The Conservative Who Never Was

By Padraig Martin for Identity Dixie

Last week, the lead editorial in The Economist, a magazine that once promoted free market capitalism and traditional British societal order, lamented the end of conservatism. Entitled “The global crisis in conservatism,” (6 July 2019). It was a piece dedicated to the conservative as determined by the political Left and Bush Republicans. Essentially, the editorial decried the end of the perpetual loser. That loser, whether he be the individual and or the political party who claimed to represent his interests (Republican, Tory, CDP, etc), never conserved anything and that, The Economist noted in its editorial, was the point. Conservatism was supposed to be the slower, steadier approach toward a Marxist conclusion. The establishment conservative was supposed to walk his reluctant constituency into Marxism as opposed to run them it.

This admission by one of the world’s premier political-economic magazines might shock some, but it was refreshingly honest. Not only did it validate the Dissident Right’s suspicions about the Establishment conservative class, it exonerated her adherents. The conservative voter was never supposed to know what they – the ruling classes – always knew: there never was a conservative political party.

Conservatism in liberal democracies was always an illusion. Conservative politicians were simply the slower versions of their progressive kin. Conservatism in Western societies is much like the sister who loses her virginity in her twenties versus her faster sister, the Left, who is sexually experimental in her early teens: both eventually come to the same conclusion by losing their virginity. In fact, The Economist quotes Michael Oakeshott, a British political philosopher who supported socialism in order to “conserve” society (think FDR), when trying to defend the old conservative guard: “To be conservative…is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried…” Such a simplification alludes to the misguided nature of those who would try to actually conserve.

True Conservatism, as defined by the Dissident Right, is not simply a preference for “the familiar” until a new version can be proved effective. It is a preference for a preservation of the status quo, when that status quo benefits the nation. By nation, of course, I mean the traditional definition of the word – a people – versus the modern interpretation of the word, which in the liberal sense has become synonymous with a country or state. So-called conservatives have undermined the status quo through a myriad of policies that have hurt the nations which they once purported to represent. Most glaringly has been their embrace of demographic replacement of the very voters who uphold the status quo.

The people who always voted overwhelmingly for conservatives, at least in the United States, are rural or exurban – read “white Christians.” The ideological battleground of conservatism versus progressivism was the suburbs. The rural and exurban voters value traditions. Suburbanites value traditions, too, but they also have a different relationship with money. Regardless, conservatives of all stripes were supposed to agree on similar values: faith, family, defense of the country, property rights, minimal taxation, Constitutional liberties, and law and order.

The elected officials whom we sent to Washington, London, Berlin and elsewhere to represent those value systems failed miserably to protect any of those ideals, let alone, their People.

How badly did “Conservatives” fail us? The conservative representatives within which we once placed our trust sent our manufacturing jobs to countries within which many of those same rural and exurban boys gave their lives in the belief that they were sacrificing for a country worth more than themselves. When those countries exploited loopholes to peddle their products in the United States, the same conservatives refused to use the mechanisms of enforcement afforded by the governing trade bodies to protect the American consumer and worker. Those lucky enough to make it back from conservative wars, returned to minimum wage Walmart jobs selling Vietnamese manufactured trinkets. Of course, when they are not on the floor greeting customers on a dole (welfare) they subsidize with their weekly payroll taxes, they sit for corporate sponsored diversity classes, learning to accept everything their faith and instincts tell them not to accept. These same men use their thirty-minute lunch escape eating a lamb shawarma sold to them by an Afghan immigrant who has his own business thanks to migrant incentives. When our patriot returns to his American-flag adorned home from his dead-end job, his child tells him what he learned in school over their microwaved supper: as a white male he is evil, his service to country was wrong, owning property is wrong, and the child was “mis-gendered” at birth and therefore seeks to change his name and his wardrobe… down with George Washington and up with Karl Marx!

Thanks to liberalism, many of my friends within the Dissident Right have experienced some version of the scenario which I just described. Conservative politicians and their mainstream media allies used and abused our heroic patriot. When it came time to at least fight for he who had fought for them, “conservatives” turned their back on him. Instead, so-called conservatives sought to control “progress,” as if that were possible in a liberal society. Once enough identitarian groups form a coalition, conservatives are simply voted out. Liberalism always empowers the majority, even when that majority is cobbled together by minorities seeking to replace the status quo.

Make no mistake about it, minorities want to replace the status quo – they want you out of their way!

When so-called conservatives seek to regroup several miles down the ideological line, they try to defend the next ideological battle line for political optics. They know this is a charade. Meanwhile, the long march through the institutions continues to make “progress.”

Why is the Dissident Right ascendant and traditional conservatism being destroyed? Because the conservative voters believed it was time to take back power from perpetual political losers and empower individuals who at least paid lip service to the values we, the conservative voters, have always shared. Unlike the establishment conservative, the Dissident Right actually believes in conserving our history, our culture, our progeny… our Nations.

Of course, The Economist is incapable of understanding this from its urban ivory tower. Establishment Republicans, Tories, or whomever, are incapable as well. The Dissident Right is not handcuffed by such ideological myopia. In the case of our organization, Identity Dixie, we seek to preserve the South – our Nation – by saving it from a dead-end future wedded to a crumbling federal empire.

This is a movement predicated upon true conservatism. There is no defense of liberal conservatism. It never existed.

Thankfully, we are now claiming the unoccupied ground that was the true conservative void.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.