Racism and Conservatism

An unsightly matter must be discussed, and has before, and shall be again. My pen will not grow weary of truths told ten thousand times, and I pray the reader will not.

The Left reasons that since they promote egalitarianism, any opposition to their policies can only be prompted by racism, which they see as opposite and mutually exclusive.

Because Conservatism opposes egalitarianism, they are routinely and ubiquitously accused of racism by the Left.

It is a sad irony that real racists, overhearing this clamor, often come to the conclusion that Conservatives are natural allies.

When Conservatives reject their offers of alliance with horror and disgust, the racists, bewildered and hurt, conclude that the Conservatives act against their own best interests, either due to folly or cowardice, or other character flaw.

The reason for the rejection of the alliance is based on the strength of conservative principles, not the weakness of conservative character.

To understand this, let us remind ourselves, yet again, of the distinction between egalitarianism and conservatism, and of conservatism and racism.

Egalitarianism, at as Leftwing dialectic has it, refers to the idea that all differences in honor, wealth, success or other reward never spring from differences in virtue, merit, talent.

Likewise, failure never springs from vice, ineptness, incapacity. To say otherwise is intolerant, discriminatory, judgmental.

Note that this is dialectic, not reasoning. Reasoning is a thought process to leading to the conclusion that necessarily follows from the assumptions. Dialectic is a mystical process, where an idea or thesis, colliding with its opposite or antithesis, creates enlightenment via self-contradiction, called synthesis.

The thesis of egalitarianism holds that life is a roulette wheel that should distribute rewards blindly but randomly hence evenhandedly: Brainlessness and scholarship should be granted equal diplomas, scrooges be honored with equal testimonials as philanthropists, cowards would receive medals as many and as bright as those of heroes.

The antithesis is the fact that this is simply not so. No two men, no two groups, no two tribes, nations or races enjoy equal rewards in life, nor could they.

A logical reasoning process at this stage would reject the assumption on which egalitarianism is based. Reason concludes that talents and virtues differ from one man to the next, and differ as well in the tribes and nations and races whose legacy and history he inherits, not to mention  differences in accidents of fortune and misfortune, and other factors beyond human control.

Life is unfair. But criminalizing success and stealing valor redoubles rather than cures that unfairness.

Dialectic, however, rejects reason and instead invites the imagination to concoct a way to preserve the paradox of egalitarianism and yet to explain it away. This is called a synthesis.

The synthesis of egalitarianism is to embrace unreality, and to adopt a worldview of totalitarian brutality, paranoia, elitism, megalomania, moral inversion, and, in a word, madness.

The unreality embraced is this:

If all men are born equal, yet some men have what others have not, the haves must be despoiling the have-nots. If no specific act of theft or plunder can be seen, it must exist unseen, as a mystical vision or “inner truth” unrelated to reason and reality.

Hence, inner truth trumps reality. Truth, reason, and reality become optional, if not enemies, and whatever is based on this foundation is likewise discarded: beauty, virtue, justice, love of justice.

Without justice, there is no equality of man, nor supremacy of God. Without virtue, there is no brotherhood of man, nor fatherhood of God. Without beauty, there is no love of man nor love of God.

When truth is untrue, words are meaningless, the world is mad. When reality is unreal, and life is formless and void.

Such is the fruit of the simple premise of egalitarianism.

Let us recall the steps of this downfall.

Egalitarianism proposes that the diligent and negligent alike should be granted equal wage, wise and foolish be granted equal esteem.

And this thesis applies not just to the distribution of wealth in the economy, but to any privilege, benefit, honor, dignity the envy of man can imagine.

For example, having a member to represent one’s own group appear in shows and plays of popular entertainments, stories and comic books,  is a seen as a type of benefit. It is a privilege. As such, it must be distributed evenhandedly. Long-established characters are now to be played or portrayed by minorities, but without any actor, writer, artist actually being called upon to do the work of winning the audience. The reward of audience goodwill is expected to appear without expenditure of effort or talent.

For a more extreme example, sodomite and catamite would and should be considered man and wife, and receive the same social honors and legal status. Lustful youths would and should be sexually attracted in equal measure to a modest yet nubile virgin as to a cross-dressing eunuch in lipstick with silicon bosom affixed to his chest.

One consequence of this proposition is totalitarianism.

