Tag: cuckservative

This fake Republican fake conservative is a perfect example of the anti-American US citizen for whom there is no longer any place in modern American politics:

Trump’s claim that he is going to “Make America Great Again” — after it has been betrayed by disloyal elites — is simply an echo, as it were, of Phyllis Schlafly’s conspiratorial rants.

The history of the modern Republican Party is the story of moderates being driven out and conservatives taking over — and then of those conservatives in turn being ousted by those even further to the right. A telling moment came in 1996, when the Republican presidential nominee, Bob Dole, visited an aged Barry Goldwater. Once upon a time, Dole and Goldwater had defined the Republican right, but by 1996, Dole joked, “Barry and I — we’ve sort of become the liberals.” “We’re the new liberals of the Republican Party,” Goldwater agreed. “Can you imagine that?”

The ascendance of extreme views, abetted in recent years by Fox News, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and the tea party movement, increasingly made the House Republican caucus ungovernable. The far-right Freedom Caucus drove House Speaker John A. Boehner into retirement in 2015. His successor, Paul D. Ryan, lasted only three years. Ryan’s retirement signals the final repudiation of an optimistic, inclusive brand of Reaganesque conservatism focused on enhancing economic opportunity at home and promoting democracy and free trade abroad. The Republican Party will now be defined by Trump’s dark, divisive vision, with his depiction of Democrats as America-hating, criminal-coddling traitors, his vilification of the press as the “enemy of the people,” and his ugly invective against Mexicans and Muslims. The extremism that many Republicans of goodwill had been trying to push to the fringe of their party is now its governing ideology.

That’s why I can no longer be a Republican, and in fact wish ill fortune on my former party. I am now convinced that the Republican Party must suffer repeated and devastating defeats beginning in November. It must pay a heavy price for its embrace of white nationalism and know-nothingism. Only if the GOP as it is currently constituted is burned to the ground will there be any chance to build a reasonable center-right party out of the ashes. But that will require undoing the work of decades, not just of the past two years.

In fact, an active embrace of white identity politics and so-called “know-nothingism” can solidify Republican political power and possibly even save America. But Max Boot knows that, because he wants to defeat the Republicans and destroy America. That’s why there is no longer any place for him in either the pro-America Republican Party or the anti-Israel Democratic Party. And that is why he and all the other NeverTrump neocons have to go back.

Max Boot@MaxBoot
I too will crawl over broken glass. To vote for Democrats who will act as a check on Trump’s unrestrained and unprecedented abuse of power.

As always, the cuckservatives continue to dishonestly point to ideological differences when the real problem is one of identity and immigration. 

Today, flying back from New York, I ran into someone in the Charlotte airport, a Christian pastor I’d met at an event last year. We spent about an hour talking about the rancor and distrust in our country. He’s involved in reconciliation ministry, which is to say, bringing people together across boundaries of distrust, and teaching them how to talk to each other.

I mentioned to him that I’d have conversations over the past few months with friends who broadly share my worldview and demographic characteristics (white, conservative, Christian, middle-aged), and I was surprised by how many of them say that they have deliberately chosen to socialize only with people like themselves. It’s not at all because they don’t want to talk to anybody who disagrees. It’s because they are afraid.

Afraid of what? They’re afraid that if they say something that offends a liberal, there will be hell to pay. Whether it was something genuinely offensive that they said thoughtlessly, and are willing to apologize for, or whether it was something harmless that nevertheless caused offense to the liberal, they are afraid that they will be condemned as a hater. They are afraid that the aggrieved liberal will spread a tale of their wickedness on social media, and they will be left to defend themselves in a world in which their demographic qualities (race, religion, politics, social class, etc.) will be taken as dispositive evidence of their guilt. They are afraid that in the best-case scenario, the sort of thing that in earlier times would have been something people could discuss, even argue over, while remaining friends would now cause a social conflagration that would cost people friendships — and in the worst-case scenario, one error, real or imagined, could bring everything in their lives crashing down.

I said to the pastor that I don’t know how we escape this, given that social media is never going away. Somebody’s reputation can be destroyed with remarkable ease.

Liberals? Really? I don’t know ANYONE who is afraid of offending liberals for their liberalism. What white Americans of all ideological stripes are afraid of is being accused of offending blacks, Jews, gays, women, Muslims, Asians, Hispanics, and non-European immigrants, in that order.

