This is a listing of the various types, and sub-classifications of American conservatism today. As one delves deeper, one can clearly see that modern American conservatism comes in many types, shapes and flavors. There is no “one size fits all” American conservative.

Here we discuss 30+ different types of American conservative.

The key to the success of any Presidential Conservative candidate or President is to be able to unite all these disparate groups under one singular banner. Is it even possible?

[1] The members of the “conservative movement.”

We start right off, addressing one of the most common themes used in the American mainstream media. That is, being a member of the “Conservative Movement”. This is generally a catch-all phrase that has no real meaning. However, it is useful by progressive liberal Democrats to single out and demonize non-Marxists.

• Ex-Republican reveals how the Conservative Movement is a scam.
• There is a dangerous trend that exists in the fringes of the Modern Orthodox Jewish world to imitate these errors of the Conservative movement.
• The Dangers of the Gay Conservative Movement

While the mainstream American progressive-liberal media likes to talk about this “Conservative Movement”, most actual conservatives haven’t a clue as to what they are actually referring to. We kind of feel offended that we are so often labeled by the ignorant elites inside the urban centers.

In actually, and functionally, it is usually associated with a constellation of single-issue nonprofit organizations. All of which were singled out by former President Obama, for IRS targeting and harassment from 2008 to 2016.

As such, they were, thus effectively suppressed from political dialog during the 2012 election, which permitted the rousing reelection of Barrack Obama for another four year term. As well as to allow other conservative movements to arise to the forefront.

• IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservatives
• President Obama’s IRS Scandal: Seven Years & Counting
• In Targeting Political Groups, I.R.S. Crossed Party Lines
• Another court rebukes IRS for targeting conservatives
• Obama IRS Scandal

Most of these nonprofits sprung up in the 1970s and still exist in the form on single-issue conservatism. These non-profits include (and are not limited to);

• Gun Rights, Second Amendment supporters, and their ilk.
• Pro-life, anti-abortion, and anti-death-penalty folk.
• Taxpayer rights, anti-16th amendment people, and transparency movements.
• The Right to work movement, and other labor issues.
• Privacy movements, and other 4th amendment movements.

Functionally, most “single issue” Conservative movements revolve around the American Federal Bill of Rights. All of the movements can be traced back to a point where the Bill of Rights is being violated.

• For instance, consider the privacy issue. The Utah Data Collection Center would not exist at all if the 4th amendment were being followed as it was written.

• The idea that a person can smoke Marijuana is a tenth amendment issue. The idea that there should be zero censorship, and no such thing as “hate speech” is a first amendment issue.

• The right to bear arms is a second amendment issue, and the various issues today related to individual freedoms and violations thereof can be traced to fifth amendment construction.

[2] The Conservative “Intellectual” movement.

This group mainly consists of the well-written and published American Conservatives. It consists of writers, scholars, and others whose journalistic and political work deals mainly with ideas. These are the folk that will argue up and down, and sideways all elements of a particular issue through academic parsing.

They are the “Ivory Tower” folk who tend to be quite bright but not really very practical. These are the conservative people that scream bloody murder when President Trump tries to implement an EO to stop some out-of-control situation simply because previous precedents were not clear. Their utility was too murky.

In real life, when confronted by an armed robber, they would hold up their index finger to the robber. Tell them to “wait a minute”, while they dial 911. Then wait until the police arrive, rather than deal with the robber themselves. They are that out of touch with reality.

[3] The Conservative “Talking Heads”

This group mainly consists of the visible (to the public at large) American Conservatives. This group consists of people that “Joe Average” would associate with Conservatives, good or bad. Noted members include…

• Rush Limbaugh
• Sean Hannity
• Ann Coulter

These commentators serve a very useful purpose. many of them voice the feelings, beliefs and motivations of the silenced conservative majority. They do so with amplification, and control over the air-waves, and in the case of El’ Rushbo, a Golden EIB Microphone.

They can educate, inspire, entertain, and lambast, but they cannot make policy. They serve as icons for whatever exists of modern contemporaneous conservative thought.

[4] Tea Partiers

The Tea Party movement is an American fiscally conservative political movement. Their primary emphasis has been on fiscal responsibility. Which means lower taxes, and a serious reduction of the federal debt.

In a way, one could argue that this group is focused on 16th amendment issues.

As such, the movement supports small-government principles. They are opposed to any kind of “big government” initiatives and opposes government-sponsored universal healthcare. They demand a re-look at the 16th amendment in light of the damage that it has caused the United States, and require an audit of the Federal reserve to determine just how in debt the United States actually is.

This is considered a serious threat by the progressive Marxists in power in the United States, and they took action against this organization.

• Obama’s IRS Admits To Specifically Targeting Tea Party

And, of course, the progressive American mainstream news media (Newsweek) has tried to spin the narrative in favor of the Marxists. So they report the exact opposite. Makes sense in a kind of “Big Brother” sort of way…

• Remember the IRS Scandal? It was Fake News All Along

The Tea Party movement has been described as a popular constitutional movement composed of a mixture of libertarian, right-wing populist, and conservative activism. It has sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009. According to the American Enterprise Institute, various polls in 2013 estimate that slightly over 10 percent of Americans identified as part of the movement.

-Wikipedia

[5] Grifter Conservatives

These people are NOT conservatives.

They are apolitical, and feed off Conservatives as a financial resource; a “cash cow”, if you will.

Though they pretend to be conservatives. Instead, these are leaches that feed off conservatives. They control the pools of money that grass-root conservative efforts collect, and siphon off huge percentages for themselves.

They hide behind pro-Conservative organizations. Say things that conservatives want to hear. They make promises and ask for donations. Once the donations arrive, they pocket the money for themselves.

Many are not conservatives. Like this guy…

The are called conservatives as that is the mantle they wear while they are stealing money. Many, I am sad to say, then take that money and use it for their own personal needs and (perhaps) give the rest to progressive liberal causes.

These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats  or Republicans. They are not beholden to a country or community. They  care not for their fellow man. They don’t care about future generations.  They care about their own power, wealth and control over others. 

They  have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are  meaningless in their unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal  and kill to achieve their goal of controlling everything and everyone in  this world. 