If you were in a roulette game, and every spin of the wheel brought astronomical rewards to chaste Anglo-Saxon males from Christian nations while perverts, minorities, women and heathens won smaller rewards, or none, you would assume the Anglos had monkeyed with the wheel to win what rightfully belonged to equally to all.

The obvious rectification would be to take their winnings and redistribute them among those being cheated and deceived.

Such rectification necessitates totalitarianism, since no limited government could reach into every area of life where rewards are uneven.

A second consequence is brutalization.

This totalitarianism, remember, is not erected merely to benefit the despot in his cronies, but to engineer society toward egalitarianism. All aspects of civilization are in the jaws of the beast.

Socialism will rectify inequities of wealth by confiscation, nationalization, redistribution; Social justice will rectify inequities of representation by enforced diversity; Differences between cultures will be replaced by multiculturalism; Friction between denominations will be replaced by atheism; Morality will be replaced by tolerance. Speech codes will rectify inequities of honor and dignity, by eliminating all words expressing judgments.

Speech rectification includes promoting vulgarity over common decency and common courtesy. Normalization of discourtesy, vile language, graffiti, indecency, public defecation and pornography are central to this strategy.

Everything from art to architecture to dance must be rendered brutal, crude, and primitive.

The third consequence is paranoia.

No one player in the roulette wheel of life is in a position to rig the game; hence the whole system of rules by which the game is played must be rigged. In other words, the injustice must be invisible and systemic. It must be a conspiracy too cunning for the benighted to see, a lie too big for the gullible to doubt.

One’s loses and disappointments in life are never blamed on oneself, nor on adversities beyond human control. Blame always falls on the invisible, worldwide, all-powerful yet secret conspiracy.

The fourth consequence is elitism.

Any loser who thought the game fair, and takes his loses in the spirit of good sportsmanship, is merely a dupe, or, worse, a traitor blindly supporting the very game designed to bilk him.

Hence, egalitarianism ultimately requires there be a sharp division between the enlightened and the benighted. The enlightened see the invisible conspiracy. They are awakened to it. The benighted are those who continue to support their own systemic oppression. Offering the benighted more freedom merely grants him more opportunity for self-harm, which diminishes his true freedom. His freedom must be curtailed in the name of freedom.

Only the Enlightened have the enlightenment to curtail the freedoms of the benighted: hence it is a power that is theirs by right.

A fifth consequence is megalomania.

The enlightened arrogate to themselves a godlike status merited by their godlike goodness, wisdom, compassion. Theirs is to define good and evil.

Hence, man is no longer man. The self-anointed are gods; the rest of us are beasts.

A sixth consequence is moral inversion: what is evil is good, and what is good is evil.

Another act of dialectic takes place at this step. The thesis is that the enlightened, due to their own very high estimation of their own enlightenment, are gods; whereas and all other men are livestock, to be herded for the greater good out of their dim and worthless lives into the glories of utopia, like it or not. These are reverse Christs, who nail the sinner to the cross to save him, and avoiding any wounds in their own soft and uncalloused hands.

The facts once again show an antithesis, which is that their neighbors would not willingly grant them, nor any mortal, such untrammeled power to work such irrational ends.

The synthesis invented in the face of this paradox is to invert all authority. The enlightened deserve the crown and halo of godhood, because they want to have it and do not have it. The benighted are foolish and wicked not to give it to them, and the mere fact that the current benighted establishment of laws and customs, the institutions of the world, have the authority the enlightened lack, means such authority is illegitimate.

Hence, whoever lacks power should have it because he lacks it, and whoever has power should lack it because he has it. The concept is simple.

The concept is so simple that the egalitarians remain in an eternal posture and pose of rebellion, even regarding institutions, such as colleges and popular entertainment, where their hegemony is achieved.

But an idiotic irony, they continue to rebel against the establishment long after they are established as the establishment.

Contrariwise, reason says that no just man wields power where he lacks authority. A just king is authorized to use the power entrusted to him to protect the people, uphold the right, serve the common good. A tyrant decrees that whatever he decrees shall be right and good, and authority be damned. A tyrant needs no authority, for he has power.

Because their aims are so noble, and because all power under heaven and on earth is theirs by right, anything and everything done to wrest power from the benighted and arrogate it to the enlightened is enlightened, hence justified.

If you are a god, and your enemies are all devils, any devilry you inflict on the devils is godly.

