PM)Contagion Wrote:  I don't know how it is over in the UK, but here in the US it's a mess.

It's bad and it's only getting worse. The state health service was set up by the left and like pensions was not set up in a sustainable way.

If you want to give everyone health care IMO the only way to do it would have been to have everyone pay into a fund as soon as they start working at a rate of about £1,000 or $1,300 per year. That would give you $300,000 over a working lifetime, which is less than the $240,000 spent per person per lifetime.

However, doing so would have required a grace period where there was no health care while the fund built up.

Since its inception the amount spent on the NHS has increased by about 1000% in real (infaltion adjusted terms).



It's now not possible to set up a sustainable system without first getting rid of the NHS.

The UK will continue to spend more and more on healthcare due to the aging population, new treatments and foreigners coming in to steal healthcare and then go home. In the case of the later I saw a report suggesting 2% of the NHS budget is now spent on such foreigners.

With the soaring costs is also coming worse treatment. Waiting lists are getting longer and longer and nothing will ever be done about it. The only solution is to make the economy smaller by increasing taxes to pay for more health care.

My estimate is that there needs to be 1.2% economic growth every year which would be completely taxed just to keep the NHS and pensions papered over. And that will likely increase with the aging population. But over the last decade the economy has shrunk and real wages gone down.

On the current trajectory by about 2060 the UK will be need to spend 65% of GDP just to pay for pensions and the NHS. Right now it spends 43%. Cuba is the only country spending 65% or more.

Returning to the quality. Increasingly people are having to go private to get a diagnosis and then take it to the NHS to get on a waiting list for treatment. The NHS is rationed. They don't have the resources required. So the method is to try and bump anyone off who has an unobvious ailment. You have to be forceful and keep going back if you want anything done.

My aunt and uncle know someone who died of cancer because the NHS essentially refused to look at him. Anything like this is more common.

My mother and her sisters had some specialist convince them not to treat their 90+ old mother because she was too old. She died.

At the same time my mother was having a multi-year battle trying to get a diagnosis, but the best she got was being told she was mentally ill and stuck on anti-depressants. She got a diagnosis within 15 minutes of going private. She's dead.

Previously my life was ruined for years as they refused to diagnose me. When they did they misdiagnosed me.

This is all pretty standard.

With America, I believe the reason healthcare is so expensive is because it's subject to regulatory capture. There would be cheaper options, but they are not allowed to exist.

The UK is doomed as far as healthcare is concerned. The US on the other hand, you could set up a fund that everyone has to pay into and make some changes to reduce costs. But you could only sustainably treat the generation that has fully paid in. And it couldn't ever be entrusted to the Democrats, because they'd just do the same as they've done with pensions - get people dependent and set up a system which will drag the country down before collapsing while giving fat $300,000 pensions to state employees who never paid in remotely enough needed to net such pensions.

Quote

"Small Government"

I think that's one of the biggest lies of the Republican party.

There are no conservatives when it comes to peoples, healthcare, college, or social security. Most Americans whether it be Democrats or Republicans love Medicare, and Medicaid and don't want politicians to cut it. Americans are for socialism when it comes to certain things.

This is one of the reasons why Trump won. He came out and said, "You know what? Its ok to be a Republican and be for universal healthcare, social security, medicare and medicaid" "I'm not going to cut it."

He's the only Republican candidate who came out and said he wasn't going to cut any of these programs, but actually expand them. A very liberal talking point.








"Fiscal conservatism/Balanced budgets"

Guys like Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush are always boasting how big fiscal conservatives they are, but are insane hypocrites. They prefer cutting popular programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,but they have no problem spending trillions of dollars for waging wars around the world and giving tax breaks to their friends on Wall Street which adds trillions to the debt.

The trick that they use to fool Americans is that they first create a huge deficit by waging wars (Afghanistan, Iraq,etc...) and giving large tax cuts to the rich, then when they see that the deficit and debt is through the roof, they turn around and say "we can't sustain this, we need to cut these programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid"and screw millions of Americans. They are not fooling anyone anymore.

Bernie Sanders calls them out on their bullshit here:






"American Exceptionalism/Non-Stop War"


Republicans, everyone from George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Trump all seem to love war! I don't. I feel that Americans have their own house to take care of and that money that will be spent waging war can be used to give Flint, Michigan clean water, give universal healthcare to people, free college, and build our infrastructure. Republicans love waging war.

