Tag: cuckservative

Conservatives are Waking Up

It’s taken them a long time, but we may have actually reached a point where conservatives finally agree more with us than with the sworn enemies of Christendom and civilization.

I am told that as a state representative this is the moment where I’m supposed to express my heartfelt condolences and then stand in solidarity with those on the other side of the aisle as we condemn political violence and stand unified as one people. But we aren’t “one people” are we? The truth is we haven’t been for some time now, and there is really no point in pretending anymore, if there ever was. We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end.

I convinced myself for a long time that whenever the left called me a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a fascist, a “threat to democracy” for even the most innocent of disagreements, that it was simply hyperbolic rhetoric done for effect. And now the “effect” is a widow and two orphaned children, because the left couldn’t bear the thought of a peaceful man debating them and winning. I don’t think they realize it yet, but murdering Charlie is going to be remembered as the day where we finally woke up to what this fight really is. It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose.

Charlie tried to win that fight through argumentation, through discussion, through peaceful resolution of differences. And the other side murdered him. Not because he was “extreme” or “inciting violence” or any other hyperbolic slur they hurled at him. They murdered him because he was effective. Because he was unafraid. Because he inspired others and made them feel like they had a voice, that they were not alone. And he did it at the very institutions which have fomented so much hatred toward conservatives.

I don’t want to “stand in solidarity” with the other side of the aisle. I want to defeat you. I want to defeat the godless ideology that kills babies in the womb, sterilizes confused children, turns our cities into cesspools of degeneracy and lawlessness…and that murdered Charlie Kirk. Social media is aflame right now with leftist celebration of Charlie’s death.

I wonder if any among them understand what has just happened. If there is a Yamamoto somewhere in their midst warning, that all they have done is awoken a sleeping giant. I doubt it. I think they gave up such introspection and self-awareness long ago. I don’t know exactly what will happen next. I just know that it won’t be the same as what has happened in the past. There will be thoughts and prayers…Charlie would have wanted prayers. Not for himself but for those left behind and for the country that he loved. But then there will be a reckoning.

My Christian faith requires me to love my enemies and pray for those who curse me. It does not require me to stand idly by in the midst of savagery and barbarism…quite the opposite. So every time I feel tired, every time I feel discouraged or overwhelmed, I am going to watch the video of a good man being murdered in Utah…I will force myself to watch it…and then I will return to the work of destroying the evil ideology responsible for that and so much more.

Rest with God Charlie, your fight is over. Ours is just beginning.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Or rather, what one hopes will turn out to be the attempted assassination of Conservative Inc.’s current spokesman.

Shots have been fired at a Charlie Kirk event at Utah Valley University in Orem. Footage from the scene showed eventgoers screaming as shots rang out on Wednesday. The conservative firebrand, 31, was reportedly shot in the neck area at the Turning Point USA event Wednesday, according to bystander accounts.

If the orcs and goblins of Clown World are going after the cuckservatives, it’s probably best for genuine nationalists to stay frosty and stay very far away from public speaking events on college campuses… which is not exactly a problem.

If Charlie dies, this may prove to be the first shot fired in Round Two. It should be noted that the Right didn’t start it. It’s far too soon to know what the eventual impact will be, but it would not be surprising if Charlie Kirk’s death also marks the end of the moderate Right.

UPDATE: The man arrested appears to be a 60-something liberal Boomer. But he may not be the shooter.

UPDATE: MSNBC just speculated the Charlie Kirk shooting could have “been a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration.”

UPDATE: He didn’t make it. Requiescat in pace. Charlie Kirk was 31 years old.

DISCUSS ON SG

Conservatives Reject the Proposition Nation

It’s more than a little late, but conservatives are finally beginning to shake off the absurd idea that America is not an actual nation of people, but an idea:

It the recent NatCon conference in Washington, D.C., Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri delivered a powerful speech about American identity, arguing that our nation isn’t merely an abstract proposition about human equality and rights, but a distinct people with a shared past and a common future.

