Tag: cuckservative

Fortunately, the God-Emperor is very unlikely to take the suggestion of a former Republican Smart Boy turned professional cuckservative:

In l’affaire Ukraine, the president is guilty as charged. And the best strategy for him to avoid impeachment by the House and perhaps even removal by the Senate is to admit it, apologize, and let voters make their own judgment. It’s also the best way to fend off a disaster for Senate Republicans.

The president is accused — politically, not criminally — of trying to force the Ukrainian president to tar former vice president Joe Biden with an investigation into his alleged “corruption” in exchange for the release of military aid and a meeting in the Oval Office. I believe a plain reading of the rough transcript of a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky supports the charge. So does testimony from the top American diplomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, as well as several other Trump appointees and aides, including Tuesday’s testimony from Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council staffer who listened to the phone call. There’s still due diligence to be done, but it seems implausible they’re all lying.

Common sense also works against the president. If Trump were sincerely concerned about Ukrainian corruption, why has he never expressed similar concerns about corruption anywhere else? And, why, if the issue is Ukrainian corruption generally, did the Trump administration focus on the alleged corruption of a single Ukrainian firm, Burisma, where Biden’s son sat on the board?

Assume guilt. Demand apology. Increase pressure. Sounds… familiar. It’s really remarkable to see how much cucks pattern their behavior these days on SJWs. It’s really impressive to see how desperate the God-Emperor’s enemies have become of late.

They are beginning to realize that cucking will not save them. No one will ever be safe from SJWs. Not even if you’re a card-carrying liberal academic who votes Democrat and whose life purpose is to address inequality:

Earlier this month, Ascend, the high-performing Brooklyn charter-school network, fired its accomplished founder and CEO, Steven Wilson. What had Wilson done to deserve this? Not much.

Wilson, a school leader with decades of experience, a onetime senior fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and the author of two books on school reform, became perhaps the most visible victim to date of charter schooling’s worrisome turn to politically correct groupthink. Woke enough to declare that his life’s purpose is “addressing education inequalities,” he nevertheless dared to talk frankly about third-rail questions of educational rigor and excellence, and paid the price.

This past summer, on June 4, Wilson penned a blog post titled, “The promise of intellectual joy” that appeared on Ascend’s website. Wilson argued that “democratic” education must strive to “grant all students the knowledge and faculties of mind that had once only been afforded the elite.” He lamented that intellectual pursuit is today too often seen not as a democratic birthright, but as an elitist affectation.

Wilson fretted that values such as “objectivity” and “worship of the written word” had been dismissed as “damaging characteristics of white supremacy culture.” He said there was a “growing risk” that efforts to make schools more “diverse, equitable, and inclusive” could “be shamefully exploited to justify reduced intellectual expectations of students.” Schools must find ways to make clear that “intellectual pursuit” and “especially intellectual joy” are good for all students, of every race and background. If we fail to do that, Wilson argued, “The distinctly American project of equal opportunity will continue to be thwarted.”

One might find all this all to be anodyne enough. Yet, in the progressive-driven culture war that has consumed charter schooling, Wilson’s lofty sentiments were grounds for angry attacks. Soon after the post appeared, a group that labeled itself “Friends of Ascend” started a petition on Change.org that sought to “hold the CEO of Ascend Public Charter Schools accountable for white supremacist rhetoric.” The petition insisted that Wilson’s post contained “offensive and oppressive content that . . .  propagates destructive messages about the community that Ascend serves.”

A few months after the petition surfaced, Ascend’s board reviewed Wilson’s “record,” and he was fired.

Wilson isn’t someone who merits defending; this is clearly a case of a man reaping what he has sown. The point is that if even someone with his unquestioned left-liberal credentials is being targeted for discrediting and disemployment, what hope do you have of being left alone?

