A Nationalist’s Rejection of Conservatism and Libertarianism

This is going to be quite different from the usual article. This is simply an ideological standing: Nationalism v.s. Conservatism and Libertarianism.

1. Disclaimer

  1. This is an opinion. Don’t be triggered.
  2. Feedback or rebuttal always welcome.
  3. Most of the following is backed up in other articles.

2. Rejection Of Conservativism

As is now a common rebuttal point, so called “Conservatives” don’t actually conserve anything. This is true throughout the Western world. Most “Conservative” parties are really just corporatists, trying to serve a business class.

  • Culture isn’t conserved. Multiculturalism is forced upon us.
  • Language isn’t conserved, and learning it becomes less of a priority
  • Heritage isn’t conserved. Our history can be rewritten.
  • Founding of nation isn’t conserved. Everyone is replaceable.
  • Respect for life isn’t conserved.
  • Any meaning of family isn’t conserved
  • Any religion which helped found society isn’t conserved.
  • With the above points, the “majority” culture, language or heritage dwindles, however, “minority” ones are encouraged to thrive.
  • The environment isn’t conserved (the lefties are right on this one).
  • Education standards aren’t conserved. School is big business.
  • Pensions and social benefits aren’t conserved.
  • Health Care isn’t conserved.
  • National borders aren’t conserved.
  • National sovereignty isn’t conserved.
  • Military strength isn’t conserved, nor veterans cared for.
  • Actual free markets aren’t conserved. Cronyism is rampant.
  • “Small Government” ideals aren’t conserved.
  • Employment prospects aren’t conserved, if they can be outsourced.
  • True free speech isn’t conserved

Any semblance of “social conservatism” has long been abandoned by these “self-identified” conservative parties. As such, money, growth, and individualism seem to be the only things that matter.

And while “Conservatives” like to crow about how responsible they are with the public purse, successive governments have heaped debts onto the populations. But they don’t like that detail pointed out.

Consider too: so called neo-cons who have little to no hesitation about starting foreign wars abroad either for resources or power.

Most topics on the list have been addressed elsewhere on the site. There is much more to a nation than GDP, unemployment and stock prices.

3. Rejection Of Libertarianism

Most of the above points can also be directed towards Libertarians. They have no interest in conserving anything either.

To be fair, Libertarians do have a genuine interest in smaller government overall. They push for less regulation and government involvement in people’s lives. Valid points.

An interesting note: while pushing for “individual” rights and freedoms, Libertarians (many anyway), take no issue with mass migration from cultures which push for “collective” powers. It never seems to dawn on them that these freedoms can be eventually voted away by the people they welcome.

It also never occurs to Libertarians (or Conservatives) that in pushing for multiculturalism, they are forging alliances with groups which will wield power by numbers. Individual preference doesn’t matter when an entire group votes another way.

4. Protect Individual Rights

Looking out for group identity doesn’t mean we should have to — EVER — give up our individual freedoms, such as these:

  1. Freedom of speech
  2. Freedom of association
  3. Freedom of the press
  4. Freedom of peaceful assembly
  5. Freedom of religion (except violent movements “cloaked” as religion)
  6. Private property rights
  7. Presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings

Most (if not all) nationalists also support these rights.

While Libertarians go on about the “dangers of collectivism”, it never dawns on them that collectivism can also help preserve these rights. If your group believes in individual rights, then as a group it can act to protect them.

Much harder to do when “individuals” work against “collectives” who oppose these freedoms, or your way of life.

5. Look To Generations Ahead

This should be commonsense, but is worth repeating: we should be looking ahead generations to what kind of society we will leave our descendants. It is not worth sacrificing it for our short term gain.

Left v.s. Right is a myth to obscure the real distinction of Nationalist v.s. Globalist. Other labels differ, but are irrelevant. Doesn’t matter if these “right-wingers” self identify as:
-Classical Liberals
-Real Conservatives

Policies should be aimed at protecting the items cited above (Section #2). After all, our ancestors left them to us.

As such, nationalism is the way forward.

2 Replies to “A Nationalist’s Rejection of Conservatism and Libertarianism”

  1. None of the libertarians I know “push for multiculturalism”. We don’t give a damn what people speak or read or eat or watch. We just want the damned government to butt out of stuff that doesn’t concern it—which means, almost everything. You seem to believe that you know a lot about libertarians, but having read your descriptions above, it appears to me that you know diddly-squat. “It never occurs to libertarians…” blah, blah, blah. How do you know what occurs to some libertarians? You clearly haven’t canvassed MY opinion, and I am one of the most outspoken, long-standing libertarians in the country. I’ve been writing libertarian opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines since 1985. The following is a particularly stupid thing that you’ve said: “While Libertarians go on about the “dangers of collectivism”, it never dawns on them that collectivism can also help preserve these rights. If your group believes in individual rights, then as a group it can act to protect them.”

  2. Wow, ‘Libertarians’ – if the above comment is representative – don’t much care about their PR, do they? And, it would seem, entirely miss the point of your article. Which was stellar.

    I couldn’t agree more with your points. But in ‘our’ country today the ‘nationalism’ aspect of your argument only ever seems to apply to French Canada, but somehow never to English/British Canada. It’s been a steady campaign to make that impossible – decades long now.

    I’ve always said that both Pierre, and now his son, were refighting the battle of the Plains of Abraham by stealth, and have hugely succeeded. To the point we have little to no memory of what we once were, which was very, very good.

    In our Canadian family, Quebec is the Golden Child, and the former British North America the black sheep.

    Funny how the Red Ensign, which was never in disrepute as far as I can tell, seems to now be more toxic than the Confederate Flag, and has entirely disappeared from our culture. Few Canadians would even recognize it, let alone know what it is, let alone be proud of what it represented. And yet the Fleur de lis is everywhere. And celebrated.

    Don’t get me started on the Maple Leaf Forever. Or how we’re constantly ‘adjusting’ the words to the English version of ‘O, Canada’ as ‘offensive’, but somehow never do the same to the French version, despite its political incorrectness.

    All of the above, as far as I can tell, traces back not to Pierre, but to the ‘sainted’ Mike Pearson. If the old Canada is to survive at all, Pearson’s work needs to be recognized for what it truly was – traitorous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discover more from Canuck Law

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading