Header Image


Op-Ed Column

Liberals, Conservatives, and Indians

by David Yeagley · November 3, 2009 · 36 Comments ·

Liberals like to use Indians as a prick against America. Conservatives apparently wish Indians did not exist—at least not as “nations within a nation.” Indians simply wish to be Indians. Nationhood is our natural intuition, something we spilled blood for, and something the United States government promised to recognize, forever.

Since 2001, has attempted to articulate American patriotism from the American Indian point of view. At this point in the dialogue, however, it seems that liberals and conservatives are alike confused in their rhetoric, and therefore must reassess our own approach, and restate our position.

Dr. David A. Yeagley, great, great grandson of
Bad Eagle, and creator of

Consider the circumstances:

Acting president Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. “Barak Hussein Obama”) has repeatedly used the terms “level the playing field,” and “spread the wealth” as code for government control, or, tyranny. This is the liberal position. Hillary Clinton expressed it more openly: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good” (San Francisco, 2004). Economic parity is the Communist idea of equality. Material-based equality requires force to accomplish. It is the antithesis of free enterprise. It is the antithesis of Americanism, and blatantly treasonous toward the United States Constitution. It is certainly extraneous and irrelevant to the concepts expressed in the defining document of the United States.

However, when talking about Indians, conservatives have used the very same words. “Level the playing field” is meant to nullify the Indian treaties, remove all legal identification of Indians, and to dissolve Indian nationhood. Indians must be like everyone else, as if our history and blood are nothing. Many conservatives want to see the end of Indian reservations. David Horowitz has publicly express such sentiments, as has Charlie Meadows (President, Oklahoma Political Action Committee), and One Nation United (Fall 2009 Newsletter, p.13). Horowitz thinks reservations cause depravity. Meadows and other conservatives resent the economic advantage (i.e., the tax-free status) of Indian businesses, like gas stations, smoke shops, casinos, etc. One Nation United lobbyists work against the destructive environmental and socio-economic effects Indian casinos have on neighboring Americans.

Recently, The Oklahoman newspaper actually advocated the dissolution of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and every other “government program” connected with Indian people. It was a veritable hate crime, and has been reported as such to the FBI, as well as to the BIA.

While the liberal ‘use’ of American Indians tends to be petty and affects only the careers of a few vainglorious Indian leaders, the conservative position on Indians is a positive affront. has taken the position, from the beginning, that American Indians are natural patriots, and natural conservatives. Any people who are willing to sacrifice all for the preservation of their identity and nationhood have to be considered patriots. Our position has always been that the Indian is exemplary in this matter.

That conservatives would develop the position that Indians are at odds with Americanism is most ironic and tragic. It is also profoundly mistaken. Indeed, such a position, while perfectly innocent of racial prejudice against Indians, demonstrates an acute lack of appreciation for the nationhood of Indians. Contrary to’s position of allowing every nation, every people, the freedom to love, honor, and preserve itself, conservative leaders are anxious to deny just such privileges to the very people to whom the United States government promised to preserve.

Worse, in their strangely liberal jargon against Indians, conservatives are actually being anti-American! To contradict or deny the history and the stated legal positions of the United States government is dangerously close to treason itself.

But conservatives don’t understand that Indians are the exception to their “principles” of equality. Indians are not another “minority group.” Indian treaty provisions are not government programs, nor hand-outs, nor welfare. And the conservative leaders have no right to make moral judgments of Indian people, or the effects of Indian treaties, however obvious the depravity. They need to look at the moral failure of their own society as well. Shall Americans be denied their nation because of their self-denigrations?

And, if conservative “equality” advocates object to tax-free Indian businesses, all they have to do is boycott Indian businesses. This is the simple, free, democratic thing to do. When conservatives wish to make illegal that which is provided or allowed by the United States government in historical documents, conservatives are toying with treason. There are better ways to deal with the Indian issues. The conservative need not push himself over the edge.

And American Indians need not be forced to choose between being Indian, and being American.

Touch the Clouds, Lakota chief, 1838-1905.

Posted by David Yeagley · November 3, 2009 · 4:37 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Indians · American Patriotism · Conservatism · Liberalism · Op-Ed Columns · Politics · Race · Reservations · Sovereignty

Read More Op-Ed Columns »

36 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Smile // Nov 3, 2009 at 7:24 pm   

    Dr. Yeagley,

    I’d like to speak with you from my own perspective, without the burden of what politicians or others have said, okay?