Quote

The right, left, conservative angle has been so far stretched, that you would need an entire compass of definitions of what constitutes real "conservatism".

Listened recently to the account of the Subprime Mortgage crisis which was nothing else but a Minority Subprime Mortgage crisis:





In it you see many clips of George W Bush which are pure SJW-talk of racism of the gaps as well as other crap that the fucker cited.

My bet is that most of us here would not fit even the conservative label because the current conservatives are either cucks, Neocon-Zionists, semi-SJWs, full-on-globalists or just plain insane.

They threw out the last old US conservatives with Pat Buchanan in the 1990s. Most of us would not even fit the full libertarian label because that shit has clearly been funded by Rockefeller as well as other trillionaires.

I am personally what could be defined as a minimal-government, but strong unions, single-payer-healthcare system interest-free monetary system with demurrage liberal reformer. I would have 10% personal and corporate taxes, mostly financed by tariffs with close to nothing really needed, because the budget would be printed into existence in my monetary system. And yes - this was done before in history with great success, but it was cut short fast also in history because the money power hate my kind of system more than anything else.

If I enacted all my policies, then the country would change drastically. Yes - I would enact an ethnic-based immigration and population policy, but would leave minorities happily alone so long as they are patriotic. You can even enshrine that you want 75% of a country to stay the basic ethnicity or work towards that. No genocide necessary whatsoever, but the diversity industry would go. That is my own definition of "ethno-state" - just make sure that there are enough blondes in 100 years in that country too, everyone will be happy about it - nothing hateful or Nazi with that.

And we can go on and on about what we want. The current cuckservatives are so far removed from sanity that it's not funny. And what kind of conservatives do we get promoted by the media?

Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris? They espouse certain right-wing views for their own tribe, while promote full-on-globalism for the gentile countries.

Quote

^ Medicare and SS are driving almost all future spending growth. While good politically Trump refusing to attempt reform is not a good long term move. The projected deficits are massive - we are talking 100 trillion liabilities that are not recorded on the balance sheet due to governmental accounting rules. Massive reforms are needed.

Quote

Simeon I agree with your post, hence "conservative" in quotes. Also I think the political spectrum has two extremes, totalitarianism on one side and anarchy on the other.

Hitler and every communist are on about the same point on this spectrum.

If you run a police state but hate blacks I'm not going to accept you as anywhere near me politically.

Yes the whole overton window is fucked with right/left liberal/conservative you either want more government (I include authoritarians in the private sector, robber barons monopolists and usurers in the "government" category, so perhaps the word government is not encompassing enough) or less.

Quote

I oppose the entire notion of chivalry as is conceived by today's cuckservatives. Dalrock did a good post on this.

Quote:I’ve been reading The Allegory of Love by C.S. Lewis, about the medieval idea of “courtly love”. Lewis sums up the concept as (emphasis mine):

The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim.

This topic is important because it fundamentally transformed the way we view the world:

They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature. There can be no mistake about the novelty of romantic love: our only difficulty is to imagine in all its bareness the mental world that existed before its coming…

This includes not only our idolization of romantic love, but also what we commonly call chivalry*:

Even our code of etiquette, with its rule that women always have precedence, is a legacy from courtly love

In this regard I learned I was incorrect in assuming that there had at one point been something noble to the idea of chivalry. Chivalry (as we know it*) has always been an expression of abject groveling. This is one of the reasons that adultery was a core component:

The love which is to be the source of all that is beautiful in life and manners must be the reward freely given by the lady, and only our superiors can reward. But a wife is not a superior.81 As the wife of another, above all as the wife of a great lord, she may be queen of beauty and of love, the distributor of favours, the inspiration of all knightly virtues, and the bridle of ‘villany’;82 but as your own wife, for whom you have bargained with her father, she sinks at once from lady into mere woman. How can a woman, whose duty is to obey you, be the midons whose grace is the goal of all striving and whose displeasure is the restraining influence upon all uncourtly vices?

Lewis describes the groveling and humiliation involved in the poetry of courtly love and it is truly astounding. Gladly bearing the deepest humiliation at the hands of the woman was seen as the greatest virtue.