Hence the enlightened are freed from all oaths, rules, loyalty and fealty to their ancestors, teachers, leaders, and laws. They are as anarchic as angels, who live without law or need of law.

No authority applies to them, nor hinders them.

At the same time, whatever they decree to be reality is real: men are women, adults are children, children are fetal tissue, animals are people, mothers are birth-givers, debt is wealth, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

As God, merely by speaking the word, created day and night, earth and sky, land and sea, sun and stars and living things, so, too, can the enlightened, merely by speaking nonsense, banish light and logic, law and life.

This inversion of authority involves moral inversion as well. The enlightened are bound by no laws and held to no standards, no does any standard apply to any ally or useful idiot of theirs. Gods can do no wrong.

The benighted, contrariwise, are irredeemably depraved and evil, nor is there possibility of atonement nor redemption. There is no such thing as an honorable enemy nor any honest opposing opinion. Devils can do no right. The Geneva conventions do not apply.

Words also fail.

Logic would say that the equal enforcement of laws blind to faction and favoritism is the opposite of this: each man getting his just deserts.

This is the ordinary meaning of the world “equal,” at least, when speaking of political qualities and not mathematical quantities. The Left delights in conflating equality and egalitarianism, using one word for both, despite that their meanings are directly opposite.

The word “equity” has been recently introduced to be misused for a similar purpose. This is a legal term referring to those extraordinary cases where precedent and regular procedure must be set aside in the interests of higher justice. Again, the Left uses the term in the opposite sense of the true meaning. When they say “equity”, they mean inequity.

But departing from the honest meaning of words, and the abandonment of logic itself, is the seventh and final consequence of this whole worldview. It is nonsense in the mouth and madness in the brain.

Mass deception, mass censorship, mass expropriation, mass arrests, mass murder, orchestrated famine, genocide, and all the evils of the Twentieth Century, including the return of slavery and polygamy, sodomy and pederasty and human sacrifice, and all the inhuman evils of the pagan world, issue from the simple seed of egalitarianism.

Such is the likely, if not inevitable, consequences of egalitarianism.

Conservatism, on the other hand, follows reason.

Reason shows that truth is true, rationality is rational, and virtue is good. Because truth is true, the word of man must be honest, and song and poem or any works of beauty must be beautiful.

Virtue includes fortitude, temperance, justice, prudence.

Fortitude demands the willingness to fight and die for the love of one’s ancestors and the honor of one’s flag. Such civic duties and public expressions of respect to one’s nation and her traditions this love and honor requires are also encompassed by patriotism in its true sense. Such is the main virtue of those who serve in war, and keep the peace, and all men of the sword.

Temperance demands the ambition and powerlust of man be moderated and curtailed, so as to prohibit the subjection of one group by another, or the enslavement of one man by another. Because temperance, in time of plenty, is most easily undermined by ease and luxury, such is the main virtue of landowners, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and all men of the coin.

Justice demands patience and impartiality in the administration of the laws. To this virtue let leaders, judges, jurors, and all citizens who speak on civic matters attend.

Prudence demands we acknowledge reality, including the weaknesses and ambitions of man. When the fool in his heart says there is no God, wisdom demands reverence and obedience to the Creator. When the light of heaven is absent, there is no justice, temperance, or fortitude. Let every man who prays, pray for prudence, that his faith not falter.

Clerks and laity alike must attend this virtue, for democracy cannot prevail unless the common man is a repository of common sense.

Conservativism, by acknowledging the equal dignity of all men, and our equal predilection to vice, faction, and ambition, therefore requires changes to laws and customs be made prudently hence with due care, and not for light or transient reasons.

This prudence leads to three basic pragmatic sentiments: First, no one is to be trusted with absolute power.

Second, the sad lessons of history are not to be forgotten, lest the infatuations of airy theories, unanchored, unproved, unhinged, carry us away. Let every man be wary of the madnesses of crowds.

Third, long-established institutions have withstood the test of time. On the one hand, this means such institutions must be continually changed to correct the encroachment of corruption; on the other, they but may not be changed rapidly nor radically, that is, not in ways alien to their original purposes and first principles. Meanwhile, human nature cannot be changed. Utopias are always dystopian.

These sentiments aside, conservative logic leads to certain fixed conclusions.

If no one, no matter how benevolent his purposes, can be trusted with absolute power, a Caesar can never be crowned nor deified. Totalitarianism is not an option.

