Confessions of a Contard
My name is Matt Parrott, and I am a Conservative
My reputation within our circles is largely as a critic of conservatives and conservatism within America's nationalist movement. I'm a socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, a critic of Trump, and a dogged opponent of all sorts of paleocon and neocon influences on the subculture.
And yet, sooner or later, the mask slips and I'm exposed as a conservative. There are two reasons why this is the case; one organic and one formulaic. I am a middle-aged trucker from rural small town Indiana. I am "tribally trumpy," no matter how much I may rail against Donald Trump and his buffoonery.
Even if I may agree with CNN libtards instead of OANN contards on a particular matter, it is an internal critique of my contard cohorts. America is experiencing the early stages of an ethnogenic bifurcation and it's my conviction that the White, provincial, conservative side of that process is doing it wrong -- not that it's the wrong side.
That's the organic reason. I could never be chummy with beltway liberals even if they're correct on specific matter because they're my opponents. They're out to get me. Their larger project is one which aims to humiliate, impoverish, and ethnically cleanse people who look, act, and smell like me. I don't care that some may share my heritage or opinions. Their vision for the future is to betray that heritage in pursuit of a neoliberal imperial vision of identity entirely alien to me and mine.
To be "conservative" in America is decreasingly about ideology or behavior and increasingly a simple tribal matter. Liberals take a lot of pleasure in pointing out that trump supporters don't think or behave all that conservatively by any 20th century understanding of politics. They're correct, but they're missing the point. It’s no longer the 20th century.
Much can be said about the nature and trajectory of that ethnogenic process. It's largely organic, with most people finding out which half of America they belong to when they get canceled by the other half (cancel culture works both ways, and it's not a bad thing). However, aside from the broad demographic descriptions, there is some theory at the root of it; whether one understands our country in terms of its de jure constitution or whether one understands our country in terms of its de facto constitution.
This has been spelled out in depth in Christopher Caldwell’s Age of Entitlement, which I highly recommend. The two sides don’t fully understand or admit the conflict, which has been building for generations. The Civil Rights Act isn’t compatible with the United States Constitution. One either has our traditional civil liberties or one has the large and ever-growing assortment of new “civil rights.”
One either has freedom of (and from) association, a bedrock civil liberty upon which all others rest, or one is subject to the large and growing state apparatus that exists to regulate and dictate with whom and how we associate in our public and private lives. It’s all very incoherent right now, with both sides still insisting that there can be some synthesis of the two conflicting metapolitical frameworks. Republicans insist that they support the Civil Rights Movement, but that it has been corrupted. Democrats insist that they support the United States Constitution but it has been corrupted. They’re both lying and will admit as much in the turbulent decades to come.
This is all very personal and lived for me. In Caldwell’s book, he describes Roberta Kaplan’s role in forcing the next step of the Rainbow Constitution’s mandate against the will of the American people and their legal tradition. I was directly subjected to her barratry against civil liberties, wasting an entire day of my life being grilled on whether I held political opinions that are no longer legally defensible under the new Rainbow Constitution (I do). The only thing that saved my ass was that it was a jury trial, containing jurors who weren’t as dismissive of my traditional civil liberties as Kaplan & Company had hoped.
Kaplan, Lithwick, and the rest of the Rainbow Constitution’s co-conspirators failed to weaponize an antique reconstruction-era federal conspiracy charge against free assembly. This is fortunate, but it was one battle we won in a losing war. Unless and until America’s conservatives understand and accept that they must oppose the entire Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Movement, openly, vocally, and directly, the better half of America will continue to deliver nothing but trumpy temper tantrums and tiresome tirades against “wokeness” while they’re dispossessed, disinherited, and discarded by the globalist cosmopolitan elites, their managerial lackeys, and their subservient mobs.
Civil Rights legislation seemed innocuous enough, but its denial of freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and innocence until proven guilty all directly negate Anglo-American common law tradition. They don’t merely corrupt it, they obviate it, and as long as the Civil Rights Act and its related legislation stands, the United States Constitution isn’t our operative constitution. We’re captives of a Rainbow Constitution where straight White males are not full citizens with equal standing before the courts.
Looking back over my work, I hadn’t made a point to state what was obvious to me but which may not be obvious at all to those who’ve followed my work. I am an American (amerikaaner, if preferred), speak and think within the Anglo-American social, cultural, and legal tradition, and believe that my body of written work and public activism is within and fully compatible with that tradition. I am a conservative.