    The existence or right of existence is not in question. I’m proud that my country is home to patriotic Indians. American Indians are…uniquely American. Very special indeed.

    I feel that all of our (I’m referencing us as a whole country) citizens should be sovereign. Do you think there are problems in this area?

    I don’t feel they need to choose to not be Indian. Indians feel they were not invited to be citizens. Do they want to be American citizens? I don’t think treaties should be broken or dishonored. Don’t you think they need to be reworked or revisited? Isn’t there a way to retain the Indian nations and still share law, liberty and joint citizenship?

    I believe the US Constitution and our founding documents have the principles of freedom and liberty. How can Indians and non-Indians retain their sovereignty? I don’t understand what you feel you’d be loosing by differentiating between nationality and ancestry.

    We can both see that there are problems. Some of the problems are Indian problems. Some impact all people. I don’t feel that Indians are treated as I think American citizens should be on the reservations, but they get paid to be there. IMO, that complicates things in a sort of coercive way. That’s an Indian problem, mostly. In other ways non-Indians are impacted adversely by reservation laws that exempt Indians from common responsibility with fellow citizens. Can the ones that impact all be resolved?

    Thank you for taking the time to converse on this topic. I wish everyone could be willing to allow for discussion. Though sometimes uneasy, If everyone were allowed to politely say what they really think, there could be explanations, learning, maybe even some resolution, don’t you think? For my part, at least I can learn and understand better.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:32 pm   

    History is history. Indians have to live with it. But, whites have to live with it, too. That any white conservatives would be angry that Indians have casinos shows a deep weakness, in a way. The white race is a very morally sensitive race, and tries to be fair, I think more than any other group. I speak specifically of the Anglo-Saxon Americans, and the other Brits, etc. But, if they now want to object to Indians–who are benefiting from corrupt white politicians, syndicate enterprises, and land developers, they need to simply consider it a white problem. To blame Indians for white corruption is fairly ridiculous, I think.

    Indians are not paid to stay on the reservations. This is a wrong way of looking at it entirely, and obliterates history. You have to think history when you think Indians. If you want to understand how Indians think and feel. We represent history. American history.

    Our fathers went to war to preserve our people, our way of life, our identity. What’s wrong with that? Do we not have a right to hold on to this?

    Conservative Americans want to hold on to America, do they not? It is the same thing. Indians are Indians. We have that right. We do not have to be part of mainstream America. We cannot be coerced.

    Now, to whatever degree it is better for us to be more American, we should take advantage, yes. I think it can be said America has really tried to let Indians be whatever we want to be. This is extraordinary. This is phenomenal, really.

    But, Indians cannot and must not surrender what’s left of our nations. We would cease to exist in two generations.

  • 3 John Sandusky // Nov 3, 2009 at 9:46 pm   

    With a bong that large, is there any wonder how the chief got his name, Touch The Clouds?

    The chief seems to really love the white mans camera . . . he’s into “striking a pose.”

    Indians are conservative?

    How many were at the Tea Party? How many were orgasmic and still are about Chief Obama?

    I for one Doctor, want to see exactly what the Treaties say. Where can I find a copy of just one that you consider credible? I say the American taxpayer is being hosed.

    I wonder how many Indians helped change the political landscape tonight with regard to rocking Democrat’s world in New Jersey and Virginia? Conservatives ran to the polls to vote against Democrats and their “dependency politics.”

  • 4 John McNeill // Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 pm   

    To me, this is more proof as to why this country needs to dissolve and split apart. For America demonstrates the problem of civic nationalism, where it makes culture a mere abstraction that exists in a vacuum that anyone can participate in, blood having nothing to do with it. And worst of all, it calls for the melting down of identities to make everyone integrate into this civic identity.

    From my perspective as a white American, my people and culture are being displaced to make way for the new Latinized American, just as the American Indian was displaced before. And American Indians have every right, and indeed a duty to their ancestors to resist this new attempt at molding everyone into this artificial American identity that’s multiracial and multicultural, and in essence, meaningless. I would like to see American Indians fight for full independence, such as the Lakota Republic, just like I’d like to see a nation for American whites. I wouldn’t object to a black nation either, and while I used to be an anti-illegal immigration border warrior, I now concede that Aztlan will be a reality. I only hope that us American whites can preserve a portion of the US for ourselves. Maybe somewhere in the Midwest or the Rockies.