This precisely describes virtually every politician in  Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government  agency head, MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and  blood sucking advisor to the president. 

-US vs Them

By looking at the percentages, once can see that it is all just an enormous racket to steal money from conservatives.

Here’s some typical examples. Found from HERE.

• Back in 2013, Conservative StrikeForce PAC raised $2.2 million in funds vowing to support Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign for governor in Virginia. Court filings and FEC records showed that the PAC only contributed $10,000 to Cuccinelli’s effort. Less than one-half of a percent of the collected moneys went to the professed cause. This is 0.45%.
• Back in 2014, Politico researched 33 political action committees that claimed to be affiliated with the Tea Party and courted small donors with email and direct-mail appeals and found that they “raised $43 million — 74 percent of which came from small donors. The PACs spent only $3 million on ads and contributions to boost the long-shot candidates often touted in the appeals, compared to $39.5 million on operating expenses, including $6 million to firms owned or managed by the operatives who run the PACs.”
• Back in 2015, RightWingNews reviewed the financial filings of 21 prominent conservative PACs and found the ten 10 groups at the bottom of their list spent $54.3 million only paid out $3.6 million to help get Republicans elected.
• Back in 2016, campaign finance lawyer Paul H. Jossey detailed how some of the PACs operated and lamented, “the Tea Party movement is pretty much dead now, but it didn’t die a natural death. It was murdered — and it was an inside job. In a half decade, the spontaneous uprising that shook official Washington degenerated into a form of pyramid scheme that transferred tens of millions of dollars from rural, poorer Southerners and Midwesterners to bicoastal political operatives.”
• In 2016, Roger Stone founded the Committee to Restore America’s Greatness. It raised $587,000 and spent $16,000 on independent expenditures supporting Trump.
• In 2016, Great America PAC raised $28.6 million from donors. They donated $30,125 to federal candidates. In 2018, Great America PAC raised $8.3 million from donors. They donated $31,840 to federal candidates.
• In 2017, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said that despite the actions of a PAC that claimed to be raising money for a Clarke bid for U.S. Senate, he was not running. That PAC raised $2 million.
• In 2018, a federal indictment declared grassroots conservatives across the country gave $23 million to scam PACs run by William and Robert Tierney from 2014 to 2018, believing they were supporting conservative groups like “Republican Majority Campaign PAC,” “Americans for Law Enforcement PAC,” and “Rightmarch.com PAC.” Only $109,000 went to candidates.
• In the 2018 cycle, Tea Party Majority Fund raised $1.67 million and donated $35,000 to federal candidates.
• That 2018 cycle, Conservative Majority Fund raised just over $1 million and donated $7,500 to federal candidates. 0.75%
• Conservative Strikeforce raised $258,376 and donated nothing to federal candidates. 0%.
• Put Vets First PAC raised $3.9 million in the 2018 cycle; they gave $9,000 to federal candidates. Or 0.02%! That is two-one hundredths of one percent.
• Earlier this year, it was revealed that David Bossie’s group, Presidential Coalition, had raised $18.5 million in 2017 and 2018 to support state and local candidates in furtherance of the Trump agenda. Only $425,442, or 3 percent, went to direct political activity.

There are pages and pages of examples. Conservatives are often enticed to fund conservative efforts, and in many cases the money is siphoned off for personal enjoyments, and the balance given to progressive and not conservative causes.

[6] FReeper Conservatives

“Free Republic” conservative individuals go by the name FReepers. They have been around since the early days of the Bill Clinton administration, and came into being as a conservative back-lash against his most outrageous policies. Such as…

• NAFTA
• Replacement of the International Space-station with the ISS.
• Paying Russian soldiers salaries.

They formed a chat-room on the internet and there they would post articles and comment on them. They formed clusters of activists and were instrumental in uncovering such things as the looting of Air Force One on EBay by the Clinton’s, and gluing down of the “W” on all the key-boards in the White House.

They became such a force to be reckoned with that there was a mainstream media backlash. Many of which forbid any of their articles to be reposted on the FR website. Today, most websites have buttons that allow a person to easily repost an article on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and other such venues, yet Free Republic postings are still banned.

• Shared articles permitted to liberal websites.
• Shared articles prohibited to conservative websites.

The organization itself is a loose collection of individuals from many different conservative camps. The active participation ebbs and flows over the years, but there is a core constituency that are very politically astute. Roughly speaking there is a community of “lurkers” who regularly read the postings but do not contribute or comment. This group is like an iceberg and represents the bunk of the FR readership.

• FReepers – Active participants.
• Lurkers – Non-active readers.
• Trolls – Paid commentators used to derail posts.

This organization is also considered a “thorn in the side” of the liberal mainstream media, and is only permitted to exist as long as they can direct traffic to liberal-friendly mainstream media outlets. To this end, there are paid trolls that frequent the site in shifts.

The objective of the FR trolls is to limit conservative dialog to the site; box it in. Make it limited so that there isn’t any traceable “spill over” onto the Internet.

This is so that the Google algorithms do not notice traffic to other smaller conservative websites. It serves to keep small conservative bloggers, websites, and associated traffic way… way down in the search hierarchy. Instead of a Conservative post being on the top three pages of a Google Search, they can end up on page 50 to 60 in a given search.

(This is) Based on their internet connectivity to other websites.

They gamed the system that way. You can read about this in more detail in these other articles.

• Tech giants plotting to suppress ALL conservative posts
• How Google’s search algorithm spreads false information
• Report: Google is biased against conservative websites
• Google search algorithms are not impartial.
• If Google Is Biased, So Are Its Algorithms
• Evidence That Google’s Search Results Are Biased

By limiting small conservative websites from getting any internet traffic, they effective “box them in” in such a way that they are practically invisible to any given search. They have to compete against liberal posts, blogs and articles that allow linking to other liberal social media like Facebook, twitter, etc.

Every time a person reads a Washington Post article, and then clicks on the “share on social media” button, the article makes an impression on the Internet. When a person reads a complete, wholly copied article on Free Republic, there is no impression made.

