Tag: cuckservative

Kurt Schlichter tears into the pious frauds who, despite their proclamations of high principle, have proven to be every bit as unprincipled as we always figured they were:

Where are your principles in the face of the gross injustices of the last few days? A federal judge who was nearly appointed Bill Clinton’s attorney general and who officiated at Soros’s wedding ordered Hannity’s information disclosed, but that was cool with you. After all, Sean Hannity is so…oh well, I never!

Principles that depend on who is asserting them aren’t principles. They are poses.

If you actually adhered to them, your principles would have you shrieking, not cheering. A bunch of Hillary-donating feds should not be allowed to randomly pillage through privileged materials looking for a crime. No, the crime-fraud exception does not mean that the feds can just take all your stuff, read through it, and decide if some happens to fall into that narrow exception and leak the rest. But hey, why let some principles get in the way of a good laugh at the expense of one of those Trump people?

Gosh, it’s almost like your talk of principles was just…talk.

Schlichter is correct. There are no Never Trump principles. As a matter of fact, there are no conservative principles, because conservatism is not, and has never been, a coherent ideology. It is, ultimately, a reactive, defensive pose.

That’s the strategic problem with conservatism. It literally can’t win. It can’t go on the offense, because it has no objectives. And Never Trump is conservatism with cancer.

UPDATE: They were always frauds from the start.

Former presidential candidate Evan McMullin owes his former campaign staff members tens of thousands of dollars and most believe he has no intention of ever paying them, a former campaign worker tells The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Right before McMullin’s failed bid for president in 2016 as the conservative alternative to President Donald Trump, the campaign was inundated with debt. The disastrous fiscal situation was a combination of frivolous spending by McMullin and his campaign manager Joel Searby, according to the former staffer.

McMullin received news weeks before Election Day 2016 about how dire the campaign’s finances were, and he had “no remorse” and said “I have qualms about this thing ending badly in debt,” the former staffer claimed. McMullin’s cavalier attitude towards the campaign’s spending struck many as a surprise, particularly because he billed himself as a fiscal conservative, he added.

It is simply delicious to think of all the harrumphing bow-ties shedding furious tears over the way they were stiffed by their fine, principled fiscally conservative candidate who was only running out of his deep sense of outraged honor.

This earlier exchange epitomizes the result of all that legal, merit-based immigration that conservatives been championing since the rhetorical failure of their focus on “illegal immigration”.

Raghav Hegde
LOL….I don’t know whether to be outraged at some of the stuff you lot say about my people or laugh. Anyway, I will say just one thing. Microsoft market cap when the company was “less Indian” in 2009: $138 billion. Microsoft market cap now that it is a company of Indians, in 2018, $738 billion. Anyway, keep up with your silly rants against those “curries”, “apus” or whateveer it is you call us ?

Sherwood family
Raghav Hegde: you just said it yourself. They are your people. Which is fine. Everyone has a people and should support them the best they can. But they are not our people. You have to go back. Make India Great Again.

Raghav Hegde
Sherwood family: Sure we will. But first we are gonna take over “your” companies and make them “our” companies. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Adobe, Apple, IBM…you name it, we dominate. LOL…I bet you prefer the Mexicans or Latinos to us smelly Apus. At best, they work as your gardeners or house help or whatever. The little smelly ugly effete Indians, LOL, we are basically replacing you from your best jobs ? Go on, rant away ?

Sherwood family
So…Raghav Hegde’s response is summed up as: all those things you say don’t like about us…yeah…we are actually doing them and plan to do them a lot more and your noticing that is ‘ranting’. Even Raghav Hegde’s threats are parasitic at best: “we are gonna take over “your” companies and make them “our” companies.” Don’t be a parasite. Go Make India Great Again.

You see, conservatives have never understood that no one else in the world gives a damn about their high-minded principles. Which is ironic, given that conservatism, as it was originally conceived, was about the triumph of history and tradition over ideology and reason-based principles. Remember the phrase, “the democracy of the dead?” But what pass for conservatives today resolutely turn their face from the traditions of the past in favor of liberte, egalite, fraternite.

They have more in common with the French Revolution than the American one.

Recent conservative rhetoric has resorted to trying to equate the SJW Left with the Alt-Right. I suppose that’s fair enough if you’re talking about the anti-nationalist Fake Right cartoon version of Obama voters and EU supporters portrayed as the Alt-Right by the media. But any straightforward comparison of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right, or with the rising European nationalism, with the globalist, anti-American, and equalitarian values espoused by today’s conservatives will clearly show that it is the conservative movement that is considerably far to our Left.