Rule of law is the only other alternative. Rule of law cannot exist unless the laws are impartial hence equally enforced; which cannot exist except in a culture whose customs uphold the dignity of man. Dignity requires courtesy to men and chivalry to woman. Vulgarity in speech, ugliness in art and song, must be moderate, and minimal.

Equality eschews elitism, hence megalomania, hence moral inversion. Conservatism cleaves to reality, hence rejects the paranoia, jabberwocky words, and general madness of egalitarianism.

Christians cannot elevate any man to divine honors, nor rewrite the laws of morality at will.

Not every man in a Christian nation need be Christian for the nation to uphold the rule of law and the standards of moral sanity; but the nation as a whole must uphold Christian virtues, including monotheism and monogamy, as an unspoken, unquestioned consensus. Once that is lost, the worship of some glorious leader is all but inevitable.

In prechristian days, the Caesars of Rome were literally worshipped as gods, as were Pharaohs of Egypt and Priest-kings of Sumer; in the Muslim world, no distinction can be drawn between secular and spiritual authority; in the Communist world, there is no spiritual authority. Among postchristians, a secular version of such adulation is proffered to any charismatic demagogue.

Conservatives hold faith with the majesty of truth; the impartiality of reason; the objectivity of reality; the authority of virtue; the verity of beauty; the dignity of man; the equality of the law; the love of patriots. And we hold faith with Christ.

In sum, the conservative worldview is incompatible with egalitarianism at every point and utterly antithetical to it.

The egalitarians, by the very nature of the mental trap in which they imprison themselves, cannot see nor imagine any legitimate reason, aside from ill-will, indifference to suffering, or malice to motivate opposition to the evenhanded distribution of all life’s goods to all men.

By their logic, the despotism and brutality their world necessitates are merely necessary collateral damage serving the greater good; the elitism, megalomania, and moral inversion are merely seeing life as it is; utopia is not only feasible, but near at hand. All that is required is that evildoers stand aside, and let the re-education and eugenics re-engineer human nature.

If one race can be found to be statistically under-represented in any field, or one denomination, or one sex, or one sexual deviancy, this can only be blamed on racism, misogyny, or phobic mental illness.

Every other nation on Earth does prefer their native race to any newcomers, and, like it or not, has every right to do so. England is, after all, the home of Englishmen, Ireland of Irishmen, French of Frenchman, China of Chinamen. And these lands should be for them. They are theirs.

But the United States of America from the first was a collection of sovereign colonies of different backgrounds and denominations, and grew by being a melting pot, where the denominational and ethnic difference of the immigrants were foresworn in the name of an alliance to a proposition that all men are created equal.

All other kingdoms and republics in earth are tribes and states, nations and empires. America is a creed and a congregation.

Hence, the need for racism to explain the lack of perfect uniformity of success in all fields of all races and groups in America far outstrips the available supply. Ours is the only fundamentally non-racist nation on Earth.

To correct for this, the egalitarians expand the meaning of the word “racist” beyond its real meaning. The word really means race-hatred enacted into law or supported by custom.

They expand the meaning to include any awareness of general differences between groups of men, as well as any lack of awareness. To be a patriot is as racist as to be colorblind. In their mouth, the word means everything, hence means nothing.

Accidents of fortune beyond human control do indeed play a role in distributing the pleasures and pains of life, but the virtues within human control are meant to minimize the influence of fortune. Virtue is meant to overcome the obstacles of misfortune via persistence, honesty, diligence, genius, and, in general, the habituation to the laws and customs of successful civilizations.

The blessings of God are distributed by divine wisdom beyond human accounting, but one blessing freely given to man is the ability to pursue virtue, which may render us worthy of being blessed.

History has granted some tribes and nations advantages of climate and resources with an uneven hand, and laws and customs of the more civilized win exponential advantages over the less civilized, whether barbarian wastelands unfamiliar with civilization, or socialist hellholes who rejected it.

A child has no vote nor voice as to whether his father be rich and wise and mighty, nor poor and foolish and meek, any more than if his tribe or nation be. But these things cannot be cured by despoiling the rich, or silencing the wise, or crippling the mighty.

Seeing the limits of government, the Conservative concludes that life’s ills cannot be cured by Caesar, no, not even if Caesar is given the unlimited power of a despot, and the divine honors of a god.