So from the Google algorithm, it appears that the liberal Washington Post article has more popularity and value (worth) than a conservative article posted on Free Republic. This is a significant factor in relevance placing in the search results.

To accomplish this suppression of conservative articles and blog posts, the FR Trolls do so using the following techniques…

• Demand full text transcripts from conservative blogs or sites, not excerpts.
• Ridicule posters that have a conservative ideology.
• Spread lies about posted links (i.e. pop-up ads, or paywall, etc.)
• Make derogatory statements regarding a particular poster.

The trolls are easy to spot, as they are usually the first to post on a conservative themed blog or article. They are also the first to say anything negative. Whether it is intentional redirection to just nasty comments.

Today, FReepers represent a good cross-section of everyday conservative thought. They tend to be part of a wide and deep demographic and thus serve as an accurate biometic to measure the pace and mood of the conservative audience. The website itself provides a good cross-section of conservative thought, intermixed with articles regarding other subjects (known as “chat”).

Known conservative lurkers to Free Republic include;

• Rush Limbaugh
• Donald Trump
• William F. Buckley (Deceased)

The website can be found here; www.freerepublic.com

Update. Access to the Free Republic website was terminated in June 2019. 

Unofficial sources (a Chinese government worker who maintains the Chinese "firewall") told me that a singular Chinese dissident out of Hong Kong was solely responsible for the banning. 

Within a two week period of time he flooded FR with a large number of anti-Chinese articles. This flagged the algorithms and shut down FR in China.

5JUL19 Update. Arrests were made on the organizers of the HK protest movement. 

These people were tracked by their posting history on social media, as well as their behavior at various events. Information HERE and HERE. 

SJW have no place in Chinese society. They should move to a more progressive place, with "democracy" for all like Sweden, France, the UK and the USA.

[7] Trumpists

Check this out…

Trumpist is the mainstream shorthand to describe the quintessential Trump follower, who by varying accounts is a non-college-educated white male, an unemployed factory worker, a reactionary with racist inclinations, or any American who’s angry, worried, and economically insecure.

- From “Trumpkin” to “Trumpista,” Trump-Inspired Words 

That is hardly true. But, it makes for great liberal copy to boost the deranged progressive left’s idea of self worth.

Now, for what a Trumpist actually is…

A Trumpist is a person, who might be conservative, or not, that supports President Trump in his efforts to Make America Great Again.

The individuals might not agree with all of his policies, they might not like his behavior, and his mannerisms. They might not like who he picks for cabinet roles, and they might not like individual policies, however they will stick to and support him because he is a person who represents the ideology of modern nationalist conservatism.

And, also he’s a rough-and-tumble fighter.

Warning, the Fake News hates all-things-Trump. Here’s what they have to say about this issue…

• Trumpist populism is turning out to be entirely fake, a scam sold to working-class voters

[8] Fusionistic Conservatism.

This term describes self-proclaimed conservatives that live within Washington D.C., and on university campuses. In a way they are different types of Intellectual Conservatives that have collaborated together as a group in order to focus on the most important element of conservatism; the element of freedom.

They argue back and forth between each other, and post intellectual tomes for consideration by the elite.

However, they have zero influence in policy matters. Otherwise, of course, we would start to see the millions of laws that infringe on the Bill of Rights be disassembled in real time. Ergo, since there just isn’t a smidgen of effort in this direction, the prognosis is quite clear. They are not a very effective prophet for the conservative cause.

[9] Jacksonian Conservatism.

There are those who consider that Donald Trump is following Jacksonian politics. Not me. I think that he has developed his own individual brand of conservatism.

Now, today, is not the time to search for similarities to earlier forms of American politics as a bridge towards justification for decisions made today. Today is quite different than any other time in American history.

These people look to Walter Russell Mead’s landmark essay in the Winter 1999 / 2000 National Interest, “The Jacksonian Tradition in American Foreign Policy,” as proof. They view the essay as a road map that not only brought Donald Trump to the Presidency, but also as a possible guide to incorporating populism and conservatism.

They argue this case…

The Jacksonians, Mead said, are individualist, suspicious of federal power, distrustful of foreign entanglement, opposed to taxation but supportive of government spending on the middle class, devoted to the Second Amendment, desire recognition, valorize military service, and believe in the hero who shapes his own destiny. 

Jacksonians are anti-monopolistic. They oppose special privileges and offices. “There are no necessary evils in government,” Jackson wrote in his veto message in 1832. “Its evils exist only in its abuses.”

This is a deep strain in American culture and politics. Jacksonians are neither partisans nor ideologues. The sentiments they express are older than postwar conservatism and in some ways more intrinsically American. (They do not look toward Burke or Hayek or Strauss, for example.) 

The Jacksonians have been behind populist rebellions since the Founding. 

They are part of a tradition, for good and ill, that runs through William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Jim Webb, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and Donald Trump. 

The Jacksonians believe in what their forebears called “The Democracy.” 

They are the people who remind us that America is not ruled from above but driven from below. Irving Kristol captured some of Jacksonianism’s contradictions when he described the movement as “an upsurge of revolt against the moneyed interests, an upsurge led by real estate speculators, investors, and mercantile adventurers, which spoke as the voice of the People while never getting much more than half the vote, and which gave a sharp momentum to the development of capitalism, urbanism, and industrialism while celebrating the glories of the backwoodsman.”

The Jacksonians have extended their conception of the in-group to include Americans of every ethnicity and race. The somewhat slippery distinction they make is between American and foreigner. I say slippery because sometimes it is hard to tell when Jacksonians decide to accept a legal immigrant as fully American. 

Jacksonians emphasize borders. They are happy to see the government direct benefits to the middle class. They don’t want to reform entitlements. They are willing to accept short-term sacrifice if it ends up benefiting the people. 

They are skeptical of preemptive war, but if a conflict arises, they want to finish the job quickly and ferociously. “The very faults of the persuasion as a guide to prudent statesmanship,” wrote historian Marvin Meyers, “may have been its strength as a call to justice. For a society inevitably committed to maximizing economic gains, this persuasion in its various forms has been the great effective force provoking men to ask what their nation ought to be.”

The current Jacksonian in the Senate is Tom Cotton.

