How can I be sure im actually a Paleoconservative and not just going through another phase?

>most self proclaimed third positionist leaders are extremely cringe, lame, and hold terrible optics

Strange cause it worked in Italy, Germany, and Spain in the 1930s.

Anyway Paleocons have never been successful in this country and most people want something beyond that, they want Fascism and National Socialism.

what are the prime premises of the paleoconservative political worldview?

I think he just means the modern ones. I can't think of anyone charismatic, let alone close to the leaders of that time.

>never been successful

Attached: Pat-Buchanan.jpg (640x480, 48.44K)

Jesus even spic nick? Chirst on a popsicle.

Ethnonationalism is fine for most other countries around the world like europe but for america were are not a country defined by one single ethnic group but rather defined by a multiple few ethnic groups of north western europeans.

the blacks have been here almost as long as whites have. Since the goals of the ACS did not happen that idea of shipping all of them back to africa is currently far out of our reach as far a plausibility.

Right now the threat is mass immigration that would make whites a minority in the future. We used to have a a national origins act that restricted people who aren't northwestern european from immigrating into this country in large numbers which secures the demographic without deporting people who have a century long generational heritage of their family living here such as descendents of slaves.

You don't go farther than Paleo-Conservatism

I totally agree, paleoconservativism is the best vessel for the change we want. Shutting down immigration, paternalism, purging degeneracy from the culture, tradition... also we have Buchanan as an example, who coincidently wrote many books about how hitler did not want WWII and how the war was forced on him by Britain. It gives us a way to discuss WWII with being seen as neo nazis.
Also our mascot is a fucking mammoth.

Attached: unnamed.jpg (480x480, 93.99K)

When was the last time he had power? Why didn't he win the Presidency when he ran?

Fascism and NatSoc weren't cringe in the '30s because nobody knew what would happen if they tried them. Now we know they were oppressive to everyone involved and abject failures on moral, economic, and cultural grounds.
So everyone who leads those movements today are cringe by default. Authoritarianism is unpalatable to most people, but people are starting to recognize you still need a strong cultural fabric to keep people from doing heroin in the gutter, and having sex with everything that moves.

White Americans should be consider their own ethnic group by now.

How are you going to be conservative or fascist as an atheist?

Paleocons sounds based on social issues, what about economics? I'm pretty left wing economically speaking.

In order for a culture or society to have true freedom each individual needs to also be free.

Leftist/Socialist ideology calls for people to give up their individual liberty to "protect" the whole collective. This causes basically every single problem Western Civilization is facing at this moment.

Giving people individual liberty does mean that people need to take more responsibility and they need to take it seriously but the extra effort and work required to create these people is worth it because you have less crime and more productive members of society.

Attached: 1558900544013.jpg (600x450, 82.23K)

Attached: 7HcFHVfAqhq483zKBn8jPL8XN.png (749x920, 848.22K)

>oppressive
maybe those people should be oppressed though?

Economist here: there is not a single rational or empirical reason to be Left on economics. It is 100% emotional rhetoric and distorted facts.
There, you're good to go now. Please, please, the applause isn't necessary...

As far as I know they believe in relatively free markets as long as they don't work to undermind the state/people by outsourcing jobs and other things of that sort

so do you see this as a spring board or an end goal?

Wow, I never thought of it that way! kek

When did I say I was atheist?

I guess you could describe paleoconservative economics as "left wing", we are NOT for free market and support the government restricting and guiding the economy as needed aka protectionism.

>Now we know they were oppressive to everyone involved and abject failures on moral, economic, and cultural grounds.

What normal Germans, Italians, or Spaniards were oppressed by their governments?

I don't know how they were failures morally or culturally speaking. Did they allow faggots and transfaggots to roam around? Did the women act slutty?

I'm confused by your question.
But the end goal is to ensure the ethnic distribution of the largely Northwestern European-descended United States population remain a 90%+ majority

also how is conservatism and fascism/atheism mutually exclusive?

You're going through a phase because your not a WN yet. You'll get their eventually (assuming you are White).

Attached: Evolution.jpg (654x489, 107.21K)

Paleoconservatism is so close to what we want that we wouldnt need to springboard to anything, just push paleoconservatism and mold it a bit.

Yes, everyone was oppressed. As evidenced by this thing called history.
You're listing personal moral failings on an individual level and comparing that to the immorality of collective state violence. Individuals can fuck up their lives however they please so long as it causes no damages to anyone else.

