Tag: cuckservative

It’s truly informative to see that this is the reaction from those charming ComicsGaters to the news that a publishing company supports their publicly expressed goals. The fake news image, which stated that a certain “suicide unites fandom”, was posted at Bounding Into Comics by one Brett S aka @seventhbeacon, who we are told is a “lover of sci-fi, comics, books, learning & Enlightenment values. Atheist. Liberalist.” VFM, it would certainly be interesting to learn considerably more about him. There is the distinct scent of a ComicsGator trying to play let’s you and him fight.

In any event, whatever happened to “I am the leader of ComicsGate and so can you?” Now, if I understand correctly, we’re being informed that someone actually owns it? When did that happen?

If it is a genuine CGer, then these guys aren’t anywhere near ready for prime time. No discipline whatsoever. Imagine if that was directed at an SJW in the industry. The media SJWs would eat them alive.

James Burnham devised a test to distinguish liberal-progressives from conservative-reactionaries in 1965. See how you do; you will very likely be surprised to see where you land in light of how much the Overton Window has moved to the Left in the last 53 years.

IT IS NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO DEVISE a fairly accurate diagnostic test for liberalism. In individual and group experiments over the past several years I have often used, for example, the following set of thirty-nine sentences. The patient is merely asked whether he agrees or disagrees with each sentence—agrees or disagrees by and large, without worrying over fine points.

1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in the Southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

A FULL-BLOWN LIBERAL WILL mark every one, or very nearly every one, of these thirty-nine sentences, Agree. A convinced conservative will mark many or most of them, a reactionary all or nearly all of them, Disagree. By giving this test to a variety of groups, I have confirmed experimentally—what is obvious enough from ordinary discourse—that the result is seldom an even balance between Agree and Disagree. The correlations are especially stable for individuals who are prepared to identify themselves unequivocally as either “liberal” or “reactionary”: such self-defined liberals almost never drop below 85 percent of Agree answers, or self-defined reactionaries below 85 percent of Disagree; a perfect 100 percent is common. Certain types of self-styled conservatives yield almost as high a Disagree percentage as the admitted reactionaries. The answers of those who regard themselves as “moderate conservatives” or “traditional conservatives” and of the rather small number of persons who pretend to no general opinions about public matters show considerably more variation. But in general the responses to this list of thirty-nine sentences indicate that a liberal line can be drawn somewhere—even if not exactly along this salient—and that most persons fall fairly definitely (though not in equal numbers) on one side of it or the other.

These sentences were not devised arbitrarily. Many of them are taken directly or adapted from the writings of well-known liberals, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, or the liberal questionnaires that have been put out in recent years by the American Civil Liberties Union. The last eight are quoted verbatim from the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly.

Is an irrelevant political commentator. The Z-man explains why:

One of the first things I learned about conservatism, way back in the before times, was that William F. Buckley made conservatism respectable. In the 1980’s, Buckley became a rock star, riding the wave of enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan. Like a lot of young men in that age, I was caught up in it. Being a conservative was suddenly cool and everyone credited Buckley for making it possible. It was hard to argue with the claim. Bill Buckley was a charming, intelligent and sophisticated guy. Who would not want to be like Bill?

The part that no one seemed to notice back then, at least not the people involved in the conservative movement, was that the whole point of the thing was to make the people in it respectable, as judged by their alleged opponents. Pretty much the only thing they really cared about was being seen as respectable. It’s why guys like George Will were not fans of Ronald Reagan initially. They worried that his earthy sense of humor and popularity with normal people would not go over well with their friends on the Left.

A big part of being respectable, at least in modern politics, is drawing the line between yourself and those who are not respectable. In the 80’s, when conservatism was booming, no one thought much about all the people that had been read out of the conservative movement in order for guys like Bill Buckley to be respectable. That was the thing though, by the 80’s, conservatism was nothing but drawing lines between the respectable and the unacceptable, in order to be in good standing with the Left.

I’ve never understood why conservatives care so much about the good opinion of the Left. I don’t care about the good opinion of the Left, of conservatives, or of the Devil. Sure, I don’t care all that much about anyone’s opinion, but even so, what could possibly be the point in placing any value on your professed enemy’s regard?

It comes down to social status-seeking and narcissism, I guess. And greed. There always seem to be billionaires happy to fund those who are willing to play gatekeeper to the Right.

Kurt Schlichter calls out the petty, self-serving cuckservatives and conservatives of Conservative Incorporated:

The recent utterly unsurprising utter capitulation by the Fredocons to the SJW/tech/media campaign to deplatform and silence any right-wing voice who is not trying to sell you a cruise cabin is a symptom of a bigger problem. It’s not a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome, though Trump has utterly deranged these pointy-headed geeks. It is a symptom of Conservative, Inc.’s contempt for you.

The dethroned conservagimps are angry with you. Donald Trump is not really the issue. He’s just a convenient target for those these establishment sissies. They truly despise you.

You.