And they fear us more than we fear them:

I’m one of the lawyers who writes Terms of Service for software companies. We try to make these Terms as short and clear as possible, because if we don’t, it means people either won’t use the products or they may sue the company, both of which are terrible results for the company. I’m always amazed by the questions suggesting we’re trying to sneak in some sort of clause saying that if you use the product, you agree to give us your left kidney or whatever. All we’re trying to do is give you access to free or affordable software products and not get sued for the way you choose to use them.

However, it’s not hard to understand why the converged software companies run roughshod over everyone when they keep seeing people react to deplatformings like this.

“I explained to them that I live in a city with 60,000 homeless people and that they are about to make me and my wife join their ranks.”

The extent to which this guy fails to understand the actual situation almost defies understanding. Conservatives staunchly refuse to understand the “war” part of “cultural war”. He simply does not grasp that forcing him and his wife join the ranks of the homeless would be considered a feature, not a bug, of the deplatforming process.

Few of even the most converged corporations would risk these “terrible results” if they had any cause at all to expect them as a possible consequence of their actions.

It’s certainly taken long enough, but conservatives are FINALLY beginning to see through the neoclowns:

When I was younger and less experienced — and had seen less war — I was a big believer in the Rumsfeld Doctrine, “if the problem seems unsolvable, enlarge it,” that is, don’t chew about the edges if chewing about the edges doesn’t solve things, but go for the whole sandwich if need be.

I also believed the empty Neocon slogans about appeasement and Hitler and Clinton “just kicking the can down the road” in Iraq.

The empty sloganeering went like this: If we don’t permanently solve our diplomatic/military crises once and for ever, then we’re just “kicking the can down the road” and deferring problems until later.

But watching the Iraq and Afghanistan (and Libya and Syria) fiascoes, I’ve now come to understand a few things:

First, it is extraordinarily difficult to “solve” massive societal problems in foreign fucking countries. The cancer in Middle East states goes right down to the bone.

We haven’t managed to rid America of the Communist Delusion after one hundred years. And we think we’re going to cure Islam of Islamism?

It may be simply impossible to “fix” such things, and even if it is theoretically possible, it might take far more wasted men, severed limbs, and pallet-fulls of money than we are willing to spend.

Second, Americans are a bit mercurial in matters of war: They are occasionally keen on it, but quickly tire of it.

We have now had a pretty firm trial run of how many years of war America is willing to tolerate, even if offered terrific provocation (such as 9/11). The answer turns out to be “three to four years, maybe.”

Hell, even the liberal wing of the War Party — the Neocon NeverTrumpers — began calling anyone who proposed additional screening for Muslim travelers an anti-American racist within three years of 9/11.

Which brings me to the third point: Wars must be sharply limited in goals, with clearly defined victory conditions and a firm exit strategy, and must not be permitted to endlessly mutate new goals and thus new end-points.

And we must not “nation build.”

There is no question of how “it may be simply impossible”. It is impossible and it has always been impossible and those who have pushed for it knew that from the start. It won’t be long until conservatives finally start NOTICING and understanding why the neoclowns have been incessantly pushing for permanent war in the Middle East. Which, of course, is why the Alt-Right – which is to say the Post-Conservative Nationalist American Right, however you want to label it – has always been inevitable.

Of course, it could take longer than one would expect, because conservatives are almost terminally stupid.

It’s absurd. It’s already been tried and it already failed. Shall we keep on doing it, then? I think I’d rather just eat the whole sandwich and invade Iran.

Because that’s supposed to be less absurd? Since Ace has apparently just discovered military history, perhaps he will follow my suggestion to read about a little historical episode known as “the Sicilian Expedition” and a concept called “imperial overstretch”.

Cuck Central is live! All they need to do is add Rod Dreher and they’ll be set:

Former National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes of the now-defunct Weekly Standard have launched a conservative media company called The Dispatch.

“We aim to make The Dispatch a place that thoughtful readers can come for conservative, fact-based news and commentary that doesn’t come either through the filter of the mainstream media or the increasingly boosterish media on the right. Importantly, we want to build a genuine community, with regular engagement between those of us who work here and the readers and listeners who will pay our salaries,” Goldberg and Hayes write on the company’s website.