Every generation of Man prior to the Greatest Generation understood that a nation exists to benefit its posterity, even at the expense of all other nations. That is the traditional and true Right principle, and the perverted “conservatism” of today is the result of 120 years of virulent ahistorical, anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-nationalist propaganda by self-serving immigrants. The Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the Millennials are the only generations to have ever generally bought into the nonsense.

The exchange above illustrates what I mean when I say that European anti-Semitism is an accident of history. There is nothing special about the adversarial historical relationship between the two parties, it is simply what happens when low-trust cultures and high-trust cultures collide. Neither Jews nor Europeans understand its true nature or that the results would have been much the same if it had been a Chinese, an Indian, or any other high-performance, self-serving minority living parasitically in a high-trust, high-performance society. And almost everyone, on all sides, is going to be astonished by the eventual outcome, due to this failure to understand the nature of the historical situation.

For example, the Jews are already alarmed that the Chinese are successfully challenging their control over Hollywood and the Ivy League admissions offices. Do they really think they are going to be able to withstand the Indian plan to take over technology companies like Microsoft and Google or believe they will be able to hold onto the media, or even Wall Street when the Chinese decide to take it over with a double-envelopment from within and without.

That’s the long-term logistical problem with permitting a parasitical, self-serving minority to take control of the societal high ground of a large nation. The influential minority simply doesn’t have the numbers or the power to hold onto it when another, larger and more powerful, but equally self-serving minority decides to take it from them. As for relying on the canard of the supposedly superior intelligence explaining Jewish success, which mysteriously did not appear until the 20th century, keep in mind that there are several orders of magnitude more high-IQ Chinese and Indians than Jews.

The 21st century is not only going to be a historically interesting one, I believe it is going to turn out very, very different than almost anyone is imagining.

‘GFY’! Ben Shapiro brutally DROPS blue-check blaming him and other Rightists for mosque shooting

And what was this brutal DROP?

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
 The shooter is a deranged POS who should burn in hell. If you think I’m responsible for his evil, GFY.  

Brutal is one way to describe it, I suppose, if you’re a sixth-grade girl. Remember, this is supposed to be the whip smart and witty aspect of the conservative media.

Russell Kirk wept.

UPDATE: Amazing! The Littlest Chickenhawk has done it again!

‘Racist bully’ Ben Shapiro has perfect answer for woman who told him, ‘Don’t ever have kids’

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
 Sorry, already have two, including a 4-year-old daughter I will raise to believe she is capable of anything rather than a victim in the least sexist society in world history

Wow! I mean, just, WOW! That is just WHIP SMART stuff, man! Perfect answer! Just perfect!

They really should have named it Cringy.

The bad coffee chain learns that no amount of virtue-signaling is sufficient to inoculate one from the SJWs:

Way, way back in the deepest mists of history, circa March 2015, the Starbucks Corporation rolled out an initiative they called “Race Together.” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, concerned about the racial divide in America, instructed baristas to scribble the thought-provoking phrase “Race Together” on customers’ cups as a way to “foster discussion.” Because that’s exactly what you want when you’re waiting in line for an overpriced cup of coffee that tastes like it was filtered through a hobo’s liver. You want a lecture about what a racist you are.

Starbucks even gave us all some homework to do, in the form of an insert in USA Today.

I hope this fiasco proves instructive to Howard Schultz and everybody else at Starbucks. No matter how liberal you are, no matter how hard you work to establish and maintain your #woke credentials, all it takes is one slip-up. Just one viral video, taken on one of the cameras that we all carry now, and the angry mob will descend on you. Nothing you do or say will appease them. No apology will be sufficient. You can’t grovel low enough.

They won’t learn, of course. They never do. They’ll just grovel harder in the hopes that they get devoured last.

And notice how Treacher is a brilliant example of the haplessness of the conservative, always seeking the instruction of the enemy rather than its defeat.

The longtime self-declared standard bearer of the so-called conservative movement and editor of National Review, William F. Buckley, was a closeted homosexual:

Back in the day, there was a famous feud that sometimes spilled out into public view – on tv, in the courts, and on the pages of certain magazines – between two men, both now deceased. They were on opposite ends of one spectrum, and while it may come as a shock to some the same end of a different spectrum.