They hate you because you refuse to honor and respect them, to validate their cheesy status within the Beltway hierarchy, and to acknowledge them as your betters. Your pig-headed uppityness has disrupted their scam. The old paradigm, the model of go-along/get-along and feed the crackers out there in America articles about lib outrages to keep them writing checks, no longer cuts it. You’ve stripped them of their status by holding them accountable for their failure to fight for conservatism, and for us.

And it is such a pathetic status – maybe they are fighting so hard because the stakes are so low. For some, it’s a mention on the masthead of an anorexically thin magazine that now publishes only because some zillionaire keeps handing its boss wads of cash, the actual subscribers to the cruise-shilling brochure having abandoned ship after the seven hundredth “Trump Is Icky!” expose. For others, it’s the chance to be the nominal conservative voice on Morning Joe, ready to pretend that actual conservatives concur with the ideological stylings of the Mick Jagger of flaccid, self-indulgent momrock.

The Alt-Right is inevitable. The Alternative Right, which is neither classical liberal, conservative, or libertarian, is the One True and Legitimate Right.

It is slowly beginning to dawn on the cuckservatives, conservatives, and civic nationalists that their universalism and equalitarian ideology isn’t going to save them from the Not-Whites and their anti-West technodhimmis:

Gavin McInnes has spoke exclusively to Big League Politics after his Twitter account was banned Friday evening. “They think this is going to stop Trump,” he told Big League Politics. “Maybe if they deplatform us, the socialists will win – but they won’t. We’ve already won. You can’t stump the Trump.”

“The left is trying to make this about Unite the Right. It’s a lie,” he said.

The ban comes hours after McInnes spoke out against the “alt-right” Unite the Right demonstration that will be held in Washington, D.C. on August 12….

According to BuzzFeed, the accounts were removed for violating Twitter’s policy against “violent extremist groups.”

“’We can confirm that these accounts have been suspended from Twitter and Periscope for violating our policy prohibiting violent extremist groups,’ a [Twitter] spokesperson said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.”

As far as we can tell, none of the official Antifa Twitter pages have been banned, though there are few examples of Proud Boys violence, and hundreds of Antifa violence. Just last weekend, police in Portland, Oregon had to step in to protect the Proud Boys when they were physically attacked by Antifa counter-protestors at a rally.

Ironically, because the Left correctly sees displays of virtue-signaling as appeasement and weakness, now you are much more likely to be attacked if you stand AGAINST the nationalist Right than if you stand FOR it.

They fear us. They literally have nightmares about us. They’re not at all afraid of those foolish enough to seek common ground with them.

History proves that nationalism and Christianity combined can defeat the dyscivilizational tide. Conclusively. Anything and everything that falls short of those two things, or weakens those two things, or perverts or subverts those two things, is effectively anti-Western civilization and a potential liability.

She’s TERRIFIED to take on the diminutive master debater:

Twitter exploded on Thursday after democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slandered Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro in response to the debate offer he extended to her earlier in the week, leading many prominent accounts to slam the 28-year-old bartender turned politician.

On Wednesday, Shapiro offered to donate $10,000 to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign if she agreed to a debate or discussion on his “Sunday Special” — or, if she preferred, to use the debate to raise money for charity.

Ocasio-Cortez refused to respond, but, moments after The Daily Wire published a report documenting her silence, she responded by slandering Shapiro:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez@Ocasio2018
 Just like catcalling, I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions. And also like catcalling, for some reason they feel entitled to one.

In response Noah Pollak TWEET-HAMMERED Ms Ocasio-Cortez

 This is your brain on identity politics. By challenging her to debate, @benshapiro was actually treating her as an equal. She knows she’d lose, and she needs to posture for her SJW fans, so she declares herself a victim of “catcalling.” Totally demented. 

And Jim Treacher TWITTER-VIOLATED the future Democratic Congresswoman, pointing out:

 Note that if this were the other way around, she’d say Ben was SCARED.

Strange, you know, but every time the Littlest Chickenhawk ran away from Milo or me, Li’l Benny’s supporters always claimed his refusal to debate was perfectly justified because he is so very important and has so many better and more important things to do. Well, I suppose if they were capable of grasping simple concepts like transitivity, they wouldn’t be Shapiro supporters.

Of course, Ms Ocasio-Cortez’s response was excellent rhetoric, because Benny is exactly the sort of creepy little guy who sends cold shivers of horror down every woman’s spine at the thought of him making an advance on her.

Even the true conservative’s conservative, John Hawkins, is beginning to embrace the inevitable logic of the Alt-Right:

Liberalism is now full of people like Sarah Jeong who are excused for nursing racial grievances despite the fact that they are influential, privileged, and by any reasonable standard much more powerful than the average person. These are people who aim hatred toward white people because of the color of their skin, and then we’re told that they can’t be racist because minorities have no power in a country where a black man just spent eight years as president of the United States. Jesse Jackson has no power? Al Sharpton? Ta-Nehisi Coates? Julian Bond? Leonard Pitts? Marc Lamont Hill? Charles Blow? Cornel West? Shaun King? Aiming hatred at white people is an industry in the United States and it pays well in money and attention.  That’s why it’s such a growing field on the Left.

