Tag: cuckservative

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

The cucks are really, really desperate to keep the Littlest Chickenhawk viable:

I spend a few weeks every year teaching high-school and college students, and in my interactions with young people in and around universities I have noticed a trend. After class, at meals, and in walks around campus, the politically engaged students invariably ask me the same question: What do I think of Ben Shapiro?

Nor am I alone. Recently Eliza Gray had a similar experience while reporting on young conservatives in the age of President Trump. “Oddly enough,” she wrote in the Washington Post, “the person who appeared to be doing the most to shape the thinking of the new generation of Republican leaders was not the president of the United States—but Ben Shapiro, a 34-year-old anti-Trump conservative pundit who came up unprompted in more than a third of my conversations.” Again and again, students turn exchanges involving politics and ideology into discussions of Shapiro, his media presence, his ideas, and his mode of discourse.

As it turns out, I happen to think well of Shapiro, and admire not only his intelligence but also the way he is modeling political debate for an audience of millions. (We’ve corresponded once or twice but have never met.) More important, though, is what Shapiro’s celebrity tells us about the changing nature of media, the emerging sensibility of conservative youth, and indeed the future of American conservatism itself.

Shapiro owes a lot to social media. His appearances on Fox News Channel are not the cause but the consequence of his fame. It is by searching YouTube that teenagers come across his debates with campus lefties, his speeches, his appearances on like-minded podcasts, and his extended interviews with friends and other members of the so-called intellectual dark web.

The idea that Ben Shapiro is shaping ANYONE’S thinking, let alone the coming Republican leadership, is downright hilarious. The trend is clearly moving well away from his outdated open borders, free trade, Israel-first nonsense. Ben Shapiro may well be “the future of conservatism” because conservatism is dead. The cuckservatives fantasize about Generation Shapiro, but what they will get is Generation Zyklon.

As with the dog that didn’t bark in the night, what is significant is the fact that they have literally no one else. All of the genuine intellectual energy is on the nationalist Right. Jordan Peterson is a propped-up fraud. Sam Harris is a recycled, propped-up midwit. Shapiro has been propped up and pushed on conservatives since he was in junior high despite this being the quality of his political analysis.

I told you it was inevitable. But for the time being, conservatives are still determined to try to hold on to their bowties and good opinion of themselves as fine upstanding individuals who are above getting their hands dirty by actually laying hands on the enemy:

Ask any conservative hate-listed by the SPLC (me, for example) what it’s like to work for decades to achieve a successful career and then be labeled a menace to society based on some left-wing ideologue’s interpretation. The Left has been smearing the Right this way for so long — they did it to Barry Goldwater, they did it Ronald Reagan, they do it to every conservative — that we scarcely even notice it anymore.

What has happened in recent years is that the Right has begun to fight fire with fire, and the Left calls this “harassment.” This was the basic story of #GamerGate: Videogame enthusiasts had grown tired of their hobby being targeted by “social justice warriors” (SJWs) and decided to fight back. Defending themselves against the organized lobby of politically correct censors and critical-theory busybodies (e.g., Anita Sarkeesian), the #GamerGate crew were accused of “misogyny” and “haraassment.” And this exposes the double-standard: When the Left attacks the videogame industry, this is “activism”; when gamers fight back, this is “harassment.” Likewise, when left-wing outfits use the past words of conservatives to brand them racist, this is “research”; when the tables are turned, liberals call it “trolling.”

As John Sexton at Hot Air notes, the Left is defending Sarah Jeong’s anti-white hatred as simply “the way the social justice left talks”:

“White people” is a shorthand in these communities, one that’s used to capture the way that many whites still act in clueless and/or racist ways. It’s typically used satirically and hyperbolically to emphasize how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color, or to point out the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist.

Having engaged in a bit of satirical hyperbole myself, I call bulls–t here. It’s a blatant double-standard — one rule for liberals, another rule for everybody else — that permits “the social justice left” to engage in blatant hate-mongering, while conservatives are compelled to tiptoe carefully and watch every word lest they accidentally say something that might somehow be interpreted as “racism.” What conservatives need to do is to start calling the Left’s rhetoric what it is: hate propaganda.