He’s taken the lead on conservative immigration reform. A supporter of the president, he is also a Neocon. The some ONE thing that I just personally HATE.

Which in my mind, is a very big No-No. People die in wars. Economies tank. Rich people get richer, and poor people get enslaved. There is NOTHING good about war. I follow Sun Tzu in this matter; War is a failure on the part of government to resolve social differences.

Now, about Tom Cotton as a Neocon…

He was perfectly Jacksonian when he said a conflict with Iran, should it erupt, would be swiftly concluded due to overwhelming American force.

Ah… I don’t think so.

DONALD TRUMP’S USA boasts the most powerful armies the world has  ever seen – but today military experts warned they would NEVER beat Iran  in a military conflict even as the possibility of a hot war between  Iran and the USA increased as British and US servicemen raced to the aid  of two oil-tankers attacked off the Iranian coast in the Gulf of Oman. 

It’s Neocon people like this that should be watched closely.

After spending nearly 20 years in Afghanistan, and over one trillion US dollars in the process (not to mention the many thousands killed), it is beyond comprehension that this idiot thinks that the United States can take on a potentially nuclear-armed nation and conclude a war swiftly.

Heck we can’t even build a simple wall on our border. We are mired in a twenty-year-long war in Afghanistan, and are now fighting eight wars. We cannot even build a simple High Speed Train to link two close cities together.

Senator Tom Cotton, a native of rural Arkansas and an Army veteran, his new book Sacred Duty describes the Jacksonian code of honor and sacrifice. Die with honor.

As long as it’s not him, his children or any of his relatives. Yes, the elite oligarch way.

There is NOTHING glorious about death. Nothing.

[10] Reformicon Conservatism.

Reform conservatism began toward the end of George W. Bush’s presidency. I think that they felt that the Bush presidency gave Republicans a “bad name” due to all the anti-Bush press generated by the mainstream media. They believed that they should appease the mainstream press in such a way as not to be so Conservative, instead they should start to embrace some progressive thought, thus making the mainstream media be more Republican friendly.

Some people credit its’ start with the publication of Yuval Levin’s “Putting Parents First” in The Weekly Standard in 2006. Or, with Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s Grand New Party in 2008.

They believed that the conservative “movement” needed to be reformed to “keep with with the times” that has been, over the last century becoming more and more Marxist. They felt that it needed to adapt with the times to be more inclusive and add more diverse people under the conservative banner.

This could mean such things as adopting some of the progressive liberal Marxist ideas and policies.

This would manifest as agreeing and voting with progressive liberals on bills in the House and the Senate, and showing favorability towards LGBT, diversity, “White Privilege” and Global Warming issues.

Thus, in 2009, Yuval Levin founded National Affairs, a quarterly devoted to serious examinations of public policy and political philosophy. Its aim is to nudge the Republican party to adapt to changing social and economic conditions. To change. To accept things as they are and move with the changing tide of public opinion.

After a few years of successful publication, he proposed some reforms.

Thus, in 2014, working with the YG Network and with National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru, Levin edited “Room to Grow: Conservative Reforms for a Limited Government and a Thriving Middle Class.”

The report was the occasion for a lot of publicity, including a Sam Tanenhaus article in the New York Times Magazine asking, “Can the GOP Be a Party of Ideas?”

The number on champion of Reform Conservatism was the well-promoted Marco Rubio.

However, the Reformicons had no problem with trade and immigration. They felt that everything was just fine as was, and pretty much ignored those subjects, thus opening up the door for Trump to become president.

[11] Country Club Republican Conservatives

"Country Club Republican" also known as a "Country Club Conservative" or "Establishment Republican" is an expression employed, usually pejoratively, to describe certain members of the Republican Party in the United States. 

Some of the characteristics attributed to country club Republicans are higher than average income or inherited wealth, fiscally conservative opinions but with liberal, moderate or indifferent views on social issues such as abortion, censorship, and gay rights. Also, they are more likely to have attended prestigious colleges and universities than other Republican Party members. 

-Wikipedia

I love the Hollywood imagery of such conservatives. Like this one showing a country-club republican next to Rodney Dangerfield (He kind of reminds me of Donald Trump. Eh?) from Caddyshack…

[12] Neo conservatives (Neocons)

Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labeling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. 

-Wikipedia

These are war-hawks and have no problem with war, destruction and excessive military spending. One of the most well known is that evil son-of-a-bitch John McCain. You can read about him and his legacy here…

Neocon.  A politician who, on the lectern, claims to be a conservative, claims belief in smaller government and less government spending, but in practice increases spending and increases the size of government. John Mccain calls himself a conservative, yet he votes for Cap and Trade. He's just a centrist neocon. 

-The Urban Dictionary

Some characteristics…

• They believe that war is necessary for social cohesiveness, and to keep donor coffers full.
• They first started to have a voice in internal politics as early as the Ford administration.
• They tend to lie in order to accomplish their goals.
• One of their biggest lies is to support “smaller government” initiatives. In reality believe in big spending and tax cuts for their wealthy political and business friends, hence deficit spending.
• They pretend being social conservatives, although true social conservatives believe they really care about social issues. Neocons distract the public by acting like they really care about social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and flag burning. Meanwhile they are busy conducting wars and stifling your freedom.
• They believe in costly wars and creating boogeymen to try and make you think only they can keep you safe while they restrict your freedoms to “protect you”. This is their signature issue, to help keep them in power.
• They actually despise any types of small government advocates, Barry Goldwater, traditional live and let live conservative, and libertarians

Some Neocons include George Bush I and II, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and John McCain.

[13] The Paleos

Where the paleoconservatives distinguish themselves from the other camps is foreign policy. The paleos are noninterventionists who, all things being equal, would prefer that America radically reduce her overseas commitments. In a way, they are almost the opposite of a Neoconservative.

I might be considered a Paleo Conservative, if I wasn’t having so much fun with food, drink and pretty girls.

Though it’s probably not how he’d describe himself, the foremost paleo is Tucker Carlson, who offers a mix of traditional social values, suspicion of globalization, and noninterventionism every weekday on cable television.

Carlson touched off an important debate with his January 3 opening monologue on markets. “Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined,” Carlson said. “Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible. You can’t separate the two.”

