Being a conservative is all about failing, retreating, and throwing your comrades from the sleigh to keep the wolves of political correctness at bay. You already know that. I already know that. You carry on about how we’re not reactionary fuddy-duddies. I do, too. And yet I have some habits that are hard to break and you probably do, too.
We all try to be on guard against the way the liberals and neocons twist and distort language and frame debates, but we need to be at least as cautious about how faileocons gum up our language and debate framing with their contrived and cowardly attempts to castrate and decapitate our positions to sneak past the politically correct censors.
Here are Five Faileocon Dog Whistles to Avoid…
The Berlin Wall fell when this crusty old thirty-something blogger was in first grade, when my chief political concern was determining who had cooties. Just as “cooties” is vaguely related to the tangible phenomenon of head lice but took on a more broad connotation of anybody who was vaguely “contaminated”, the epithet “Marxist” is vaguely related to a 20th Century political movement but now charges the target with having the American conservative political equivalent of cooties.
Marxism is this complex economic theory which was too esoteric and incompatible with reality to actually mean anything back when it was a real thing. According to Marx’s Das Kapital, the messianic revolt of the Proletariat would occur once automation and robotics displaced enough workers and centralized capital into the hands of too few oligarchs, and would begin in the countries at the heart of capitalism. Neither Tsarist Russia nor Chiang Kai-Shek’s China were even remotely appropriate hotspots for instigating Marxism, but Marxist branding is what the rebels who won went with. And then every rebel leader the world over who couldn’t secure Yankee funding slapped a hammer and sickle patch onto his costume and vied for Soviet and/or Chinese funding.
For the critical formulative years of the Baby Boomer generation, “Marxists” were the villainous antagonists of America in a farcical global binary between remarkably similar and awkwardly interdependent but competing welfare states with gargantuan military industrial complexes. Ideologues on the right relied on the “Marxism” epithet as a dog whistle for “Jews”, since the Jews played a key role in founding and funding the early Soviet Union and Jewish professors continued spouting Marxist theory in American academic institutions long after ostensibly Marxist countries all but abandoned the theoretical prattle.
The real problem with this model is that Joseph Stalin’s narrow targeting of Jewish elites and oligarchs in the Soviet Union and the West’s prosperity relative to the Soviet Union resulted in a mass migration of Eastern Europe’s Jewish radicals to the West, with a vanguard of them embracing and extending the anti-Marxist political ideology into the neocon movement which plagues America today. The history of it all is very complicated, but chances are that Marxism has little if anything to do with whatever 21st Century political phenomenon you’re talking about.
2. Cultural Marxism
There’s a kernel of truth in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, as there was a Jewish “neo-Marxist” intellectual school, the Frankfurt School, which strove to subvert and pervert Western institutions and identities. The problem is there’s nothing really “cultural” about Marxism and there was nothing authentically Marxist about their cultural campaign, a campaign which is more succinctly and coherently understood as a subversive Jewish Culture of Critique movement with an anti-White and anti-Christian agenda that had little to do with opposing capitalism. In fact, their “neo-Marxism” amounted to ejecting Marxism altogether as the baggage it was, figuring out how to defeat the goyim within the capitalist societies.
The “Cultural Marxists” were, if anything, post-Marxists; if not outright anti-Marxists.
Historically, Marxists’ record relative to nationalism actually exceeds capitalism in practice, with the Soviet Union doing less to dissolve traditional identities and cultures than the capitalism that our own nationalists keep mistakenly embracing. Throughout the Global South, the Communist flag was essentially a rallying point for indigenous self-rule in opposition to Western colonial ambitions and neo-colonial puppets. The Viet Cong fought to keep the Vietnamese nation unified, Ernesto “Che” Guevara ousted American corporate interests which were abusing and exploiting his people. Even Marxism’s explicit antagonism toward religion proved toothless, with those two hotspots of Marxism, Eastern Europe and South America, proving far more Christian today than the purportedly Christian “free world”.
I’m anti-colonialist. All legitimate identitarian and traditionalist work is integrally anti-colonialist. If you’ve been led to believe that geopolitics is bipolar configuration with colonialism on the Right and anti-colonialism on the Left, then I have some awkward news: You’re a Leftist. Both Whites and Western Christian institutions have been aligned with and loyal to the Jew-controlled Anglo-American neo-colonial “Atlanticist” imperium for centuries, but it’s an abusive relationship which is killing us, both as White men and as Christians.
While the arrangement superficially seemed to favor our interests a long time ago when the mercantile capitalist colonial ideology was openly White Supremacist and packed Christian missionaries aboard their merchant vessels, that’s emphatically no longer the case. We must wake up. The opposite is now the case, with the Atlanticist colonial ideology promoting multiculturalism, forced assimilation, secularization, and the mass migration of non-Whites and non-Christians into historically White and Christian lands. At some point several decades ago, it became advantageous for Jewish tribal interests and crony capitalist elite interests to pivot from White Supremacist to Anti-White and from missionary crusaders to anti-Christ.