Visitors to the site can choose to read content for free initially or purchase a “Founders Membership” for $1,500, which provides a lifetime membership and other perks including “priority access to meet-ups, events, conference call with top staffers” and “access to robust members-only discussion room.”

“Everything will remain free for the next few months. Early next year, we’ll begin charging $10 a month or $100 a year for membership,” Hayes indicates in an email to new subscribers.

The publication’s newsletter will debut on Wednesday, Axios first reported on Tuesday.

National Review’s David French will also be joining The Dispatch as senior editor, the news outlet added.

According to Axios, The Dispatch will launch with a full-time staff of eight. It has reportedly raised $6 million from investors ahead of its debut.

It’s a blog. A six-million-dollar group blog. I wonder how long it will be before that $6 million from investors is converted into a loan. And it won’t surprise me if  it doesn’t have as many page views as this totally free blog does.

You always know a publication is going to be full of tedious squishes when it advertises itself as “thoughtful”. Because they spend a lot of time thinking very hard about how to be absolutely certain that no one can call them racist.

The Z-Man considers the way in which conservatism now attempts to conserve the market rather than the society:

If one were to summarize why Buckley-style conservatism failed, the clearest answer is that it stopped being conservative. The central tenets of conservatism are tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, property rights and prudence. In the Anglo-Saxon model, ordered liberty can also be included. The limits on authority are the logic of a fixed and orderly legal system. Probably the most concise explanation of American conservatism came from Russel Kirk seventy years ago.

Buckley conservatism, in contrast, was never deeply rooted in social philosophy and this was a deliberate act. The Buckleyites wanted a create a political movement that could compete with Progressives. In order to do that it meant winning elections and that meant providing a practical platform for governance. As a result, Buckley conservatism was always a compromise. In order to fashion a practical political platform, it meant deviating from conservative dogma as necessity required.

This lack of ideological moorings, however, led it to drift away from conservatism toward something that is better described as marketism. Libertarians see property as the key to individual liberty. All human rights derive from ownership of self and property is the fruit of labor, so absolute property rights safeguard individual liberty. Marketism, in contrast, views liberty as the unfettered right to trade property and labor. Therefore, liberty is maximized only through the free and unregulated marketplace.

In both cases, the definition of individual liberty is at odds with conservative conceptions of individual liberty, as well as the tenets of conservatism. The Right has always understood that a man could only be free within the context of society. To exist within a society, he must gain control of his passions and master himself. Customs and traditions, which habituated him to his duties as a member of society, also channeled his energies to that which served the good of his society.

This doesn’t address the entirety of the problem, but it is a good start. The reality is that Kirk-style conservatism was every bit as doomed, even if it didn’t stop being conservative, because it is not a coherent political philosophy, it is only an attitude.

Of course, that which by any name conserves nothing will not be able to conserve the free market because it did not conserve the society that values free markets.

The title really says it all:

PRAGERU CHANNEL

The Candace Owens Show Featuring Rep. Dan Crenshaw

You’re not going to conserve your country or your civilization with champions like these.

Conservatives have always been spineless and without principle:

It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation.

What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted?

Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip.

No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.
– Robert Lewis Dabney, 1871

Whenever someone is issuing dire warnings about how the Left will not like the consequences of their latest political monstrosity, you can be sure that a conservative is speaking, just as you can be certain that he will furiously denounce and disavow anyone who actually attempts to deliver those consequences.

If you ever doubted my assertion that a conservative is an individual who fears being called racist more than he fears God, the rape of his wife, the murder of his children, the destruction of his nation’s economy or the collapse of his society, this mewling plea for a hard and bright line between conservatism and the defenders of the West should suffice to convince you of its truth:

Liberal commentators will always say conservatives are just a bunch of racists. This is a lie. But conservatives need to do a better job convincing the racists that it’s a lie.