So, if you’re someone who is hated by a political party because of your skin color, what do you do about that?

Liberals certainly express a point of view about what minorities should do in that situation. They habitually falsely accuse Republicans of hating minorities and then say that means those voters are crazy if they don’t vote for them. Of course, their claim is not true. Conservatives overwhelmingly believe in judging people as individuals, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Still, this is how Democrats approach this issue.

So, should white people abandon the Democrats who hate their guts? Yes, they should. Why vote for someone who defends people who hate you because of the color of your skin? Why should any individual have to be a groveling apologist because he was born a certain color? Why support a party that is prejudiced against your white child because of the color of his skin?  These guys are aiming the same kind of hate at white people as their ancestors used to do at black Americans — and if you’re a white American who just shrugs your shoulders at that, you’re foolish.

You often hear this debate in America about whether people are “voting in their own interest.” If you are white, how is it in your interest to vote for a party full of people who denigrate you not because of your actions, but because of your race? How is it in your interest to support people who openly blame you for the problems in their lives because of your race and discount all of your hard-earned achievements because of imaginary “white privilege”? How is it in your interest to support people who gleefully say it will be a better country when more people like you are gone?

Apparently it’s no longer a moral imperative to cuckishly posture about how color-blind and totally not racist you are, and how much you would LOVE to vote for a black candidate when doing so doesn’t even slow down the “liberal” attack dogs in their determined attempts to eradicate you. The next, and final, step for the likes of Mr. Hawkins is to realize that it isn’t “liberals” who are firmly prejudiced against whites, but non-whites pursuing their own competing interests.

Identity politics are now in effect. Get used to it and behave accordingly. The political system in the USA is now just like every other multinational political system in history. Defend your own, advance your own, or lose.

They don’t care about your adopted Negro son. They don’t care about your Chinese best friend. They don’t care that you voted for Alan Keyes or Hermain Cain or even Barack Obama. They don’t care about your virtue-signaling or your virtue. They don’t care what you think, what you do, or who you are. You are wearing the uniform of the enemy and you are in their way, so you are the enemy.

Consider this. Did any American soldier, throughout the entire course of World War II, ever stop to inquire of a German soldier his personal position on the invasion of Poland or how he voted concerning the Austrian Anschluss referendum of 1938 before shooting at him? That’s about how much the average Chinese-American, African-American, Somali-American, Persian-American, or Jewish-American thinks about what a genuine white Christian American happens to believe.

The various tribes inhabiting the USA pursue their own interests, as humans have done since the dawn of time. You would be well-advised to do the same.

Perfidious fake conservative (((Jennifer Rubin))) urges the future shunning of the White House Press Secretary:

Conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin tore into White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Sunday, saying she should be shunned from her next job for her false and misleading claims.

“Sarah Huckabee Sanders is so concerned that people aren’t nice to her,” Rubin told MSNBC’s Joy Reid on “AM Joy.” “And people like me think that — not that she should be harassed — but that she should be shunned. The reason is that she lies. She attacks our free press and no respectable employer should hire her after this term,” Rubin continued. “Also, no university and no news outlet. She has lied and she has endangered the lives of reporters and that’s why she should be shunned. Not harassed — shunned.”

Earlier this week, the columnist declared in a scathing editorial that the GOP “isn’t fit to govern.”

If lying is justification for being shunned, then why is anyone on the planet talking to Rubin? Before moving into fake conservative opinion writing to derail Republicans, Rubin was “a labor and employment lawyer in Los Angeles, working for Hollywood studios, for 20 years.”

Rubin is as legitimately of the political Right as Richard Dawkins is an evangelical Christian. And she’s as about as American as Li Keqiang.

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

I didn’t really think about Shapiro at all until 2005, when I dubbed him the Littlest Chickenhawk, and the reason I did so – remember this is back in 2005 okay – and what Shapiro did, despite the fact that he was of an age to join the military, he wrote and claimed that invading Iraq and invading Iran and basically invading the entire Middle East and establishing an American empire that would be democratic was the most most vital issue of our time. It was the absolute priority for the United States of America, and yet he didn’t join the military! It was more important for him to go to college and go to law school. I mean, this is the literal definition of a chickenhawk, somebody who demands the country go to war but refuses to do so himself.

So back in 2005 I dubbed him the Littlest Chickenhawk after he tried to justify himself and defend himself and it was absolutely, totally inept. Totally unconvincing, you know, and it really astonished me that anyone took him seriously after that. I mean, Shapiro has no intellectual integrity at all! He prides himself, his supporters talk about how he’s supposed to be this fearsome debater, he’s written a little pamphlet on how to destroy liberals in an argument, but here’s the thing. He ran away from the opportunity to debate Milo Yiannopoulos. Twice he talked about a general debate challenge, I  contacted him and said, “Ben, I’ll be happy to debate you.” Once it was on economics, I don’t recall what the other one was.

Both times he practically left tracks fleeing in the opposite direction, and so you know the guy is a complete and utter fraud.

Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.
– Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005