    Anyways I wish your people the best of luck in resisting this latest attempt at “Americanization”, which really translates into melting down all ethnic identities world wide to make way for the global man and one world government. I used to think only the white race was targeted for destruction, but I recently read an article in the New York Times describing how South Korea is being demographically transformed, and how natives opposed to this are smeared with racist and xenophobe. And the UN is pressuring the government of South Korea to adapt anti-discrimination laws, thus neutralizing any resistance to this demographic transformation and making a desire to maintain South Korea’s homogeneous society beyond the pale. Eerily similar to what’s happening in North America and Europe. And soon the globalists will be coming for Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East and transform their societies, so soon everyone can be a cosmopolitan coffee colored superman.

    No more diversity. Ironic how the diversity brigade actually want to destroy diversity so everyone can get along.

    I believe conservatives should give up on civic nationalism, which has been a poison to many Western nations, and turn to ethno-nationalism. And I hope American Indians resist civic nationalism, for I have no desire to see the remnants of a wonderful people with rich culture and heritage get absorbed into the globalist melting pot.

  • 5 whitetrash // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:02 am   

    It became clear early in the administration of George W. Bush that “Conservatives” were only to happy to sell out America to the Global Financial Interests. Can you really be surprised that such vermin would dispose of treaty obligations to the American Indians?

    The “Conservative” versus “Liberal” presentation is a joke. They are all owned by corporate criminals… you know… they guys you call “successful.” They want your land. And they will get it. At least a drug lord would leave your house alone, but not these Ivy League educated scumbags.

  • 6 David Yeagley // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:10 am   

    Ann Coulter says the sons of the Pilgrims are in fact the liberals, the Ivy League traitors.

    But, at this point, I think there are two issues:
    1) Indian casinos (created by corrupt white people)
    2) BIA corruption (created by white and Indian people)
    These are related, of course. It is the lack of morality, basically.

    Indians are our own worst enemy, no question about it. But the social conditions are a result of our culture being corralled into the structures of a foreign culture.

    I believe each tribe needs to write it’s own constitution, and dispense with the 1934 superimposed BIA (US gov’t) constitutions forced on us . We need to incorporate our own customs and ways into our governing process.

    In any case, I think Indians are an example to Americans of what Americans need to do to preserve America. Right now, America needs to sacrifice. It will be extremely painful, but, this is the price nationhood costs.

    America needs to recover the primacy of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

    There. I said it.

  • 7 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:38 am   

    “America needs to recover the primacy of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.”

    Personally, I don’t want to speak from a white, red, brown, black. Ethnicity and various nationhood will matter little without our freedom. My question/suggestion is:
    All people in America need to consider the individual liberty and individual sovereignty as paramount or all else is in vain. Isn’t this true, Dr. Yeagley?

    Frankly, outside of freedom and liberty, I’m very congenial on most everything. All patriots (red, yellow, black, and white) in this country have bled and given their all for liberty and the rule of law. This is why I see everyone in the same boat.

  • 8 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:48 am   

    Personally, I feel that liberty and justice can be better established and protected without individuals having “primacy” over other individuals.

    As to this ‘anglo’ person having primacy, Protestant or otherwise, I don’t see where they have had goodness come from lording it over other peoples. This ‘lording it over type’ needs to be resisted from whatever tribe, nation, group, it may arise from. Give me liberty! Without which we shall all perish together. It would behoove us to protect one anothers liberty.

  • 9 whitetrash // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:42 pm   

    I dunno about WASP primacy either, and while I like Ann Coulter, I don’t think she has a clue how bad things are right now for average Americans. She is too removed from the threats. It’s all a game to people like her.

    What I do know is that to preserve Liberty we have to divest ourselves of corporate culture and scale back the incredible assaults on the Constitution in the name of the “War on Terror.” What the Republicans were able to achieve in terms of executive power rests now in the hands of Barrack Obama and the Democrats, who, if you scratch away the veneer of “cultural” issues, are just as subservient to Multi-national corporations and Global Financial Firms as the Republicans. Maybe even more so. I have yet to see anybody square the Patriot Act and National ID cards with the invasion across our southern border. It doesn’t add up to anything but the creation of a third world style society where Liberty is a threat to the ruling elite. An elite who have enriched and empowered themselves through high treason. I’d rather be a free man with a dirt floor than a slave with a 42″ plasma TV tuned to the Corporate News Networks.