A handful of conservatives, including quietly influential figures in important conservative institutions, were outed last week by leaked emails as participating in a pro-Hitler, nakedly anti-Semitic, and plainly racist email list.

While liberal journalists are prone to inventing racism everywhere, this was no invention. The article in Splinter by Hannah Gais was no smear. It was serious and fair reporting that ought to cause conservatives to ask what we are doing wrong.

John Elliott, formerly of the Institute for Humane Studies and Intercollegiate Studies Institute, was a central figure in the story. IHS and ISI are respected and mainstream conservative institutions. Thousands of conservative and libertarian journalists and activists have passed through them. Hundreds of them received mentorship from Elliott. I’ve been friendly with Elliot for a decade. He’s brought me in (and gotten me paid) to speak to students at both organizations.

My first reaction upon reading the Splinter story was horror that otherwise sane-seeming people in the United States hold Hitlerian views. (For what it’s worth, Elliott apologized for the emails and said he no longer believes those things. I pray that’s sincere.)

“According to one former mentee,” Gais wrote, “Elliott opened up to those he deemed ‘red-pilled’ — a term used by white nationalists and so-called ‘men’s rights activists’ to refer to someone who has been awakened to their cause.”

So my second reaction was: At least Elliott never suspected I was red-pilled.

My third reaction was: Great, now liberals are going to paint everyone who’s gone through IHS, ISI, or the Daily Caller as racists.

But my fourth reaction was the unsettling one: Why the hell did racists seek homes in conservative and liberal institutions, and why the hell were young conservatives easily won over to racist views?

Snide liberals will chuckle and say something like, “Because conservatism is racism.” But the snideness and falseness of that answer shouldn’t deter us from mulling over the question and doing something to make clear that conservatism and racism don’t mix — that if your red pill looks anything like Elliott’s, you’re really not welcome here.

I know Christians are not welcome in conservatism. I know nationalists are not welcome in conservatism. I know that anyone who wants to restore the pre-1965 USA or the pre-EU European nations is not welcome in conservatism. President Trump himself is not welcome in conservatism.

I don’t care.

I am proud to say that I am not, and I have never been, a conservative. Others tried to claim I was, and I always corrected them. I was not rejected by conservatives, I found them entirely unworthy and rejected them.

So, where do you stand? With the lukewarm, boot-licking conservatives whose highest principle is compromise and who have conserved absolutely nothing in the entire history of their political identity or with Jesus Christ, the European nations, and the philosophical legacy of Greece and Rome?

And if you are not given a spirit of fear, then why is your entire identity wrapped up in a fear of being called racist? Why do you insist on claiming that your children are no different than the dogs?

So, the good news is that the British Labour Party is no longer a worker’s party and is now embracing libertarian principles. The bad news is those libertarian principles are open borders and full voting rights for non-citizens:

Labour members have voted overwhelmingly to give full voting rights to all UK residents, committing the party to extend the franchise to millions of immigrants.

A motion tabled by the Labour Campaign for Free Movement was passed at the party’s conference in Brighton on Wednesday morning, after MPs were forced to rush back to Westminster to attend the newly reconvened House of Commons.

As well as extending voting rights, the text commits a future Labour government to closing all immigration detention centres, ending “no recourse to public funds” policies and seeking to extend free movement rights to people around the world.

The motion also opposed immigration systems based on a person’s income or “utility to big business”, and any caps or targets on the number of people moving to the UK.

The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, welcomed the motion and acknowledged it was now Labour policy. “Be assured, our plans for government include these provisions and a lot more, to make this country a better, more decent and more prosperous place,” she said.

Still not convinced that libertarianism is fundamentally wrong at its core? This is a proposed implementation of genuine libertarian policies. With the ongoing failure of the neo-liberal world order, it is rapidly becoming more and more obvious that both conservatism and libertarianism, as well as neo-liberalism, can be even worse for a nation or for a society than socialism.

The Left is evil, without question, but it is not the epitome of political evil. Those depths are still being plumbed.