“For decades, the mainstream consensus on the Left and the Right alike seemed to be that America itself was just an ‘idea’ — a vehicle for global liberalism,” Schmitt said. “We were told that the entire meaning of America boiled down to a few lines in a poem on the Statue of Liberty and five words about equality in the Declaration of Independence. Any other aspect of American identity was deemed to be illegitimate and immoral, poisoned by the evils of our ancestors. The true meaning of America, they said, was liberalism, multiculturalism, and endless immigration.”

Not so, argued Schmitt. America’s principles, he said, are not abstractions. “They are living, breathing things — rooted in a people and embodied in a way of life. It’s only in that context that they become real.”

This is absolutely correct. Those who would reduce America to an abstract proposition either misunderstand or misrepresent our history and heritage. As I argued at NatCon last year, nearly everyone who argues that America is a proposition is wrong about what the proposition is and what it means. “All men are created equal” is a specifically Christian claim, not a universal call to multiculturalism and mass immigration. It emerged as a political ideal from Christian Europe, and arrived in America by way of settlers and pioneers who came here specifically to establish a nation where they could practice their Christian faith as they saw fit.

In other words, America isn’t a grab-bag of Enlightenment tropes about free speech and equality, but the product of Christian Europe. The ideals that animated our founders are universal in the same way that the Christian faith is universal: God created all men equal, they all bear the imago Dei, the image of God, and are all His children. But the only people who ever took that self-evident truth and used it as a foundation on which to forge a new nation were the English colonists in America.

The fundamental falsity of the proposition nation can perhaps be most obviously seen in the way that “a nation of immigrants” has subsequently been applied everywhere from England and Sweden to, most recently, Japan, of all places. It’s a psychological operation, not a philosophical truth.

DISCUSS ON SG

Softly, Softly Clucked the Conservative

The media’s house conservatives are now being permitted to wonder if perhaps maybe things were allowed to go just a little too far in ignoring the will of the people:

Preliberal democracy accepts the practice of regular elections but rejects most of the core values of liberalism: free speech and moral tolerance, civil liberties and the rights of the accused, the rule of law and independence of courts, the equality of women and so on. Turkey under the long reign of Recep Tayyip Erdogan typifies this type of democracy, as did Egypt under the short reign of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi.

Postliberal democracy, by contrast, embraces the values of liberalism but tries to insulate itself from the will of the people. The European Union, with its vast architecture of transnational legislation, is one example of postliberalism; international courts, issuing rulings where they have no jurisdiction, are another; global environmental accords, like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement (signed by the Obama administration but never ratified by Congress), are a third.

Standing between these two models is old-fashioned liberal democracy. Its task is to manage the tension, or temper the opposition, between competing imperatives: to accept majority will and protect individual right, to defend a nation’s sovereignty while maintaining a spirit of openness, to preserve its foundational principles while adapting to change. If the frustration of liberal democracy is that it tends to proceed in half-steps, its virtue is that it advances on more secure footing.

That’s the ideal that much of the West essentially abandoned in recent years. On the political left but also the center-right, postliberal policymaking largely determined the outcome of the two most basic political questions: First, who is “us”? And second, who decides for us?

Merkel never sought the approval of German voters to relax the country’s immigration laws and take in nearly a million people over the space of a year. Americans didn’t elect President Joe Biden on any promise to let in millions of migrants over the southern border. Post-Brexit Britons never thought they’d bring in an astounding 4.5 million immigrants to a country of just 69 million between 2021 and 2024 — under Tory leaders, no less.

No wonder the reaction to years of postliberal governance has been a broad turn to its preliberal opposite.

The conservative solution, of course, is not solution.

There’s something partisans of the center-right and center-left could do: Instead of discreetly murmuring that, say, Merkel or Biden got immigration policy wrong or that it was morally and economically right but politically foolish, they can grasp the point that control over borders is a sine qua non of national sovereignty, that mass migration without express legislative consent is politically intolerable, that migrants ought to be expected to accept, not reject, the values of the host country and that hosts should not be expected to adapt themselves to values at odds with a liberal society.

Forget that. The nationalist position is moral, just, and perfectly easy to understand.

You didn’t ask us for permission when you brought them here. We don’t need your permission to send them home.