The other reason courtly love had to be adulterous is because it was considered shameful for a man to have passion for his own wife:

…the impropriety (from the courtly point of view) of loving his own wife. Such a man is in propria uxore adulter. His sin is heavier than that of the unmarried lover, for he has abused the sacrament of marriage.

Lastly, it is fair to say that medieval fans of courtly love are the original cuckservatives. Chivalry and a quasi religious view of romantic love are conservative ideals today because they are seen as harkening back to a more virtuous time, the time of courtly love. Yet chivalry and courtly love has always been a longing for fictional values of the past:

What is new usually wins its way by disguising itself as the old.

…

What was theory for his own age had been practice for the knights of Britain. For it is interesting to notice that he places his ideal in the past. For him already ‘the age of chivalry is dead’.40 It always was: let no one think the worse of it on that account.

The concept of courtly love was a cuckold fetish from the start, and it has always been a longing for bygone days. The only difference between now and the medieval age of courtly love is that we now have a cross-dressing model of husband and wife, freeing cuckold fetishists to finally reverse the position of the husband and the interloper.

But some modern day chivalrous men still prefer the old school model, albeit modified for our age of technology

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/14...kchivalry/

Quote

Regarding abortion - I think a just solution would be like this:

For unmarried women - let them abort their babies if they want. I don't want to live with progeny of trash women anyway, they are likely to become nothing but criminals anyway. But do create a registry of women who have done this legal sin and make it accessible for any man who is considering marriage with them. If a man sees a woman has an abortion in her past he can eject the relationship with no cost and even sue for fraud if the woman has lied about her past.

For married women - an abortion is allowed only with the consent of her husband. Unless she was cheating it's his baby too. If the child is born and DNA test shows it is not from the husband - the husband can divorce cost free, no alimony no child support. The child is given to adoption.

Sadly out society is too immature for any serious discussion about proper rules on this issue. All we have is militant defenders of either complete ban on abortion or a complete license to abort ad nauseum. One side thinks about women's rights, onother about baby's rights, no one gives even a second long thought about father's rights.

Quote

This is a good recent vid about the so-called "right-wing/conservative" mainstream media. Something similar is going on with the so-called mainstream conservatives, who at best feign outrage, make some weak moral claims, but secretly are on board with every crap in the sun.

He points out that the conservative media works in 4 phased instead of 1 phase of instant acceptance vs stations like CNN. The mainstream media just as the mainstream cuckservatives are there to appear to give you a choice while in reality you don't have a choice - except for Trump and even there it's probably not fully revolutionary.

Phase 1: Outrage - but outrage without any solutions to it - transgender madness, homosexuality pushing, mass migration

Phase 2: Constant bombardment of the same news, so that the public gets used to it and actually begins to accept it as inevitable or normal - since no solutions are being offered

Phase 3: Compassion and guilt tripping of the Christian conservatives - those poor poor oppressed homosexuals, those poor misguided transgenders, those poor starving refugees who are constantly discriminated against

Phase4: Acceptance and pushing of the same crap as normal as with the far-left media - essentially the far left simply starts with Phase 3 and 4 while the conservative mainstream starts with Phase 1

How do you recognize real Alternatives? When the Alternative say: We need to march out as one with millions against it, we need to clobber schools with "no trannie propaganda crap" demands. We have to demand the deportation and stop to all mass migration, stop to all Muslim migration - instantly!

But note that the conservatives never say this - the maximum of their actions or opinions is outrage - then nothing.



That is why men like Trump got so much flak from both sides of the spectrum, that is why every media outlet and social media company is fighting tooth and nail against Le Pen, against the AFD, against the Swedish 2 real alternative parties, the Austrian Freedom party, against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

Or as they say now: The Conservatives haven't managed to conserve anything.

It was Reagan who signed the destructive no-fault divorce law, it was Reagan who offered the biggest amnesty back in the day, it was Bush who weaponized the diversity industry forcing banks to give mortgages to undeserving mostly Hispanic customers in order to get the Hispanic vote up to 44% (I'll buy you a house if you vote for me), it was Bush who blabbered on about Islam being a religion of peace etc.

Thus when I hear "conservative" nowadays I have to vomit slightly, because at least their leaders are anything but - they are just misleading the good people until they end up in the same dystopia.