Conservatism requires men each be judged on his own merit. Likewise, Conservatism allows that certain races or groups can be praised or dispraised for having common characteristics often found among them, nor it is irrational nor unfair to make generalizations nor general judgments on groups when making a decision that applies to the whole group.

This includes the rare cases where a decision or policy decision is needed affecting a group, but which cannot be done on a case by case basis.

There is nothing unfair nor imprudent with proposing more police and prisons be devoted to neighborhoods whose majority displays a history of criminal violence above those of more peaceful neighborhoods.

Racial profiling is not an act of race hatred, it is mere prudence.

Likewise, when debating immigration policy regarding what races and nations to admit into one’s homeland, is it unwise not to take into account commonly found racial and ethnic characteristics.

It is no thoughtcrime to note that Negroes commit more crime than do an equal number of Chinamen, hence to avoid Harlem when traveling, and take a shortcut through Chinatown. One cannot meet and greet every member of a given neighborhood before deciding to walk through it. Such decisions cannot be made on an individual basis; generalization is inevitable.

But neither is it correct to conclude that all individuals of the race obey any given statistical average or general rule. Such is a generalization, which is useful only when generalization is called for. Averages are just that: averages.

The Left find it useful to call it racist, or, specifically, to coin the term “cultural appropriation,” to admire and mimic the innovations of another race, including such harmless things as diet, dress, or hairstyle.

Such accusations are frivolous, meant merely to inflame hatred and to express hatred.

Any sincere practitioner of cultural isolation would restrict democracy to Greece, written law to Mesopotamia, and telegraphs, telephones, electric lights, steamships, submarines, airplanes, atomic power, and moonrockets to America. How Americans would have done these things without borrowing democracy and written law from overseas is left as an exercise for the reader.

Many a youth, hearing perfectly ordinary and sensible things called racism, while the so-called foes of racism arrange segregated dormitories and graduations on campuses, and hearing himself called a racist for being colorblind to race, or voting against high taxes or socialized medicine, soon comes to conclude that if racism means all these fine things, it cannot be so bad.

None of this is racism. Making a generalized judgment is stereotyping, that is, the default assumptions based on past behavior that it is reasonable to apply in the absence of contrary information. Stereotyping becomes bigotry when and only when contrary information will not correct a hasty default assumption.

A single example must serve: a man of my acquaintance made much ado over the statistical differences in standardized IQ tests between Caucasian and Negro, and concluded that the low-IQ race could not be trusted to coexist peaceably with their betters in civil society. The superiors must rule the inferior by dint of their superiority.

But when it was pointed out to him that Jews scored better on average than Christians, rather than accept this information to reach the conclusion that Jews should rule, he accused all and sundry of a conspiracy to falsify Jewish score results. He claimed to be making a generalization, in a spirit of openminded scientific neutrality; but his unwillingness to change conclusions when evidence demanded it cast his claim in doubt.

Such is the subtle but real distinction between generalization and racism: a small one, but crucial. One footstep off the brink makes all the difference.

Hatred, like infatuation, selects its conclusions and accepts only confirmatory evidence, rejecting whatever might challenge the conclusion. A lad infatuated with a lithesome lass sees no flaw in her, for he will not look; likewise, hatred sees no good in those to be dehumanized.

Racism, properly so called, is the political philosophy assigning legal rights and privileges in society into a two-tiered system of superior and inferior by race, for the purpose of trampling the rights of the inferiors, enslaving, expelling, or exterminating them. It is politicized race hatred.

The two elements of race hatred are retaliation and eugenics. The Nazis sought to punish and destroy the Jews as a race, for example, on the theory that the Jews were collectively responsible for the setbacks the Germans suffered from the Depression, the Great War, and from Bolsheviks. Their claim was that this was being done to preserve the German spirit, bloodline, and sovereignty, and to protect the innocent against bankers and communists.

Margaret Singer of Planned Parenthood fame sought to obliteration of the genetically unfit, the weak, retarded, or criminally-minded, by sterilization and abortion rather than by the gas chamber, and she considered all Negroes to be unfit. She is a prime example of a eugenicist, whose motivation seems to be a visceral disgust with whomever is crippled, ungainly, criminally inclined. This is a hatred deeper than mere hatred.

Racial Separatism is a less violent version that merely wishes to put lesser races away from them, in order to have the unfit kept safely at a distance, rather than culling them by sterilization or mass murder.