DISCUSS ON SG

CIA vs FBI

Tucker Carlson talks to Candace Owens about the “weird little gay kid” Nick Fuentes attacking Joe Kent and being a controlled asset used to discredit people on the right

Interesting that the Fake Right has finally caught up with Owen Benjamin, whose gaydar is attuned from his years in Hollywood. I am not privy to any details concerning Nick Fuentes’s personal predilections, but the probabilities certainly tend to favor him being both fake and gay.

Regardless, I find it impossible to keep up on all the grifter and manufactured e-celeb drama, so I simply don’t spend any time thinking about it.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Conservative Case for Social Justice

This attempt to sell conservatives on social justice being a natural good and a beneficial component of human evolution is an excellent example of why it is important to reject the rhetoric of both the openly wicked and their gatekeeping defenders alike.

What if Wokeness isn’t just a sign of cultural collapse—but an evolutionary mechanism? In Woke Eugenics, we argue that what’s called “Woke” ideology—social justice, antiracism, transgenderism, radical feminism—isn’t simply madness. It’s a deeply Darwinian process.

Beneath the surface, Wokeness functions as a form of unconscious negative selection. It disproportionately appeals to the genetically maladaptive: the low in intelligence, the highly neurotic, the physically unhealthy, the narcissistic, and the mentally disordered. And crucially—it encourages them to sterilise themselves. Through childlessness, gender confusion, “body positivity,” antinatalism, casual sex, and identity-based victimhood, Wokeness seduces the most evolutionarily vulnerable segments of the population into ideological self-destruction. They don’t reproduce. They don’t build families. They often don’t survive.

Meanwhile, those immune to Wokeness—often traditional, religious, future-oriented, group-loyal individuals—are more likely to be genetically and psychologically healthy. They are the ones who marry, have children, and pass on their values. Wokeness, then, polarises society and accelerates the selective removal of its weakest links. You might hate Wokeness. You might see it as chaos. But what if that chaos is how nature does her housekeeping? This is not a collapse. It’s a filter.

J.O.A. Rayner-Hilles and I lay out this thesis in detail in Woke Eugenics, and in the lecture linked below. If you’re willing to think evolutionarily—and ruthlessly—you may never see the modern world the same way again.

This is retarded pseudoscience that is meant to placate midwitted conservatives and help them accept social justice convergence. It’s an extreme example of the usual sort of nonsense that gatekeepers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are constantly emitting. Note that the full title of the book is: Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism.

First, there are no “Darwinian processes”. There are no “evolutionary mechanisms”. Evolution by natural selection has never happened and is not happening now because it is mathematically impossible. Based on the genetic spread of Genghis Khan’s genes over 40 generations, the earliest the first mutation to appear in a child born after the birth of Jesus Christ will be able to fixate across the entire human race will be 12,975 years from now. And there is no allele for social justice or satanry, at least, there isn’t as far as we presently know.

Second, the ridiculous term “woke” is nothing more than a rhetorical cloak for “social justice”, which is an Enlightenment-era description of total moral inversion and satanic rule over society. The so-called “Jolly Heretic” is advocating the benefits of “satanic eugenics” which doesn’t sound quite so harmless when put that way, does it.

Third, social justice intrinsically, and by definition, involves forcing all individuals and institutions to abide by its inverted morality, hence the term “convergence” which is coined on the basis of the John Stuart Mill quote that defined social justice.

Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens should be made in the utmost degree to converge.

—John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Note that phrase in particular: “should be made in the utmost degree to converge”. So, no, relying upon a nonexistent and mathematically-impossible process to defeat a totalitarian assault on American society by encouraging it is such an obviously retarded idea that it suggests those putting it out there are the active enemies of Christendom, Americans, and freedom alike.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Narrative: Conservative edition

It’s obvious that the cuckservative line has been released as they’re all defending the conservative case for pedophilia and Israeli blackmail. Bill Mitchell echoes Scott Adams’s argument:

Those seeking to divide MAGA over Epstein don’t seem to understand what is at stake. If we lose the midterms, the Democrats will end the filibuster and Trump’s presidency is over. America is over. Just to satisfy your curiousity over evidence that was destroyed years ago?