>get job
>make actual money
>look at how much is taken out in taxes as a percentage of your income
>compare with the goods and services you are provided with
>read up on your local municipal politics
>figure out who represents you in the house of reps
>find out who your state senators are
>get acquainted with who your state governor is
>compare their policies with your interests
>weigh your interests against the interests of the nation
>draw conclusions
>bonus points if you get married and have kids because that makes things far more important
>more bonus if you own your own home with a couple acres of land

Attached: 1580586844232.jpg (630x840, 264.85K)

you're always going through a phase user. Life is water. If you ever calcify and stop changing your views, that is a bad thing.

Wtf are you talking about, I haven't said a word about religion

My apologies, since you mentioned optics I wondered if you had any intention of supporting a regression in the political evolution you pictured or if in fact you meant the final result as your true destination.

It's missing the chad libertarian

Paleoconservatism is a phase.
Monarchism is the final step of evolution. Monarchies are eternal. Stop clinging to your republics and voting.

>muh optics
God forbid you exhibit some intellectual honesty at the expense of "optics."

Its literally the opposite that is causing our problems. Its hyper individualism that is causing degenerate shit like trannies, thots, and faggots to be accepted as normal.

"Collectivism" is necessary to keep a large society morally healthy.

Notice his picture shows WN before paleoconservatism? Many people are jumping ship.

>Strange cause it worked in Italy, Germany, and Spain in the 1930s.
>stealing other countries to fight off the consequences of price control and money printing works
Yeah I mean it does, but to a point

Ok Boomer.

Sounds alright.

Are you stupid?

Any political ideologies i previously subscribed to I now disavow completely. But that doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic tword them

Based.

>we are NOT for free market and support the government restricting and guiding the economy as needed
In other words you are all fucking idiots
mises.org/library/problem-economic-calculation

>paleoconservativism
Maybe rebrand your ideology from literally meaning "fossil" and change your icon from an extinct animal.

Well of you don't agree with my point on that you may as well be this guy because that's the fate you'll share
youtu.be/GJ_MHp8iqtQ

I mean if the violence is used against Jews and your enemies why should we care?

Not true, you only need defined objective morality and a strong cultural fabric to encourage those morals, for degenerates to go away. Most of US history, based on the concept of individualism, is evidence of this. Rampant degeneracy is a recent thing, as a result of cultural failings. We're not holding the fabric together, because we think people are too "stupid" or "weak" or "lazy" to change.

>attacking strawmen
Pathetic.

You have to accept your politics are a fluid thing and always changing. There isn't going to be an end to your "phases" because your politics will always change with new stimuli.

It's true though. Appearance and charisma matters.
Only liberals and trannies will disagree with that

Monarchism is gay cause you have a ruler not based on merit but bloodline. That bloodline doesn't always make a great leader through generations. Not to mention they often took money from Jews.

Paleoconservatism is retarded and cringe and gay. Fuck Nick Fuentes, fuck traditional conservatives, fuck conservatism in general. Fuck off, kike'd magapede faggot.

Here is WLP on Buchanan:

"As you undoubtedly are aware, Pat Buchanan will be a candidate for President of the United States in next year’s election. The other candidates presumably will be George Bush, Jr, for the Republicans; and either Al Gore or Bill Bradley for the Democrats. At present Buchanan is a Republican, but he may end up running as the candidate of a third party, since he is unlikely to beat Bush for the Republican Party’s nomination.

I want to make it clear that I am not a Buchanan supporter. Buchanan is the only candidate who comes even remotely close to being honest, to being a man of principle, a man who means what he says and says what he means. I have agreed with some of Buchanan’s positions in the past, but we also disagree on a number of fundamental issues, and I will not be supporting him, partly because I cannot support the system under which all the candidates will be running.

What I think about Buchanan isn’t really important here, though. It’s what the Jews think about Buchanan that we’ll talk about today. As you might suspect, Buchanan is not a favorite with the Jews. For one thing, he’s a conservative. For another thing, he’s spoken out against several of the Jews’ favorite wars. And he doesn’t take orders well. So we shouldn’t be surprised if they don’t give him rave reviews in their media, such as the New York Times or the Washington Post. And they don’t. But if you really want to know how the Jews feel about Buchanan, you must read what they say about him among themselves. When the Jews write in the New York Times or the Washington Post, they are writing for Gentile consumption. But they have their strictly kosher publications, which the Gentile public never sees.

Fantastic, here's to hoping our paths(ideologically or physically) cross in the coming future. I see our goals as highly overlapping.

An example is New York’s Jewish Press, which bills itself as the world’s largest-circulation English-language newspaper for Jews. Three weeks ago, in the October 1 issue of the Jewish Press, a Jewish spokesman, Professor Howard L. Adelson, had a column titled “Another Sewer Rat Appears.” Professor Adelson wrote, and I quote: “Out of the slime of the sewers and into the filth of the gutter a desperate Patrick J. Buchanan, the neo-Nazi, has crawled into the political arena using anti-Semitism as his principal device to secure a future for himself.” That’s the first sentence in Professor Adelson’s column, and it’s a bit awkward, so I’ll read it again for you, and you can savor it’s Jewish flavor: “Out of the slime of the sewers and into the filth of the gutter a desperate Patrick J. Buchanan, the neo-Nazi, has crawled into the political arena using anti-Semitism as his principal device to secure a future for himself.”