Carlson’s indictment of America’s “ruling class” and “the ugliest parts of our financial system” was remarkable for several reasons.

• First, he delivered it on a network whose opinion programs normally laud American capitalism and free enterprise.
• Second, the speech was wide-ranging, criticizing everyone from Mitt Romney to Sheryl Sandberg to parents who let their kids smoke weed.
• Third, Carlson offered a theory of the case. Social decline, he said, is related to the loss of manufacturing jobs. It happened in the inner cities. Now it’s happening in the Rust Belt and in rural America. When jobs disappear and low-skilled male wages decline, family formation breaks down.

While Carlson noted in passing that wage income is taxed at a higher rate than investment income, he did not make any specific proposals.

“I’m not a policy guy, I’m a talk show host, but I sincerely believe that no problem is solved unless you have a clear image in your mind of what you want the result to be,” 

-Carlson told Michael Brendan Dougherty at the National Review Institute conference in March. 

Earlier this month, he welcomed John Burtka, the chairman of the paleo journal The American Conservative (TAC), on to his program. Burtka argued for treating the social media giants as monopolies. Carlson loved it.

Burtka offered a defense of “economic nationalism.” He advocates a national industrial strategy, without providing many details, though presumably incorporating some mixture of tariffs and government-directed investment. His reluctance toward nuts-and-bolts legislative proposals is widespread.

“We still need to figure out a lot of the details for how this vision of conservative politics, a pro-family, pro-worker, pro-American nation, conservatism actually looks in practice,” - J. D. Vance told a recent TAC gala.  

Paleos have brought renewed attention to the condition of American communities.

Paleos might not have exact answers when it comes to domestic policy, but they are certain American foreign policy should be restrained, within constitutional bounds, and prioritize diplomacy over military force. Amen to that!

[14] The Never-Hillary Army

Hillary Clinton, for what ever reason, has become the defacto face of the modern American democratic party. There are others, of course, but Hillary with her strong political support, the fawning media, and her Tony Soprano-style leadership well represents what the Democrat party is today.

In a way, the people who voted for anyone other than Hillary voted conservative, but might not actually be conservative. For example, a liberal man who does not think having a woman president is a good thing might fit into this category.

This is a single issue person who may or may not be conservative, but who will vote conservative against a singular person. According to the mainstream media, many disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporters fell into this category.

[15] Constitutional idealists.

They close a blind eye to what America has become, and ignore reality in the hope that one day everything will revert back to the intended utopia as defined by the Constitution.

Ah. One day. One day…

As such, they will watch as activist judge after activist judge thwarts actions by President Trump, but the moment that Trump does something that has borderline (not absolute) Constitutionality, they jump up and scream bloody murder.

Rand Paul is one such Constitutional Idealist.

• Rand Paul to oppose Trump on national emergency
• Why Rand Paul Opposes Trump’s Nomination of Mike Pompeo
• Rand Paul to vote against Trump’s national emergency
• Donald Trump supporters blast Rand Paul

[16] Deplorable Conservatives

The demonetization of others that do not share your ideology is a staple of Marxist ideology. It is used as a prelude to revolutionary takeover and social upheaval, often leading to genocide.

We saw how Hitler demonized the Jews for “Jewish Privilege”, how the term “Tutsi Privilege” was used to conduct genocide in Rwanda, and how “Tsar Privilege” was used to conduct genocide in Russia.

The term “Deplorable” was first used by (then presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton to clump together anyone who opposed her politically, ideologically, and socially. This label included the now famous “White Privilege” that contemporaneous users hope will soon mean the total extinction of conservatives in America.

Through genocide.

And, let’s be clear about this. Make no mistake they do want to kill you. They really, really do.

In short, anyone who is not a progressive Marxist is automatically labeled a “Deplorable Conservative”.

[17] Alt-Right

The "Alternative Right," or more commonly, the "alt right" is a diverse assortment of people, mostly online, who identify as right-wingers but consider themselves either opposed to, or profoundly alienated from mainstream American conservatism — usually because they view it as being too liberal.

-Quora

The mainstream American media considers them extremist, simply because they believe on following the Constitution.

They believe that the American constitution is like a set of rules that one must obey when running a government. Of course, the American media, as progressive-Marxists believe in a “living document”, one that is always subject to change.

However, that only works in the favor of the one making the revised rules as they go along. As any child knows, unless you play by the rules, eventually, some child will throw the game in the air and give up and pout and sulk.

In “real life” it is only through rules that society is able to be cohesive and stable. The moment when rules are ignored, you start to have all sorts of problems, often lasting for decades before full termination of “the game” occurs.

[18] Zombie Reaganism

It's a belief that conservatives are a mindless, stupid mass, just aimlessly ambling forward and devouring everything in their path. The current incarnation of the zombie was given to us almost single-handedly by George Romero, director of Night of the Living Dead and its sequels. 

- 6 Mind-Blowing Ways Zombies and Vampires Explain America 

This is a derogatory term. It has different meaning depending on who is using it.

As used by a Conservative on other Conservatives…

Some of my fellow conservatives knock what they call “zombie Reaganism.” They use it to refer to the idea that we should incorporate Reagan-like polices today. Such as in economics, global world strategy, and on the home-front.

What they are saying, I think, is that policies of the Reagan era don’t fit every time and place. Most certainly, it might not fit today’s reality. One with Marxist control of almost every part of the government, forming a “Deep State” “swamp” and a fully alert and active Marxist American media.

Conservative intellectuals eager to privilege either freedom or virtue like to attack this consensus, which they often describe as “zombie Reaganism.” The truth is that the strength of fusionism always has been exaggerated. 

- Making Sense of the New American Right | National Review 

In this reality, it makes absolutely no sense to revert to the baseline politics of the Reagan era. For this is a new era. It is a era of Trump. We need fighters and brawlers. Not experts in playing partisan politics, Reagan-era style.

As used by a Progressive Marxist Democrat to Describe Conservatives…

Democrats (or progressive socialist Marxists, by another name) just cannot understand why anyone would not embrace the wonderful socialist platform.