By the time it escalated into a legal battle – there had already been years of shouting matches and near altercations – the two had amassed impressive files on each other. The longtime Hollywood procurer for the other denies on record that any of his interests there were underage, but what of course about the time he spent abroad, in southern Europe and later in Asia? The sworn statements provided to that legacy detective agency tell a different story. This person went to his grave fearful about the release of these statements and related pictures. The relatives may have been scorned, and left out of the will, but they were still telling the truth.

So, why then did #1 drop the suit at the eleventh hour, fearful of what he might be asked under oath? It might be because of what #2’s team, which included a purported former KGB spy, had found out about #1’s own interest: barely legal hustlers, often rough trade. He’d hire them whenever he was visiting his many politician friends in DC. He called them his “habit.” For him, the revelation would have been enough to end his career, and bring down his empire.

From The New York Times of September 26, 1972:

Buckley Drops Vidal Suit, Settles With Esquire

The legal battle between William F. Buckley, Jr. and Gore Vidal arising out of their public exchange of affronts, apparently came to an end yesterday with an announcement by Mr. Buckley of two acts: the dropping of his suit against Mr. Vidal and an out-of- court settlement of $115,000 with Esquire magazine.

The conservative movement has always been a fraud. It is the Washington Generals of American politics. No wonder its opinion leaders are so reliably worthless.

We can use it to jail all the Millennials. Or at least one-fifth of them.

22{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} of millennials say they have never heard of the Holocaust, or aren’t sure whether they have heard of it. That is rather shocking, but the ignorance isn’t confined to millennials: 11{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} of all respondents gave the same answer.

49{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} of millennials couldn’t identify any concentration camps or ghettos. That seems appalling, but 45{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} of all respondents couldn’t name any, either. Two-thirds of millennials can’t say what Auschwitz was. I think at least part of what is happening here is that American high schools are so obsessed with social justice, race, etc., that they don’t teach much about actual facts. Like history.

Most survey respondents say that there is anti-Semitism in the U.S., which of course is true. But many Americans vastly over-rate, in my judgment, the number of neo-Nazis. 34{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} of respondents say there are “many neo-Nazis in the U.S.,” while 17{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} say there are “a great deal of Neo-Nazis in the US.” These are people, I suspect, who have been systematically misled by the education system and the news media. Some of our high schools seem to devote much of their efforts to combatting neo-Nazis, notwithstanding that in all likelihood, no one associated with the school has ever seen one.

As usual when such questions are asked in polls, the lack of support for free speech rights is discouraging. Only 15{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} of respondents agree that “People should be allowed to use Nazi slogans or symbols.”

Don’t be discouraged by the lack of support for free speech, utilize it! Anyhow, I find this poll to be tremendously amusing in light of my past debates on a related subject with Louise Mensch, which, but for archive, have been memory-holed, and the increasingly irrelevant Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah Goldberg ‏@JonahNRO
1. Apologize for racist & Jew-hating, “kids” as they celebrate murder etc. 2. ????? 3. Total GOP victory. @Nero’s grand 2016 strategy.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Jonah, no one under the age of 40 gives a damn about Holocaustianity anymore than they do about the Sicilian Vespers.

Jonah Goldberg ‏@JonahNRO
Vox, 1. That’s horseshit 2. Even if it wasn’t, that’s not an argument for saying disgusting and bigoted things for laughs.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
How much do you care about the Left calling you racist? That’s how much #AltRight cares about being called anti-semitic.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
What do those called anti-semites for supporting Trump have to fear? They’ll be called anti-semites a second time? So what?

Hank Coates ‏@hankhank30
complete and utter horseshit. I went to school with holocaust survivor grandkids. Fuck that fascist.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Nobody cares. The Hispanics don’t care. The blacks don’t care. The Asians don’t care. Most whites don’t anymore.

Milo Yiannopoulos ✘ ‏@Nero
The left robbed racist, sexist and homophobic of meaning. The right did the same to anti-semitic. No one under 40 cares about any of them.

Nunuya Bizinizz ‏@wahrbear
I’m confirming @voxday’s assertion here. Early Millennail Jew and I really find holocaust whiners embarrassing.

AltRightJew ‏@AltRightJew
agreed. Unless you lived through it and endured it, not really interested in hearing you whine about it.

Jonah Goldberg ‏@JonahNRO
All day this crap. Thanks @nero and @voxday your friends get your back

It’s rather remarkable how cuckservatives always cling to the idea that reality is what they wish it to be rather than what objective observation reports that it actually is. The cucks are insisting that everyone under 40 worships Judeo-Christ and believes the Holocaust to be the worstest and most evilist crime in human history ever while Jewish organizations are wringing their hands over the inevitable fact that younger generations increasingly don’t even know what the Holocaustian preachers are banging on about in the first place, much less care about it.