Quote

I am probably more of a European traditionalist. Areas where I differ with American conservatism are:

Gun Control.
I believe citizens should own guns, but to own a gun he should meet requirements including having extensive training and being of good character. I don't see the right of every clown to pack a gun as an inherently conservative position. I also have zero respect for vanity hunting like Donald Trump Jr. shooting big-horned sheep. It takes a small dick to shoot vegetarian sheep munching on grass. I believe that the Hermann Goring Hunting Laws of 1934 should be adopted as a model for ethical treatment of animals.

Science
The anti-science position of some religious conservatives is immature. Science is the highest achievement of western civilization (the rest of it is pretty crappy) and the only reason the West ended up dominating the world. The strongest reason to believe in science is because it is true and the ultimate red pill.

Religion
I have no problem with sensible Christianity for ordering American society, but personally think there are better alternatives. The European traditionalist Julius Evola wrote an excellent book on Buddhism demonstrating it as a model of traditionalism. Some of the most important scientists of the 20th century, such as Werner Heisenberg, have admitted to being influenced by Hindu logic in their development of quantum physics.

Foreign Policy
I believe that all the wars in the Middle East only serve the interests of the ruling classes. I believe that political Islam is destructive and needs to be defeated, but the US is actually the biggest supporter of radical Islam, for the simple reason that the US supports Saudi Arabia which spends millions of dollars exporting radical Islamic ideology all over the world. I disagree with Trump, in that we need to get off of fossil fuels now and move to solar energy. Oil wealth gives billions of dollars to tyrants that are still living in the Middle Ages.

Sex
I believe that Feminism and LGBT are destructive to society and need to be exterminated. But I also don't believe in "banging" women, because I am old enough to know the kind of shit life it will lead too. When I was growing up, the adult men around me were World War II veterans and they taught a high respect for women.

Quote

I think there should be more sympathy for your fellow citizens that are struggling financially. So for example when people denounce states for raising the federal minimum wage and gleefully report McDonalds is installing self-serve kiosks (as if they weren't going to do that anyway).

If you want to be a nationalist and patriot you can't just be for keeping out immigrants and owning libs you have to show some compassion for your fellow citizen even if they are a incompetent ugly low class fast food worker that gets your order wrong. I know raising the minimum wage can be counter-productive but just criticising people who want to do something and not offering any solutions is not acceptable. Same with single payer healthcare, how to help the homeless, college debts, etc, etc. A lot of conservatives just shrug and say government interference will lead to dependency. The average person may not buy SJW bullshit but they can get behind the idea that they're struggling financially and the rich are too rich.

Otto Von Bismark outflanked the german left by pre-emptively offering pensions and workers insurance. We already waste money anyway on stupid overseas wars and bases how about JUST ONCE we spend that money to help people financially even if it fails? Obviously the main problem is corruption and how to most effectively spend that money.

Quote

(09-16-2018 04:57 PM)Castelnau Wrote:  I think there should be more sympathy for your fellow citizens that are struggling financially. So for example when people denounce states for raising the federal minimum wage and gleefully report McDonalds is installing self-serve kiosks (as if they weren't going to do that anyway).

If you want to be a nationalist and patriot you can't just be for keeping out immigrants and owning libs you have to show some compassion for your fellow citizen even if they are a incompetent ugly low class fast food worker that gets your order wrong. I know raising the minimum wage can be counter-productive but just criticising people who want to do something and not offering any solutions is not acceptable. Same with single payer healthcare, how to help the homeless, college debts, etc, etc. A lot of conservatives just shrug and say government interference will lead to dependency. The average person may not buy SJW bullshit but they can get behind the idea that they're struggling financially and the rich are too rich.

Otto Von Bismark outflanked the german left by pre-emptively offering pensions and workers insurance. We already waste money anyway on stupid overseas wars and bases how about JUST ONCE we spend that money to help people financially even if it fails? Obviously the main problem is corruption and how to most effectively spend that money.

I agree to an extent in that people on the right often ONLY look at regulations and such that benefit poor people while pretending subsidies, government assisted monopolies, needless tax breaks, general corporate welfare does not exist because "free market blah blah blah" when it's not a free market it's a corporatist oligarchy.

I prefer the Trump approach over minimum wage hikes: try to bring back some decent paying jobs, such as manufacturing, and create new good paying jobs. A lot of the suffering of minimum wagers (when it's not a result of laziness, which it can be) is because the jobs they would have had 20 years ago putting them in the lower middle class do not exist.

Quote