Well that’s just the beginning of a very long column by Professor Adelson, and every sentence oozes a vicious, Talmudic hatred. He goes on to say that Buchanan “always was a neo-Nazi,” whose “ignorance is astounding” and “reveals the shallow quality of his tortured, sick, defective mind.” Et cetera. In a separate column in the Jewish Press Rabbi Rafael Grossman, the honorary president of the Rabbinical Council of America, gives us his own outpouring of Jewish hate against Buchanan.

In another Jewish newspaper, the October 1 issue of the Forward, which also is published in New York, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz writes, and I quote: “Let there be no mistake about it. Pat Buchanan is a classic anti-Semite with fascist leanings who hates Israel and loves Nazi war criminals.” And Dershowitz raves on and on, concluding, and I quote: “Let us begin to think about Pat Buchanan realistically. He is a bigot who appeals to the worst of America. That’s why he will always be a loser.”

hahahaha oh man paleoncon garbage again its failed so many fucking times tired shit. become a WN and lets actually change shit you dumb nigger

Actually pretty based, have a (you)

You said "yet" implying he hadn't become a WN already

Actually, that last statement of Dershowitz’s displays the same sort of deception that characterizes Jewish statements intended primarily for the Gentile public. If Dershowitz really believed that Buchanan always will be a loser because he “appeals to the worst of America,” then Dershowitz and his fellow Jewish leaders wouldn’t be knocking themselves out to vilify the man. The real meaning of Dershowitz’s statement is that the Jews themselves must do everything needed to insure that Buchanan becomes a loser and doesn’t gain any influence over American policy.

Another Forward article, in the September 24 issue, reports on the strategy the Jews are using to keep Buchanan from gaining any influence. The article has a remarkably frank headline, namely, and I quote: “Leadership Presses Bush in Bid to Block Buchanan from Republican Ranks.” The “leadership” referred to consists of the leaders of the whole Jewish community, not just the media bosses: Jews such as Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition; and Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. If you think it strange for the head of the Republican Jews to be working out a plan with the head of the Democratic Jews to apply pressure to the principal Gentile Republican candidate to shut another Gentile Republican candidate out of the election, then you still have a lot to learn about Jews.

Learning how to present your views in public without being completely ostracized

There are many other Jewish leaders and organizations involved in this effort to stifle Buchanan. The Forward article lists, for example, leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Committee, and so on. One of the most interesting recommendations in the Forward article is that the Jews themselves should stay in the background in their campaign against Buchanan and should use Gentile “front” men as their tools against Buchanan: men such as Republican candidate George Bush, Jr, New York real estate developer Donald Trump, and Arizona Republican Senator John McCain. The idea is to keep the public from understanding that the campaign against Buchanan is a Jewish campaign, lest there be a public reaction against the Jews and in favor of Buchanan.

And by the way, both the Jewish Press and the Forward are accessible to anyone who wants to check for himself the excerpts I have quoted. The Jews try to keep them out of sight of the Gentiles, but they can be gotten hold of through any big library. They both have Web sites on the Internet, although you won’t find the most revealing articles posted there. But you can obtain subscription information from their Web sites and subscribe to them and read everything in them if you really are interested.

Again optics don't mean shit because at the end of the day most people can pick up on your points. Just be honest. Appearance matters, but "optics" don't.

Now, I’ll say it again: I am not a Buchanan supporter. Buchanan and I have quite different policies on a number of issues. Buchanan believes, for example, that the United States should give Israel a permanent commitment that we will use our weapons and armed forces to guarantee Israel’s military superiority over its neighbors. I am totally against that.

I am simply using this Jewish campaign against Buchanan as an illustration of the way the Jews think and the way they work, so that you will understand that Jews really are not like White people. They have a psychology entirely different from ours. They are a race unto themselves, a race with a totally subjective way at looking at the world. Buchanan has never attacked Jews as such. He works with Jews; he has Jewish associates. He simply refuses to let himself be used as their puppet, the way virtually all the other politicians do. And because of this the Jews are consumed with hatred against him and go all out to keep him from gaining any public influence in America. The Jews simply cannot tolerate an honest, independent Gentile leader. They are scared to death of an honest man becoming President — or even a dishonest man who is independent, who will not take orders from them: a man they cannot control. They understand that they have a tiger by the tail, and if they lose their grip they are all goners.

this is bait right? otherwise kys tyrannical faggot.