While Heimbach expected his “Death to America” speech to be a controversial conversation-starter, we didn’t expect it to scandalize the old guard and polarize many of them against us as it did. The reason it did so is because the American project is integrally mercantile and colonial. Even the most rigorously reactionary attempt to “conserve” it is categorically colonial. To quote the Jew Noam Chomsky,
See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist — it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human.
Being White Supremacist was useful in the past because it empowered us to enslave and exploit non-Whites, but now we’re the targets. We’ve arrived at the penultimate stage of the Mercantile Age, the stage at which the population which has typically been the loyal vanguard and cannon fodder for colonialism in the colonialists’ backyard is to be subverted, perverted, and inverted to serve their profit motives. And with Jews wagging the neo-colonial dog, this “just business” destruction of our race and our religion is mobilized by an ancient ressentiment of our people and our faith. There will be no refuge, no port in the storm, no compromises or safe spaces.
Eventually, they’ll even come after the Amish.
When you mean “Jewish”, just say “Jewish.”
It’s tempting to hop on the anti-neo-colonial Leftist anti-Zionist bandwagon, but the anti-Zionist crowd is also integrally opposed to identity. We can and should be anti-Zionist, but always at arm’s length away from the project, as it also entails a whole matrix of problematic ideology and rhetoric, including opposition to “racism”, opposition to “Israeli ‘Apartheid'”, and a rejection of the abstract notion of self-determination altogether in favor of some kind of silly Middle Eastern rainbow republic. To the limited extent that we care about affairs on the other end of the world, we ought to favor a strong, sovereign, and separate Palestinian State completely independent from the Jewish state.
At the very least, try to limit the usage of the dog whistle “Zionism” to geopolitical considerations. I recently overheard somebody accusing Tim Wise of being a Zionist. He probably is a Zionist in his Jewish Supremacist heart of hearts, but his debate angle when approached on the subject is to claim he’s opposed to “Zionism”. Plenty of Jews who are opposed to our interests, autonomy, and survival are sincerely “anti-Zionist”, and there’s a serious debate within the Organized Jewish Community over whether their power should be hard, military, and direct (Zionist), or soft, cultural, and indirect (Globalist).
Unless you’re trolling, of course. In that case, #OPENBORDERSFORISRAEL
5. Reverse Racism
Even though the term is ostensibly utilized in defense of White interests, it’s loaded with the connotation that “racism” is a real and immoral problem, and that it has a natural and normal orientation which is somehow “reversed” in the case of somebody being “racist” against Whites. This dog whistle quietly forfeits several debates about identity that we can’t afford to forfeit in pursuit of whatever point one’s trying to make.
“Racism” can be and often is healthy, natural, and constructive. It’s a father’s plea to his daughter to make a family with and have children with those who share the common inheritance that it’s perfectly natural to wish to preserve. I don’t have much of a problem with “reverse racism”. If foreigners and minorities don’t want me in their neighborhoods or courting their women, I think it’s honorable of them to frankly and directly notify me of this. I think it’s healthy and natural for Black neighborhoods to demand that their police forces reflect their own identities. After all, would you want the police patrolling your neighborhood to belong to an alien group which doesn’t really understand, trust, or probably even like you?
That’s a recipe for disaster and unrest, even when the invasive officers are striving mightily to be fair. It’s not possible for White cops to be fair to Black citizens or for Black cops to be fair to White citizens in the aggregate, because the two separate identities don’t share the consanguinity and mutual trust upon which fairness rests. It’s like expecting somebody else to be as “fair” with your children as they are with their own children. Even when they’re trying to be fair, a deeply-rooted and even biological impulse to favor one’s own guarantees that in the long run, in obvious and non-obvious ways, the arrangement proves systemically unfair.
Ultimately, life and politics will be a lot simpler for all of us if we stop trying to frame things in terms of 20th Century political agendas and movements and more directly say what we’re trying to say. In the Ukraine crisis, we have a boggling maelstrom of ideological angles and epithets being thrown around, with “Zionist Nazis” supposedly battling with “Bolsheviks”. In America, Obama is an “anti-colonialist” while at the helm of the largest colonialist power as it’s actively defending and promoting its neo-colonial agenda. Personally, I think the 21st Century’s battle lines are shaping up to be between identity and alienation, and between Tradition and Modernity.
If we start using them now, we’ll make things much easier for the 22nd Century’s historians when they try to decipher all the angles and dog whistles of our time to figure out what we were all actually fighting for.