Racists in America are likely to consider themselves Conservative on two grounds, both of them foolish. The first is that, like the Nazis, they imagine their role is to protect America from the threat of lesser races, and see this as a means of conserving the culture of the nation; the second is that Enemy propaganda accuses Conservatives of racism night and day, without cease, and so the Racists think there must be something to it.

The first is foolish because preserving the White Race in North America, driving Yellow and Black conservatives away, while allowing White Leftists to continue to destroy the nation, is counterproductive, and can only shred the very foundational principles on which Constitutionalism, and, indeed, Christendom, are based. The second is foolish because it trusts the blatant lies.

In the same way that Egalitarianism necessarily leads to totalitarianism, brutality, paranoia, elitism, megalomania and moral inversion, so, too, does Racism, and for the same reasons: Brutality is necessary, for slaveowners and eugenicists can and must come to regard their victims as subhuman, and subject to the lash, the abortion chair, or the gas chamber. Paranoia, since the hatred race is either blamed or feared. Elitism, for its severs master race from lesser races. Megalomania, for the regime arrogates to itself powers of life and death over the subhumans.

Despotism and Moral inversion, thankfully, can be limited to certain areas. Here is an unsightly irony: of the two, a Racist regime is able in theory to be less antithetical to humanity than an Egalitarian one, in that the reach of the government and the degree of relentless savagery needed to prevent miscegeny, or to exile, rob, enslave or murder a minority, is less than the relentless savagery needed to enslave the world, erase all human history, and re-engineer human nature.

Inevitably, Racists are wounded and shocked when they discover Conservatives rejecting any alliance with them, and, unwilling to believe that Conservatives stand on principles or have any principles, conclude that this reluctance is due to being foolish, or craven, or blind, or stupid.

The Racist may consider himself merely a purer form of Conservative, hence more extreme, but not different in kind. He see the Left unwilling and unable to reject their extremist wing, and wonders why the Right will not extend to him the same courtesy.

Simple enough: the extreme Left and the moderate Left want the same thing and act toward the same goals. Moderate Leftism is merely lazy-mindedness, retaining some sentimental attachment to remnants of Christian or American virtues, history, or culture, but in nowise rejecting the radical implications of the Moral Inversion their worldview implies.

Whereas the Conservatives and the Racists want opposites things, even if we have a common enemy. The Racist, in order to conserve the alleged racist past of America, simply has to rewrite history, sponge the words from the base of the Statue of Liberty, ignore the plain meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and find some sort of legal ambiguity in antique documents to justify the notion that Southern slaveownership was somehow in keeping with the principles justifying rebellion against the British Crown.

Of course, the Racist is ready to accept the absurdities of the 1619 Project, and everything Enemy propaganda can spew. If America is based on racism, and yet is the greatest force for good history has ever known, and the sole bulwark preserving freedom from Communism or Jihad, the Racist will conclude, once again, racism is not so bad. Indeed, the years since the Civil Rights Act ended Jim Crow are also the years of the greatest social decay and moral corruption — so if the Left are correct that America is based on racism, the Racist will ask whether is follows that departing from that base might lead to America’s downfall?

In short, the Racist in America has to somehow make up a false history to explain or explain away how the only melting pot nation on earth was and should be an ethnostate. Monarchists and Caesaropapists wishing America would return to a single established national Church, or crown an Emperor, actually have an easier argument to make.

In reality, Racism, like Communism, is merely another form of Collectivism, which is fundamentally and inevitably opposed to truth, reason, reality, and virtue, offensive to justice, impractical and arbitrary, and against both the America ideals and Christian teaching.

Racism and the US Constitution are fundamentally incompatible. The Civil War was a living proof of that. Racism and Christendom are fundamentally incompatible. World War Two was living proof of that. We share no goals with Racists.

On the other hand, Populism (as we see in Trump) and Conservatism can cooperate for our mutual benefit, since, aside from his promotion of homosex and freaksex, we do share goals.

Conservatism does not share goals with any White version of Black Lives Matters. Such are and would be fundamentally collectivist and anti-constitutional movement, and, in the end, antichristian.

The devil does not care about black and white. He does not care who strikes the first blow. All he wants is the hate. Hate disguises itself as righteous indignation, by means of spiritual camouflage.

Hence, reason, cold reason, must take the time to distinguish the two, and sever real from counterfeit. Reason, for now, is the unique property of the Conservative mind, and no other political movement current or in contemplation mounts any contrary claim to it.