American liberals have been around for over a century. While they can, and should, be held responsible for a panoply of social and political ills, they obviously cannot be responsible for a current state of being that is observably new and different from before. What has changed, and the reason for the state of fear on the part of conservatives, cuckservatives, and moderates alike is the fact that the nation has been invaded and adulterated over the last 50 years, and the identity demographics have consequently changed.

Intellectual cowards like Rod Dreher lament the end of a trusting society, but they are too dishonest, and too frightened, to even address the reason it happened. And if you’re afraid to speak your mind freely and fearlessly in front of your friends and family, then you would be well-advised to eject them from your life without hesitation or remorse.

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

I don’t know what “right-wing SJW” signals to you but what it signals to me is that the person who is talking does not understand what an SJW is. They do not understand that social justice actually means something. You know, it is a complete oxymoron. To use the term “right-wing SJW” is every bit as nonsensical as the term “right-wing communist”; there are no right-wing communists. Now, you can argue all you want about the Nazis being right-wing or left-wing; I think it’s very obvious that the National Socialist German Workers Party was, like all socialist parties, like all workers parties, a party of the Left. I studied their ideology, and if you go over the 21 points of the Munich Manifesto, you can see that the National Socialists were considerably to the left of the American Democrats. That’s why it’s always been totally absurd to claim that Republicans or libertarians are Nazis, but there is enough common confusion on that score that you can understand where it happens.

And yet, you never see the same thing happen with communists, and nobody ever says, “oh, well, you right-wing communists“, and so it’s interesting to me to hear about that, especially in this recent run-in with the self-proclaimed moderates in the comics industry.  More than a few of them accused us, and me a particular, of being a quote right-wing SJW unquote, but if you understand what SJW stands for, if you understand what social justice is, then you realize that it’s the same as saying you’re a right-wing/left-wing warrior.

It’s intrinsically nonsensical, and let me explain for those of you who have not read SJWS ALWAYS LIE, which is, as even people who don’t like me very much will tell you, the go-to book on the subject. Social justice is about the convergence of all individuals and institutions towards what they consider to be the maximum possible justice for everyone,  and so “social justice warrior” does not refer to tactics, it does not refer to techniques, it refers to objectives. And the objectives of the SJW are absolutely antithetical to the right wing in general, and to right-wing extremists in particular

Alot of people don’t realize that the concept of social justice goes back to the 1800s. That’s right. A commenter said social justice is socialist justice. Many figures on the right have condemned it, probably the best example being Friedrich von Hayek. He wrote a really good essay on the subject back in 1971, so this is all going back much further than most people realize, and what we’re seeing in the SJWs today is really just the ultimate realization of what John Stuart Mill was advocating back in, whatever it was, 1851. So if you look at what social justice stands for, it stands for the very things that we’re now seeing from the tech companies, it stands for all of the corporations, all of the organizations, all of the Boy Scouts, all the churches, everything, being used to enforce the principles of social justice. Now, of course, what social justice specifically stands for has a tendency to mutate at any given moment. They used to be concerned about gay marriage, before that they were concerned about women in the workplace. They were concerned about black quarterbacks, now they’re concerned about black coaches. The specific target frequently evolves, but the general objective of forcing everybody’s opinion, and everybody’s thinking, and everybody’s actions to conform to the narrative, that is the primary objective.

Obviously that is not what we on the right wing support or stand for. We don’t accept any of it. Social justice, and especially the convergence that it entails, is diametrically opposed to all of us who value Aristotelian logic, value Christianity and Christian morality, and so it is absolutely insane, it’s nonsensical, to confuse the two or to conflate the two. Now, you can say quite reasonably that we don’t want politics in our comics. I don’t think that is very plausible for comics that are going to have any relevance to current events or to the interesting philosophical and ideological questions of the day, but that’s not a nonsensical statement, it’s just a self-limiting statement.

As I mentioned in the Darkstream, we have taken the opportunity of the recent unpleasantries to update our Dark Legion Comics logo, and we will be replacing the ComicsGate Comic logo on the current Gun Ghoul graphic novel with it later this week. We have already replaced the original Dark Legion logos on the digital editions, and we will replace the original gold Dark Legion logos on Chicago Typewriter and Rebel Dead Revenge when the production schedule permits.

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.