• Free school.
• Free medical care.
• Free food.
• Free internet.
• Free public transportation.
• Free housing.

As such, they decry non-Marxists as ignorant, non-understanding, mindless dolts. Much like zombies who will follow any leader that appeals to them. To this end, you can google up tons of pictures depicting conservative zombies.

Here’s a picture of a liberal book cover, trying to convince people how out-of-touch, and backwards, and dangerous traditional beliefs are…

[19] Catholic Integralists 

It is a belief that theology, especially Catholic theology, should guide the policies and decisions of the President of the United States.

Integralism or integrism as a political term designates theoretical concepts and practical policies that advocate a fully integrated social and political order, based on converging patrimonial political, cultural, religious and national traditions of a particular state, or some other political entity. 

Some forms of integralism are focused on achieving political and social integration, and also national or ethnic unity, while others were more focused on achieving religious and cultural uniformity. 

In the political and social history of the 19th and 20th centuries, integralism was often related to traditionalist conservatism and similar political movements on the right wing of a political spectrum, but it was also adopted by various centrist movements as a tool of political, national and cultural integration.

 -Wikipedia

I don’t know much at all about them. However, here’s some links if you, the reader, would like to study this matter in more detail.

• Catholic Integralism and the Social Kingship of Christ
• Is Integralism Catholic Sharia?
• Why Should We Read Spadaro on ‘Catholic Integralism
• Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism
• Thomas Aquinas on the Just Price
• Democrats defend asking nominees about Catholic faith, affiliations

[20] The Post-liberal Conservatives

The post-liberals say that freedom has become a destructive end-in-itself. All of the problems that America experiences today can be traced to having too much freedom and not enough rules or boundaries.

Their solution is to limit freedom.

• Economic freedom has brought about a global system of trade and finance that has outsourced jobs, shifted resources to the metropolitan coasts, and obscured its self-seeking under the veneer of social justice.
• Personal freedom has ended up in the mainstreaming of pornography, alcohol, drug, and gambling addiction, abortion, single-parent families, and the repression of orthodox religious practice and conscience.

“When an ideological liberalism seeks to dictate our foreign policy and  dominate our religious and charitable institutions, tyranny is the  result, at home and abroad,” 

-The signatories to “Against the Dead  Consensus,” a post-liberal manifesto of sorts published in First Things in March 2017. 

In a way, I do see their point.

In a way, everything that they are proposing goes absolutely against the core belief that Rights originate from God. What they want to do is to let the government be the arbitrator of Rights. They want to do this by transforming Rights into Privileges granted by a benevolent government. It does go against the spirit and very being of the structure of the Constitution, now doesn’t it?

“The ambition of neoliberalism, is to weaken and eventually dissolve the strong elements of traditional society that impede the free flow of commerce (the focus of nineteenth-century liberalism), as well as identity and desire (the focus of postmodern liberalism). This may work well for the global elite, but ordinary people increasingly doubt it works for them.” 

- The editor of First Things in the spring of 2017. 

The result, he said, has been populist calls for the “strong gods” of familial, national, and religious authority.

The post-liberals are mainly but not exclusively traditionalist Catholics.

• Patrick J. Deneen . Their most prominent spokesman is Patrick J. Deneen, whose Why Liberalism Failed (2018) was recommended by that ultimate progressive, Barack Obama.
• Yoram Hazony . Israeli philosopher Yoram Hazony’s Virtue of Nationalism (2018) is another important entry in the post-liberal canon. Hazony has contributed essays to both First Things (“Conservative Democracy”) and American Affairs (“What Is Conservatism?”) making the case for conservatism without Locke, Jefferson, and Paine.
• Josh Hawley . The closest the post-liberals have to a spokesman in the Senate is freshman Josh Hawley, who attends an evangelical Presbyterian church. Not six months into his term, Hawley has already established himself as a social conservative unafraid of government power. He has picked fights with the conservative legal establishment by criticizing two of President Trump’s judicial appointments. He has identified Silicon Valley as a threat to traditional values and proposed legislation to begin to rein in the tech industry. And in a little noticed commencement address to King’s College, he inveighed against the fact that

The post-liberals say that the distinction between state and society is illusory.

They argue that, even as conservatives defended the independence of civil society from state power, the left took over Hollywood, the academy, the media, and the courts.

What the post-liberals seem to call for is the use of government to recapture society from the left. How precisely they intend to accomplish this has been left undefined. (Though the levy on large university endowments included in the 2017 tax bill is a start.)

Appeals to the common good are rhetorically powerful, but they often run up against the shoals of America’s constitutional structure and overwhelming emphasis on individual rights. That is one potential reason the post-liberals seem more interested in European philosophy and politics. It also could be why many of them are eager to abandon the term “conservatism.”

-New American Right schools of Thought

[21] Conservative tribalism

Tribalism and US Politics. Tribalism: s the state of being organized in, or advocating for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer in popular cultural terms to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group. 

-Tribalism and US Politics

There are those that believe that people form “tribes” or groups of people with similar interests. This is herd behavior. Such as what you would find in sheep, cows, goats, and lemmings.

Conservatives correctly identify that many progressive liberal Marxists are who they are through Tribalism. They care what other people are doing and establish their belief structures on group consensus. We can see this in their love for Hollywood leadership, magazines like “People”, and the cult of personality.

In a like way, liberals argue that conservatives do the exact same thing. They join groups to “fit in” and follow their leadership blindly.

I disagree, but what do I know? Here are some further links on this subject.

• The Call Of Tribalism | The American Conservative
• Is tribalism skyrocketing in American politics?
• Republicans & Conservatives: Tribalism Today
• Political Tribalism: Why the Right is So Successful

I usually regard liberals and conservatives as equally but not  identically reprehensible, rather like the complementary halves of a  migraine headache. Some differences do stand out. Peculiar to  conservatives is a certain tribalism, often accompanied by subclinical  paranoia. 

They seem to be looking fearfully about as the wolves circle  closer. It doesn’t matter whether there actually are any wolves. 

-Lew Rockwell

[22] Conservative populists

Right-wing populism is a political ideology which combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes. The rhetoric often consists of anti-elitist sentiments, opposition a perceived Establishment, and speaking to what is seen as the "common people." 

