The Rise of The RealCons™ Save for later Reblogpost

Holyphonic
@Holyphonic

Send Private MessageSubscribe13

With Charlie Kirk and TPUSA repeatedly getting bombarded with uncomfortable questions they cannot answer, getting ratio’d in general, seemingly getting scared by restricting entry and video, and the conversations that are happening even in normie-con land over all this, I think we can say one thing with confidence — the Overton Window does seem to be shifting in our favor, to the point that more people seem to be willing to say “what about white people”?

I’ve seen this a lot in the recent debate over Canadian hockey geezer “Don Cherry” who seems like he shouldn’t be a real person, but got fired from sports commentary or whatever he does in his silly suits recently for pointing out that “Hey, you brown people seem to not give a shit about our military history” and then refusing to apologize for it. Okay, he didn’t specifically say brown people, but that’s obviously what he meant.

I’ve seen conversations pop up around this quite frequently like “Yeah, why would all these Africans and stuff care about British/Canadian military history or culture anyway?” It’s too late for this to democratically matter at this point, but at least the discussion is starting to happen — that’s good.

There is something less good, particularly pertaining the “war” on Conservative Inc., however.

That is the fact that the movement is presently dominated by self-serving nationalists like Fuentes. 

Nick, and the increasingly-present people like him, fall into some sort of camp of white nationalist that is somewhere between what most would say is alt-lite and alt-right, but aren’t cuckservatives exactly. These people require some sort of new term — I propose RealCons™ — to describe their “white nationalist but not really” position and they usually argue they’re the “real conservatives”. 

If this all sounds confusing to you, let me elucidate. I have stated in the past that there are basically two kinds of white nationalists emerging:

1. Those, such as myself, who see white nationalism as meaning: to attain and maintain the right to exclusivity over our own ethnic homelands once more.
2. Those, such as Nick Fuentes, who seem to see stopping non-white immigration as a necessary tool to uphold auxiliary political or religious beliefs. 

Fuentes seems to regularly denounce the term “white nationalist” because he considers it to just be a snarl word against “real conservatives”. Well, it’s like, Nick — aren’t we supposed to be getting people on board with white nationalism if we want to prevent the demographic takeover? Aren’t we supposed to not care when they call us a word? If you’re distancing yourself from being called a “White Nationalist”, then it implies that being a white nationalist is bad. That’s exactly what the Juice want, Nick. Because the thing is, they will see anything you identify yourself as, as a negative, so why don’t you just distance yourself from “groyper” and all labels entirely?

That being said, Nick does advocate for the racial and demographic realism that actual white nationalists talk about all the time, but falters on this one — and being of partial hispanic ancestry, a christcuck, etc. probably has a lot to do with this — key point, as you will see in the timestamp in this video:

Like the majority who align themselves with his politics, he never appears to call for repatriation. Rather, he is calling out the demographic change because he understands, as most “nationalist” Christians do, that brown people are not going to be convinced to vote for the party of “Christian values and capitalism” that the RealCons™ love so much. 

Nick is taking in this video, as he does in all others I’ve seen of his, the stance of “We need to stop immigration because if we don’t, we’ll lose our Christianity, capitalism, democracy, republic and western values”. Nick also talks about how he feels this demographic shift is “inevitable” and what he and the groypers are really doing is “starting a conversation” about what that means for the political future of America. He brushes off the 60% soft majority of whites in America (a debatable statistic) and seems to feel that this soft majority is acceptable, because it means that the people of Christian values and shit can still win. He seems to feel we need to accept this new, large minority population, but simply prevent more arrivals to save “Real Conservatism™”.

What he fails to account for, is the shame of having that 40% non-white population at all, and said population will just keep exploding even if non-white immigration is stopped. So, your electoral future is the same either way. He’s about “America First”, but not really about the stock who built America first.

If you’re not calling for the repatriation of non-whites, at least the supermajority of them, then you’re not a nationalist. I’m not saying that to purity spiral, either — it’s just a fact, and you’re still going to lose in the long run.

Consider for a moment, the types of questions these “real conservatives” have asked of Dan Crenshaw and other zioshills. Sure, they do ask great questions that help expose the lie of “conservatism”, but none of them have asked the only questions that really matter. 

1. Why are the Jews allowed to have their own ethnostate, but Europeans aren’t?

and the big one, the one that I’m always asking people, the one that should be the core thesis of our political views:

      2. Why are people who come from miles upon miles away, with no genetic relation to our ethnic group, with no shared ancestral history, with entirely different cultures, religions and languages from us; and who don’t even look like us or our children, be entitled to our homes; all the civilization and opportunity our ancestors left for us, their white children, to inherit and then leave to our own white children? Why do we have to provide a home for all the world if they decide they don’t like their own, or whatever other reason? Why can’t only WE live here?

I have now spent the entirety of my adult years, from 18 – 25, pondering this question. I have asked it of probably thousands of people on all sides of the political spectrum, and the only answer I ever have heard that made any sense, or provided any closure and satisfaction at all is: “They aren’t, and we don’t.” At this point, I’m quite certain that I will go my whole life without ever hearing a better answer.

It is impossible to answer the above query in a favorable position for non-whites without resorting to fundamentally Marxist reasoning. This is the very reason why globalism is often referred to as “Cultural Marxism”. 

If we are going to have any foreigners living in our countries at all, it should be other white people. I don’t agree with people like Anglin (who is likely controlled-op anyway) that white immigration should be fully stopped too. Put it this way: It’s not their fault that my Canadian relatives, around my age, wound up in Canada. The logistics of accommodation aside, what good reason is there for them to be disallowed to move back to Germany, their ancestral land, where almost all of their family is, if that is what they want? If a nation is its people, and its people are the ethnicity who are responsible for its existence, and the economic discussions and such are irrelevant to the discussion of immigration as many nationalists will say, then why would you be against immigration between these places? I see no reason to oppose it that would not be hypocritical, counter to the core of our ideas, and accepting proposition nation theory.

The point of nationalism is not about conserving democracy, political parties, certainly not Christianity, nor is it about “values” that change considerably through the ages — although it is certainly true we would lose most of these ideals in most cases if whites become a minority.

The point of nationalism is about preserving our ethnic, and racial identities — of which, culture is right downstream from — and the right to our own homes and future for our children. To argue for nationalism from any other position, is to take the wrong position.

We cannot let the “nationalists” who see “60%” white as okay, or the demographic changes as “inevitable” and just something we have to accept — we can’t let the RealConservatives™ be the leaders of the pack.