There was a time, not long ago, when most whites felt good about their own race, when they objected to miscegenation, racial integration and the notion that all races are equal. Since these attitudes are largely those of the past, they are now often associated with other attitudes of the past such as opposition to: feminism, new styles of music, body art, pornography, atheism and homosexuality. It was, of course, the leftists who were largely responsible for relegating those attitudes to the past in the first place. By seizing control of the education system and government, they were able to change prevailing attitudes about such things. Once this was accomplished, they were able to describe the displaced attitudes as “old-fashioned”. Another word for “old-fashioned” is “conservative”.
While there is plenty of variety of opinion amongst those who call themselves “conservative”, the powers that be have succeeded in associating the term with certain values in the eyes of the general public:
1) An adherence to traditional religion or, at least, a respect toward it
2) A lack of tolerance toward sexual minority practices
3) A preference for a certain way of dressing and certain music
4) A respect for the rule of law domestically but a “my country right or wrong” attitude internationally.
5) A deference toward one’s own race, especially the white race
It might be accurate to describe the lumping of all these together, under the umbrella of “conservative” as the “Archie Bunker Complex”. Though I might risk sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I believe it is possible that the left intentionally nurtured this wider notion of “conservatism” as part of a strategy of divide and conquer.
When I met Matthew Tait in Virginia this February, we had a short conversation about socialism and race realism. I told him that I disapprove of socialism and that the BNP does seem to be socialist in nature. We agreed, in the end, that our most pressing concern should be the preservation of the true British in Britain. Everything else is secondary. If the British people (or white people in general) become extinct, then the political and social trappings of white civilization will fade away as well. At that point, libertarianism would not be viable. So, if the only movement capable of rescuing the British people happens to be a socialist one, then so be it. If a person is trapped in a burning building, and a firefighter arrives to rescue him, is he going to concern himself with the creed of the firefighter? So, even though the BNP is not “conservative” in the political sense, still we should consider them allies in our racial struggle.
Why do non-religious race realists go out of their way to bash homosexuals? I can understand Judeo-Christian ones doing so – it’s an “abomination”. But the advancement of an anti-white agenda is a far more serious “bomb in our nation” than homosexuals and why make enemies when you could make friends instead?
It should be obvious that only the practice of heterosexuality can propagate our species and race. In that sense, it is the sexuality that is “normal” on a societal level. That being said, I don’t think we should condemn individuals for leaning that way and we certainly should not reject them from our movement. So my stance on this is that homosexuality should not be promoted amongst our children and it should not be portrayed as equal to heterosexuality in virtue. But we should not try to make life miserable for those who practice it – whether we hold such urges to be a matter of choice or not. I don’t see the point in wasting pixels condemning homosexuals either; they’ll do as they please with or without our approval and it really is none of our business. As for those who parade about publicly half naked to show their pride, they invite ridicule upon themselves but that’s where it should stop: ridicule and exercising our own rights to freedom of association.