    And you can bet that all the Lefty Indians are about to be as surprised and dismayed as the White Christians who supported the Republicans. There is no place in the New World Order for American Indian Nations. They are just another pool of consumers and wage slaves. Count on it.

  • 10 whitetrash // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:52 pm   

    “Our fathers went to war to preserve our people, our way of life, our identity. What’s wrong with that? Do we not have a right to hold on to this?”

    Self determination is not a right. It is an achievment. This whole idea of “rights” has virtually emasculated Americans. The only “rights” we have are those we fight for and win. That’s it. Get ready to fight again.

  • 11 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:27 pm   

    War: I wonder which weapons are more preferred, those of self discipline and voting or guns and ammo.

    There was an opportunity for people to vote yesterday. I wonder if more then 10% of the eligible voted. My goodness, one needs a long, costly presidential campaign to get turnout even near 50%…

    I think we do have ‘rights’ but perhaps people are adverse to exercise.

  • 12 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:30 pm   

    By eligible I mean out of those registered because plenty of people must find it too difficult to register as well.

  • 13 David Yeagley // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:31 pm   

    WhiteTrash, the very easiest and most sensible thing to have done after 9-11 would have been to deport all Arab and Pakistani Muslims. They are not refugees. They have wonderully rich countries. They’re here either because of the failures and oppressions Islam, or they’re here to spread that cursed religion.

    This is about RACE and CULTURE. America is not obligated to host every race and culture in the world. The American Indian is the exception, and we’re not being hosted. We hosted Americans, in the beginning. Then the treaties, etc.

    Nationhood is not simply an ideology. I know that’s what a lot of conservatives try to advocate, and that is their way around “racism.” But, this is foolishness.

  • 14 David Yeagley // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:32 pm   

    And excuse me for using the word “rights.” Comes from hanging out with Constitutionalists…

  • 15 David Yeagley // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:33 pm   

    Smile, to we have to have every race in the world here in America to “demonstrate” equality? Like, America is some kind of juvenile, 7th grade sociology class?

  • 16 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:43 pm   

    In spite of political issues, this would open up consideration for parents as well. Perhaps these people fail to consider themselves great bastions of moral and civic duty. They assume it’s the job of the State. If the State doesn’t perform adequately they must assume they’re SOL. Hmm.

  • 17 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:54 pm   

    Dr. Yeagley,

    I thought your use of the word ‘rights’ was appropriate…I think…I’ll double check :) Maybe I used wrongly?

    “…we have to have every race in the world here in America to “demonstrate” equality? Like, America is some kind of juvenile, 7th grade sociology class?” I’m failing to understand your question. Can you explain?

  • 18 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:57 pm   

    Oops on “rights.” I thought you were @WT 😛

  • 19 whitetrash // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:43 pm   

    “War: I wonder which weapons are more preferred, those of self discipline and voting or guns and ammo.”

    The founders did not achieve freedom by voting the British off of the island.

  • 20 David Yeagley // Nov 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm   

    Smile, when you have to prove your not prejudice, I say that implies you are. Does a small business have to hire a Negro, or a Pakistani, to prove it is not prejudice? Does the United States have to makes laws to allow Arab terrorists in the country to prove the government is “tolerant?”
    This is juvenile logic. This is like a school yard experiment among children.

  • 21 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 7:10 pm   

    Dr. Yeagley,

    You must be referencing something I said?

    Which/what comment of mine do you reference?

    I’m quite clueless what we’re talking about.

  • 22 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 7:12 pm   

    “The founders did not achieve freedom by voting the British off of the island.”

    That is a great statement. How true.

  • 23 David Yeagley // Nov 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm   

    Well, re-read your comments.

    “…we have to have every race in the world here in America to “demonstrate” equality? Like, America is some kind of juvenile, 7th grade sociology class?” I’m failing to understand your question. Can you explain?

  • 24 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 7:16 pm   

    Voting though is important within our Republic and aside from foreign affairs.

  • 25 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 7:18 pm   

    @Dr Yeagley

    I didn’t say that, you did. ??

  • 26 Smile // Nov 4, 2009 at 7:19 pm   

    What are you talking about?

  • 27 John Sandusky // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:43 pm   

    Indians were hosts?

    Perhaps hosts in an alternate, mitigated reality designed to continue the Indian’s ward statues.