This really isn’t that hard. If President Trump won’t release all of the information related to Jeffrey Epstein and arrest all of the elite pedos, his presidency is irrelevant and America is already over. Literally no one cares about party politics anymore, except those who are actively involved in them.

Either you’re with the global satanists or against them. And Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Adams are observably with them. We most definitely are not.

DISCUSS ON SG

Satan’s Little Slave

What a wretched little creature. I remember when he used to agonize over being forced to say what he was told to say. Apparently he’s grown more comfortable with that over time. He simply doesn’t have a single original thought in his head. I used to feel some pity for him, but you know, he made his choice to serve Mammon.

And when you bow down before the one you serve, you get what you deserve.

DISCUSS ON SG

Conservative is Another Word for Surrender

One wouldn’t have thought it possible, but somehow, David French is actually expanding the borders of cuckservatism:

Writing for National Review Online in 2018, French argued that conservatives must resist the cultural pressure to use someone’s preferred pronouns. “The use of a pronoun isn’t a matter of mere manners. It’s a declaration of a fact. I won’t call Chelsea Manning ‘she’ for a very simple reason. He’s a man. If a person legally changes his name, I’ll use his legal name. But I will not use my words to endorse a falsehood. I simply won’t. We’re on a dangerous road if we imply that treating a person with ‘basic human dignity’ requires acquiescing to claims we know to be false.” Echoing his colleague Michael Brendan Dougherty, French asked, “‘[A]re we allowed to tell the truth?’ Increasingly, the answer is no.”

He concludes: “Treating every single human being with dignity and respect means not just defending their constitutional liberties and showing them basic human kindness, it also means telling the truth—even when the truth is hard. Any compromise that requires conservatives to grant the other side’s false and harmful premise is no compromise at all.”

One wishes that 2018 David French could have a word with 2025 David French. The latest iteration has seemingly abandoned his argument from seven years ago, and is instead celebrating the Dispatch’s hiring of Brian “Jessica” Riedl, a center-right economist who transitioned from male to female within the last year and prominently flies the rainbow flag on his X account. In a recent interview with Riedl, the new David French abandons the counsel of the old French and instead repeatedly refers to Riedl as “she.” In response to the controversy, other ostensible conservatives defended French and Riedl, arguing that politeness requires us to use someone’s preferred pronouns.

I’m reminded of the fact when all the 85-IQ conservatives were absolutely convinced that Jordan Peterson was the Great White Hero who would provide them with intellectual cover after he very publicly and dramatically announced in the interview that made him famouse that while he would use preferred pronouns, he would only do so out of a desire to be polite.

So brave. Much wow. Please clap.

DISCUSS ON SG

Con Inc. Discovers Math

That would be more meaningful if conservatives haven’t spent the last 40 years insisting that the problem isn’t immigration, it’s ILLEGAL immigration. Which, of course, is total nonsense.

The problem is that the USA is no longer American, just as the Mandate of Palestine is no longer Arab and the South African Republic is no longer Dutch. The answer, which I have been pointing out for literal decades, and which is still considered wildly beyond the pale by most liberals and conservatives alike, is to restore the pre-1965 national demographics, either repatriate those who arrived after 1965 and are descended from those who arrived after 1965 or give them their own sovereign part of the former USA, and prosecute every single individual who was responsible for opening the immigration process to the mass foreign invasion for treason.

Such policies are not politically viable now and it’s unlikely that they will be politically viable in the future. So, there will be war. It will be a stupid, terrible, and entirely unnecessary war, and the results will either be a) more or less the same as if the policies were enacted or b) considerably worse. Something resembling the partition of India, which involved 2 million dead and 20 million displaced, is the most likely outcome, only on an even larger scale.

It’s not enough to END both legal and illegal immigration. The effects have to be reversed if America is ever going to be anything resembling America again. Certainly there is room for some valued immigrants or descendants of immigrants, integration is real, possible, and often desirable in a small percentage of sufficiently compatible cases. But unfortunately, politics is a very crude and clumsy tool, and war is an even cruder and clumsier one.

So decline, fall, war, and partition is by far the higher probability outcome. As I have pointed out every now and then, where do you think homogeneous societies come from? They are born of heterogeneous empires and war.

DISCUSS ON SG