In Europe, right-wing populism is an expression used to describe groups, politicians and political parties generally known for their opposition to immigration, mostly from the Islamic world and in most cases Euroscepticism. 

-Wikipedia

The prevalent understanding of populism is that it seeks involvement of government to intercede on behalf of ordinary people. It is popular, and thus “populist” because many under-educated people look to the government as the solution to what ever problems that they might face.

Populism requires that government intercede in peoples’ lives.

This distortion is rooted in a systemic effort by Statists of all ranks to disguise the factual nature of populism. You are mislead to believe that a populist seeks a more equitable distribution of wealth.

All rights reside in persons, and are not at the mercy of governments.

Yet, the State possesses no rights at all. It’s only purpose is to serve the people. The ability for the will of the populace to be expressed, dwells in the representation within a republic form or government. Within that framework the repose of society maintains a balance as long as officials are held accountable to the fundamental principles of the American experience.

There are basic standards which are the essence of conservatism.

• Traditional society.
• Small government.
• Small, if any, taxes.
• War as a last-resort utility.
• Local, regional, governance.

Violating these codes, while claiming the designation of a traditionalist, does not make one unprogressive.

A progressive accepts the State as a solution. A genuine conservative understands the State to be the greatest threat to Liberty.

Thus, those counterfeit conservatives are closet progressives, who are so embolden with their new found power, that they enjoy opening the door to their true motives.

Populist Conservatives are actually progressive Marxists who do not understand the fundamental nature of society.

• Conservative Populist Guy

Politics is based on three other  philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics- on a  theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is  only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory  and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into  politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing  conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality  which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” 

-Ayn Rand  

[23] MAGA Conservative nationalists

MAGA means Make America Great Again.

It argues in favor of local nationalist policies by the government to protect it’s citizens. This is in opposition to the New Global World Order as espoused by Hillery Clinton, Barrack Obama, and George Bush.

Thus, by nature, MAGA support is a nationalist ideology.

Since many conservatives, of all types and classes follow Donald Trump and his nationalistic message, and very few (if any) do, we can automatically equate MAGA conservatism with singular nationalism.

[24] MAGA Liberal nationalists

Politics really comes down to a value judgement: how does society best organize its collective life?

For nationalists, love of country, its inhabitants, and its unique character guides law-making.  Government is formed solely for the benefit of citizens.  High-minded psalms to the brotherhood of man have little place in policy.

The globalists are devoted to the biggest community on Earth: worldwide humanity.  To the globally minded activist, there is no difference between the man next door and the man in a hut in Cambodia.  Each is due equal consideration when it comes to the law.

While there are many liberals that love big government and “Big Brother” and the “Nanny Society”, not all of them want to share it with the rest of the world. They are selfish. They want this big gracious government to be theirs and theirs alone.

Thus, we have the phenomenon of liberal nationalists that follow Donald Trump and his MAGA message.

[25] Conservative Libertarians

For the longest time, I was a libertarian that voted along conservative and Republican party lines. I had this “live and let live” attitude, with was a hold over, I think from my free-wheeling 1970’s childhood.

I wasn’t all that happy with my “elected” officials. I pretty much thought of them as “country club republicans”. But, as long as I was left alone, well heck, I just let the world slide past me.

That lasted for many years, that is until I moved to China. It was there that I discovered that of the many things that they did right, the most impressive was to make traditional conservatism the Law Of The Land. This is Chinese-conservatism, not American-conservatism.

They outlawed all non-conservative politics.

In China, progressive activism is against the law.

They called Chinese-Conservatism a new name. They called it “Communism with Chinese Characteristics“, which pretty much confused just about every American on the planet.

So we shrugged our shoulders and said… “Meh. Communism by any other name is just Communism.”

But, yeah, it isn’t.

Names are just names to describe things, and depending on who is listening, there could be all sorts of misinterpretations.

As far as I can tell, aside from some confusing terminology, the (so called) Communist Chinese are actually Traditional Conservative Libertarians that have formed an Authoritarian Government based on traditional Chinese-conservative principles.

Let me repeat, but with a better laid out presentation;

• Chinese communism is…
• Single party, authoritarian…
• Traditional…
• Chinese Conservative…
• Leadership by merit…
• Permitting families libertarian freedoms…
• With core laws based around a centralized structure…
• And, with regional interpretation of those laws.

I don’t know who well this will play out in the next one hundred years. However, what I have seen first-hand, I can tell you (the reader) that they have avoided and sidestepped many of the problems that democracies, and republics have had to contend with.

At the same time, still permitting their citizens the ability to be themselves, play around, and not be afraid to do things.

I have often wondered what America would be like, if it followed the US Constitution To-The-Letter, and banned all political parties like the “Communist Chinese” have.

Remember, boys and girls, the United States Constitution as originally written was much like “Communist” China is today…

• No opposition political parties…
• Traditional.
• Well educated leadership.
• Libertarian ideals.
• Judicial interpretation of laws.

Today, it doesn’t look anything like this.

What would America be like without all those laws about drinking, smoking, and just having fun? What would America be like if we could use straws, and paper bags for groceries? What would it be like if we could swear on demand, say “Merry Christmas” without a “Diversity Officer” calling you into the HR’s office and threatening your livelihood? What would it be like?

It would be like China. That’s what it would be like.

It’s stuff for thought, and maybe you (the reader) should give it some thought as well.

Really, is “democracy” where everyone can vote really a good thing? Did giving women the right to vote make the United States better or worse, or neutral? Think, know your history, study trends, and then answer.

One thing is for sure, you wouldn’t have any of the progressive events that we are dealing with now. The Chinese do not mess around. They have declared war on SJW folk.

In America, we have people who are libertarian, but who vote conservative out of practicality. These are known as “Conservative Libertarians”. They want to live their life, and be ignored by the government in the process. They don’t want to have to file taxes in April. They don’t want to report bonuses to an IRS. They don’t want to be told what size of drink they can or cannot get, and they don’t want their straws banned.