    “Hostilities opened in late 1636 after the murder of several colonists. When the Pequots refused to comply with the demands of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the surrender of the guilty and other forms of indemnification, a punitive expedition was led against them by John Endecott, the first resident governor of the colony; although it ended inconclusively, the Pequots retaliated by attacking any settler they could find. Fort Saybrook on the Connecticut River was besieged, and members of the garrison who ventured outside were ambushed and killed. One captured trader, tied to a stake in sight of the fort, was tortured for three days, expiring after his captors flayed his skin with the help of hot timbers and cut off his fingers and toes. Another prisoner was roasted alive.

    The torture of prisoners was indeed routine practice for most Indian tribes, and was deeply ingrained in Indian culture. Valuing bravery above all things, the Indians had little sympathy for those who surrendered or were captured. Prisoners. unable to withstand the rigor of wilderness travel were usually killed on the spot. Among those—Indian or European—taken back to the village, some would be adopted to replace slain warriors, the rest subjected to a ritual of torture designed to humiliate them and exact atonement for the tribe’s losses. Afterward the Indians often consumed the body or parts of it in a ceremonial meal, and proudly displayed scalps and fingers as trophies of victory.”

  • 28 David Yeagley // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:46 pm   

    John, that’s 16 years after the landing. A lot happened. The initial relationship of the New England tribes, as well as those of the Roanoke settlement in the south, was cordial, and host-like. The foreign whites were not murdered on site. They were accommodated. Every hear of “Thanksgiving?” Maybe that’s a stretch, but, the facts as quite clear: The Indians were cordial to the foreign whites.

    I mean, what would you do if foreigners were taking over? To me, it looks like Americans have forgotten the lesson. A strange kind of denial. Whites can’t acknowledge the logic and legitimacy of the Indians without condemning themselves in the process. I think this need not be so. At all.

    America now needs to do as Indians did! America has been kind to everyone. Now it’s time to fight–for what’s left of America.

    Just one thing: Indians are not the enemy!!!! To “attack” Indians at this point is ludicrous, wrong, and terribly weak. It’s like, America has lost to all other enemies, but, America can still stomp on the Indian. That’s the last stand. If all else fails, knock the Indian.

    I wouldn’t call this bravery, or even principle. It’s wrong all the way around.

  • 29 John Sandusky // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:28 pm   

    You call it stomping on Indians. I call it being responsible for ones own keep in the 21 century America.

    Enough is enough, the umbilical cord must be cut. The American taxpayer doing his 40, 50, 60 hours a week, 50 weeks a year for 40 years is the true victim and must be made the center of attention.

    Nationhood supported and funded by a sense of ridiculous guilt is a nation destined to collapse.

  • 30 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 9:07 am   

    Misapplied concepts. Treaties are not the expression of guilt. Your historical understanding is inaccurate, because you’re applying conservative principles in the wrong context. It is a conservative principle to keep your word, is it not?

    Your only question could be: were the treaty settlements aggreed to out of white compassion for Indians (guilt-based, perhaps), or were they arrived upon because Congress ran out of money? (Indian wars were incredibly expensive. The Plains wars, especially, were like America’s 19th century Afghanistans or Iraqs).

    Were the treaties a concession on the part of the government? Or were they earned by Indian warriors?

    In either case, a treaty is a treaty. Apply your conservative principles to illegal immigrants, Arab and Pakistani Muslims.

  • 31 bear // Nov 5, 2009 at 9:31 am   

    “Nationhood supported and funded by a sense of ridiculous guilt is a nation destined to collapse.”

    A Nation that fails to honor it’s promises is not much of a Nation. Groups that believe doing away with treaty comittments , or keeping their word are organizations that hopefully will collapse.

    Good article Doc, this is one of the best articles you have written. It sickens me that Indians need to feel the need to forsake their conservative ideals for liberal ties, simply because the Conservative groups seek to erase Native Americans even from their thought processes. Compare the money shelled out yearly to foreign nations who have no footing/ basis/ or loyalty to the U.S. to the amount of Tax dollars expended on Indian Country and you will find a vast difference.

  • 32 bear // Nov 5, 2009 at 9:44 am   

    “Nationhood supported and funded by a sense of ridiculous guilt is a nation destined to collapse.”