That actually made me laugh out loud. I like Robert Stacey McCain, his intentions are undoubtedly pure, but like most conservatives, he simply has no clue that there isn’t a silent majority that is going to gravitate to whichever side can present itself as the least hateful. Calling the Left’s rhetoric “hate propaganda” is going to be even less effective than “Dems R the Real Racists” was.

What conservatives need to do, what they will eventually be forced to do whether they want to or not, is to embrace science, history, and reality, and finally accept that blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, Indians, and Jews are NEVER, EVER going to take their side or align with their idiotic, idealistic universalism. What conservatives need to do is accept that for better or for worse, they are the White American party now, and pursue their own interests accordingly. All anyone has to do to understand how any immigrant interest group is reliably going to vote is to look at how that interest group prefers to live in its own country. The dirt is not magic.

This really isn’t that hard a concept to grasp. Immigrants don’t move to the USA in order to live like White Americans any more than Californians move to Texas in order to live like Texans.

You guessed it, it’s the New York Times-endorsed controlled opposition figure, (((Ben Shapiro))).

Alexa Names Her Favorite Conservative Pundit: Ben Shapiro.

The responses by Instapundit readers demonstrate that conservatives are finally seeing through the little fraud. These are all just from the initial page of comments.

Basil Makedon
This endorsement is enough for me to banish Shapiro to the outer-darkness. I don’t actually see the fascination with him, honestly. He’s not nearly as clever as he (and his fans) believes. I went to Law School with at least a half-dozen short, Jewish guys who were twice as smart, more conservative and talked at least as fast. Most of his “debates” are with half-witted children who have had indoctrination rather than education. The whole “Intellectual Dark Web” thing is such a farce. All of those people — save Shapiro — are Leftists, shivved by Blessed Hussein’s children. Shapiro is the lone exception, which of course makes me suspicious.

jubadoobai
Alexa likes the chipmunk on helium? Fix her taste buds, Bezos. Sigh. I used to like him, too. Once upon a time.

Carey J
It’s only because Shapiro writes for NeverTrump Review.

 Kyle Smith
The highly politicized Alexa answers mean that someone works full time politicizing Alexa and is paid to to do that. They hate average Americans and cannot help themsevles. Every “power” they get they turn to politics and hate.

Botched_Lobotomy
You could make an argument that Shapiro is a classical liberal based on his defense of free speech as long as he likes the person who’s speech is being restricted. You’d be wrong but you could at least make a good faith argument. In no way is he a conservative.

WanderingWonderer
Ben Shapiro has publicly stated that “racists” should be hunted down and hounded from their places of employment. Naturally he’s all about Israel staying jewish by any means necessary but ‘doesn’t care’ about America’s demographics. Ben Shapiro has also defended James Gunn’s “jokes” about pedophilia. It just goes to show who he likes and whose side he is on.

BillyS
Ben is the controlled opposition. They have to have some opposition, but they reign him in very well. He was just defending a pedophile recently after all!

Richard Warren
No surprise that the Approved Opposision (TM) is the approved opposition, except perhaps to that Driscoll guy.

JimboFlex
A member of the “Intellectual Dark Web” is Jeff Bezos favorite conservative? How can this be? We couldn’t possibly have been sold a false bill of goods!

jckluge
Ben is a complete putz who would run conservatism as a completely ineffective opposition if he could. I think Alexa is just following orders here.

willbest
Why would Alexa need to go to reeducation camp for picking one of the NYT approved voices of the conservative movement?

Vizzini
No, Bezos smiles. The Littlest Chickenhawk is the controlled opposition. All is proceeding in accordance with Bezos’ plan.

dougf43
Well of course Benny is her favourite. Why would he not be. Seemingly a combative worthy adversary, but in reality, under the surface, nobody to worry about at all. Because what Ben really approves of is Ben Shapiro, and his exquisite better than you morality. All sound and absolutely no fury, signifying —nothing.