The only difference between them and “Chinese Communists” is that the Americans believe that “democracy” and the idea that “everyone can vote” is a good thing. Where the Chinese believe that only qualified, and vetted people should be able to influence the governmental structure and policies.

In America we believe that popularity is more important than merit. In China it is the opposite; they believe in merit over popularity.

A small change… with a BIG difference in results.

[26] Buckley conservatism

Buckley Conservatism was basically two things. Beat the Soviets and keep the Progressives from pulling the roof down on us. The Soviets are gone and the Progressives are too busy hooting about men in dresses to care about pulling the roof down. Buckley Conservatism, it turns out, is not a timeless philosophy after all. 

-Buckley Conservatism

Ah, I don’t know about youse guys, but I think that his political philosophy pretty much died when he passed on.

There was a time when the Whigs were an important check on the  Jacksonian Democrats. No one knows what a Whig is today. 

Fifty years  from now, it will be hard for people to understand “conservatism” and  why it was important. The dogs bark but the caravan moves on. 

 -Buckley Conservatism 

[27] Historical traditionalists

Traditionalists value old-time morals, safety, security, and consistency. They have more respect for brick-and-mortar educational institutions and traditional lecture formats than online, web-based education and training. This generation favors conventional business models in the legal workplace and a top-down chain of command. 

- Common Characteristics of the Traditionalists Generation 

If you find yourself longing for the “good old days”, you might be a traditional conservative. Certainly because you wish for traditional values, but possibly also due to the fact that America up to the 1970’s was a majority conservative nation.

[28] Conservative Pragmatists

Pragmatism (Conservatism)  Thatcherism is characterised by privatisation, deregulation, marketisation of the welfare state, a flexible labour market, lower taxation and the creation of a property-owning democracy. Thatcherites are as passionate in their beliefs as any other comparable ideologue from the left of the political spectrum. 

- Pragmatism (Conservatism) | Politics | tutor2u 

Donald Trump Is Not Conservative, He’s A Pragmatist.

As a pragmatist Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through a Carl’s Hamburgers. Those are utopian dreams that are sold to a progressive audience.

Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn’t see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worst off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now. And as I said earlier, a pragmatist sees a problem and understands that the solution to fix same is not about a party, but a willingness and boldness to get it done.

People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance but that is common amongst those who have never accomplished anything in their lives and who have always played it safe not willing to risk failure.

[29] Christian Conservatives

Those that follow the Christian faith tend towards liberalism simply due to the nature of the New Testament. It teaches many things such as forgiveness, charity, being supportive of others, and “turning the other cheek”. Many Conservatives, for right or wrong, have found that in “real life” application, attempts to do this has backfired.

When they try to give a job to a vagrant, they find they they try to rob them. When they gave money to various causes, they found the grifters have stolen most of the money. When they have tried to be kind and forgiving, they have been ridiculed for doing so, then attacked and “stabbed in the back”.

Christian Conservatives are pragmatic followers of the writings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible.

[30] SHTF, CWII, and other Alertist Conservatives

Now, let’s get to the fringe.

At least the “fringe” as identified by the mainstream American media. Many people consider “preppers” and those that believe that they SHOULD NOT count on the government when domestic discord spirals out of control domestically, to be “tin foil” hat types.

Not true.

They are historians.

They have read history, and are frightened by the many, many, many parallels between American and other events that have happened in the past and in other nations. These are almost always conservatives who wish to prepare and avoid any hardship and discord. Thus, they will vote accordingly.

I tend to agree with them, and these posts describes why…

[31] Frotocons

There is no clear definition as to what a Frotocon is. It is a term used quite often by El’ Rusbo, but no one has ever sat down and defined what it is until now.

In my mind, it relates to American conservatives that behave like the character Froto from the story “The Lord of the Rings”. He was physically small, weak, had no training, but had a mission and would use what little he possessed, on the hope that someday his mission would be realized.

Frotocon (N)

Pejorative. Describing a type of American conservative by their lack of social understanding, failure in political battle, and their stalwart reliance that if they only "stick with the Conservative plan" that "some day" everything will just work out.

They are not fighters willing to do battle for any particular Conservative cause. They are bit players that merge with the group and urge them forward, with tiny squeals and statements, that in the long-run the very nature of conservatism will survive. As such they have a mission.

Of course, in the fictional story “The Lord of the Rings”, Froto succeeds in his mission.

But, that is, of course, a fiction.

[32] Fredocons

Mr. Schlichter writes, “We prefer a free society based on personal  liberty and mutual respect. But if you leftists veto that option, that  leaves us either a society where you rule and oppress us, or one where  we hold the power. 

So let me break this down, both for the left and for  their fussy Fredocon enablers: You don’t get to win.” 

A Fredocon is a conservative that behaves much like the character Fredo did in the movie series “The Godfather”. They, by their weak-wrist behaviors, are only enabling the enemies of conservatism. They do no good, and in the long run hurt the conservative cause.

Good management requires that there needs to be a strong sorting effort made to remove Fredocon’s from the conservative banner. For they hinder rather than help conservatism.

Guess what kind of Conservative that I am..

Here’s a fun game. Guess what kind, or type, of a American conservative that I am. Yes. Conservatives often have more fun than progressive liberals, simply because we follow rules, and avoid social revisionism.

Here’s two hints…

And…

And at that, I will finish this post. I do hope that you enjoyed it as much as I had writing it. Best Regards.

Posts Regarding Life and Contentment

Here are some other similar posts on this venue. If you enjoyed this post, you might like these posts as well. These posts tend to discuss growing up in America. Often, I like to compare my life in America with the society within communist China. As there are some really stark differences between the two.

Posts about the Changes in America

America is going through a period of change. Change is good… that is, after it occurs. Often however, there are large periods of discomfort as the period of adjustment takes place. Here are some posts that discuss this issue.

More Posts about Life

I have broken apart some other posts. They can best be classified about ones actions as they contribute to happiness and life. They are a little different, in subtle ways.

Stories that Inspired Me

Here are reprints in full text of stories that inspired me, but that are nearly impossible to find in China. I place them here as sort of a personal library that I can use for inspiration. The reader is welcome to come and enjoy a read or two as well.

Articles & Links

You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.