    This would include Japan, Korea, most of Europe, Iraq, and countless countries who have been rebuilt by dollars from American tax payers for rebuilding their countries following the ravages of war. Surely the Nations that lost everything for the existance of the United states are wholy undeserving of anything!!!! Makes perfect sense to me! On this I do agree, just sever the umbilical cord, give us back our land, and keep your’ tax dollars, and Government organization and set up shop elsewhere. I am sorry but I don’t buy into the idea of taxpayers as victims. Few Nations have profitted as much as America. That would be why many still desire to come here to our land after 5oo years -and live on (Indian lands) to live and generate a profit for their families. I don’t call them victims….I call them wealthy in every aspect at Indians expense.

  • 33 Speelyi // Nov 5, 2009 at 11:36 am   

    While I disagree with the notion of placing White Protestant American Nationalism on a pedestal, I do think that the political binary is an imperfect tool for NDNs.

    First though I would like to challenge the sweeping generalizations concerning the construction of NDN identity in a Pan-Indian sense. There are over 500 federally recognized tribes, in multiple regions with different histories. Some are conservative in their political ties like the Oklahoma Choctaw. Others lean more liberal as has been noted.

    As far as the treaty obligations that the US has…the treaties are contracts between sovereigns. The Tribes reserved rights (fishing, religious, etc.), territory and political identity in return for an exchange for ceding a larger territory. Both sides opted out of armed conflict due to mutual benefit. Where these have been/are being breached is in terms of the fiduciary responsibility of the US…see the ongoing Cobell case as the primary example.

    As for a “White America” there was a group that tried to establish a compound at Hayden Lake Idaho…but I jest…sort of. The point I would make here is that “White America” is re-coded Westernism of the same flavor as Europe. The discerning factor is that the US is a setter nation. Of course as a means of generating their own Nationalism there must be an ahistoricity of narrative originating at the East Coast of what is now called the US. The basic philosophies (in the social contract sense) are derived from Europe, the calendar is Roman and the broader epistemology is Greek.

    In other words what makes the US unique is that there is limited co-habitation between the beneficiaries of the dominant narrative and those that has moved along the hegemon at cost.

    Now that very co-habitation is what is under assault here rather roundly. Whether it is in the segregation policy proponed, or the deportation of those deemed suspect. In other nations that were colonized the model was to export the colonizer. The end result was not successful, but the economic structures of imperialism were not successfully excised either.

    My 2 Cents


  • 34 keyboard jockey // Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 pm   

    Remember when I was describing this country’s bedrock? It’s not European. I don’t know if they conservatives unconsciously recognize where our “individual” spirit comes from? Individuality didn’t come from Europe with groups like the Puritans, they are very good example of conformist. Americans like individuality – much emphasis is put on the contribution of single individuals.

  • 35 Thrasymachus // Jan 7, 2010 at 1:34 pm   

    “Conservatives” today have abandoned true conservatism. So many cultural and moral prerequisites to conservatism — things almost taken for granted by the American Founding Fathers — have been forsaken by these morons who continue to style themselves “conservatives.”

    As I see it, the WASP (former) elite has simply been won over to the liberal cause in everything but economics.

    To name just a few things the original 13 colonies believed in and legislated:

    (1) Abortion was illegal in all 13 colonies.
    (2) Miscegenation with Negroes was likewise unlawful.
    (3) Nationhood was understood as something pertaining to ethnic, tribal, or racial roots — not just a pledged to be a good citizen.
    (4) Entanglements with foreign nations in the form of alliances were unacceptable. (George Washington made this clear).

    The whole root of the problem with the White Race is that Whites today have lost the fundamental knowledge of just what a “nation” is (not to mention what a “marriage” and a family are)!

    Conservatives who resent and attempt to eradicate time-honored promises are not conservatives, for the only thing they wish to conserve is their bank accounts.

    I would like to see both American Indian and White European nations preserved. They have, both alike, a natural right to perpetuate themselves and to continue to exist as true nations.

    The “anti-racism” dogma is not really about ending persecution of people based on race; it is primarily a means to reducing individual men and women (and even children) into atomized units which must each fend for themselves without the support of the community. Yet religion grew up as the spirit of the tribe, and the individual was dependent on the tribe, as it was dependent on him or her.

  • 36 Pollynkorect // Jan 13, 2010 at 12:55 pm   

    As a Southerner, I am jealous of the Indian’s reservations. The U.S. government defeated the Conferacy, too, and I want my own Southern Reservation, please! Just think: a place for Southern Whites to call home, where no one but Southern Whites can settle and live. Our own racially separated communities, government and schools. Please! Give me a reservation. I want in.

You must log in to post a comment.