If I were a Jew, I wouldn’t worry about the events of 73 years ago. Instead, I’d worry about the fact that, based on the historical pattern, the West is considerably closer to the next pogrom than the previous one. Given the way in which Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly called on the diasporans to return to Israel and the Learned Elders of Wye have been discussing when to jump ship for over a decade, I am confident that I am far from the only one who recognizes the pattern.

I note, in passing, that the GOP did indeed win big in 2016, thanks to Trump and others ignoring the advice of Jonah Goldberg. I was wrong about one thing, however. We care considerably less about being called anti-semitic than Jonah cares about being called racist.

An astute comment at Steve Sailer’s about the Kevin Williamson firing:

The NR staff currently wailing on twitter about the injustice of dumping a talented writer for being provocative on an independent website can show it’s not just crocodile tears by apologizing to Derbyshire.

Apologizing? They should offer to rehire him with a raise as well. Consider David French’s wailing about “the cowardly firing” with just a few changes to it.

The AtlanticNational Review has caved to the intolerant mob and fired Kevin WilliamsonJohn Derbyshire, and in so doing has contributed to a slanderous fiction — that KevinJohn is so beyond the pale that he has no place at one of the nation’s premiere mainstreamconservative publications. His millions of words, his countless interviews, and his personal character were reduced to nothing — inconsequential in the face of deleted tweets and a five-minute podcast dialoguea single column. Look, I know it’s easy for some to dismiss KevinJohn’s termination as mere inside-baseball media drama. But it’s more than that. It’s a declaration by one of America’s most powerful mediaconservative entities that it can’t even coexist with a man like KevinJohn. If he wants to write, he should run along to his conservativeAlt-Right home. His newlong-time colleagues simply couldn’t abide his presence.

These cuckservative Never Trumpians simply do not realize that their time is past. They have been exposed for hypocrites and fools. They do not lead opinions, they are led by the Left instead, following it slavishly from one societally destructive policy to the next. Give them a little more time and they’ll be dutifully laying out the conservative cases for cannibalism, child sacrifice, and Satan worship.

Hence the real reason for their wailing. They know they are losing the right-wing audience that is increasingly rejecting their soft leftism, and now they are beginning to realize that the hard Left has no use for them either.

The Littlest Chickenhawk has been crying about that on Twitter, in addition to issuing the conventional dire warnings of consequences never being the same. He thinks he is one of the “virtuous people” to decide who is acceptable and who is not, to decide who is chased down and disemployed and who is not, intstead of the overt Left.

This is, we are told, the “stone cold truth” and “the Left won’t like it”.

The Left continues to radically narrow the Overton Window – the spectrum of acceptable discourse. They separate discourse into two categories: the acceptable and the unacceptable. Then they shrink the acceptable down to the opinions located between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. This necessarily places Kevin Williamson and @bariweiss and @SamHarrisOrg and me and everyone else the Left finds unpalatable into the “excluded” category. But the unacceptable category is already populated by those who are actually unacceptable: alt-right trolls, for example. This means that the population of opinion in the unacceptable category – let’s call them Deplorables, since the Left does – come to be a majority by way of exclusion. Unless, that is, virtuous people who have been excluded by the Left draw distinctions among themselves. Which they should, of course – Kevin and @bariweiss and I and @SamHarrisOrg all get lumped in as Nazis by the Left, but we all fight the actual alt-right Nazis.

But counting on the virtue of people you’ve just deemed unacceptable not to band together against you is both stupid and unrealistic over time. Which means the Left is doing something unethical here, and deeply dishonest – and something that is likely to foster polarization that results in the mainstreaming of truly gross opinions. This is how you get a reactionary movement willing to countenance alt-right evil: you tell people they’re part of the alt-right when they’re not, and treat them as such no matter how much of a lie that is. What just happened to Kevin Williamson leads conservatives to side with anyone the Left casts out, good or bad, merely as a form of protection. That shouldn’t happen. But it does. And the Left causes it with this bulls***.

Demonstrating, once more, that Ben Shapiro is not of the Right at all, but of the soft Left. That’s why they are always trying to a) disassociate from the Right and b) fix the Left.

Glenn Reynolds and Kurt Schlichter have similar takes. From Instapundit:

What really happened is that women at The Atlantic complained that Kevin’s abortion views upset them. And since making women feel bad about their life choices is a mortal sin, he had to go.

The difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives assert that making women or blacks or gays or Jews feel bad is sufficient reason to lose your job. Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that only making blacks or Jews feel bad is enough to justify disemployment.

What goes around comes around. The truth about the dysfunctional, downscale writer Kevin Williamson is that he deserves to die. Economically, he is a negative asset.

Conservative commentator Kevin Williamson was fired from The Atlantic, just weeks after being hired, the magazine told TheWrap.

“Kevin is a gifted writer, and he has been nothing but professional in all of our interactions. But I have come to the conclusion that The Atlantic is not the best fit for his talents, and so we are parting ways,” said editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in an email to staff on Thursday.

In his memo, obtained by TheWrap, Goldberg explained that Williamson was being terminated over his views on abortion, which have come to wide attention in recent days.

“Late yesterday afternoon, information came to our attention that has caused us to reconsider this relationship. Specifically, the subject of one of Kevin’s most controversial tweets was also a centerpiece of a podcast discussion in which Kevin explained his views on the subject of the death penalty and abortion,” wrote Goldberg.

Williamson even appears to have been fired despite lacking the courage to stand by his previous convictions. There was no “errant tweet”, as the podcast footage subsequently demonstrated. So, who led Jeffrey Goldberg to believe that there was? Did he come up with that on his own, or was that an excuse that was given to him?

While Goldberg himself once trumpeted Williamson’s hire from the National Review, the writer immediately drew outrage — particularly over a tweet in which he argued that women who had had an abortion should face the death penalty. Williamson defenders — and Goldberg himself — had argued that his career should not be judged on an errant tweet.

Some on the Right still don’t get it. The Left is not fixable. The time for worrying about “the heckler’s veto” is long past. There is no public square anymore because there is no common ground. The Left is fighting a cultural war by any means necessary, and even if you’re not willing to do the same, it is reprehensibly foolish to expect them to do otherwise, much less mend their ways for fear of handwringing moderate right-wingers following through on ominously implied threats which they are manifestly unwilling to even articulate.

And we are supposed to imagine what happens to us in light of Williamson’s rapid ejection from The Atlantic? Where have you been for the last ten years? We don’t have to imagine anything. We’ve already experienced it.

Rumors are flying that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will resign soon:

Nevada’s 2nd U.S. House District Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, said on Nevada Newsmakers Monday that Rep. Paul Ryan may soon resign as Speaker of the U.S. House.

Amodei said he was repeating a rumor that’s around Capitol Hill.

“The rumor mill is that Paul Ryan is getting ready to resign in the next 30 to 60 days and that Steve Scalise will be the new Speaker,” Amodei said.

That is certainly interesting, in light of other rumors we have been hearing.

It’s no secret to the readers here that Ben Shapiro has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to economics. That’s why it’s amusing to see Spencer Morrison kicking him around so easily. The Littlest Chickenhawk knows he’s not in my league, which is why he ran away from debates with me twice, but he clearly didn’t realize the full extent of his ignorance or he would have kept his mouth shut rather than getting steamrolled on the issue of trade and tariffs.

Morrison addresses Shapiro’s inept response to him in a second article that really needs to be read in its entirety to appreciate its contemptuous nature:

Shapiro begins with two rather embarrassing mistakes. First, he misstates the name of this publication. Second, he commits a call to authority fallacy—precisely the error I accused him of last week. Shapiro writes:

The reality is that my arguments on free trade have been supported by every major free market economist in history . . .

This is a tautology: of course most “free market” (read: Austrian School) economists support free trade—just as most American School economists support tariffs, or most labor economists support unions. Does the fact that most Marxist economists support socialism prove that socialism works? No. This is sophistry.

Shapiro is also a hypocrite: did he not make his name by ignoring the so-called “97 percent of climate scientists” who believe climate change is anthropogenic, or the (I imagine) 100 percent of gender studies professors who think biological sex and gender identity are different? Why is Shapiro so willing to ignore “experts” on climate change or feminism, yet treat them like (false) gods when it comes to economics? Shapiro would be wise to remain ever-skeptical, and heed the aphorism: Take not the merchant at his word, but trust only by the skin of his fruit.

Finally, Shapiro says the articles I cited “do not mention tariffs,” and they are therefore irrelevant. This is like saying a paper on Elizabethan England, that never mentions Shakespeare, is irrelevant to studying Shakespeare—really? This is the difference between scholarship and parroting: my sources lend support to a novel conclusion, while Shapiro clearly googled “path-dependency” and cited the first book he could find—a case study of Microsoft.

While the book does discuss path-dependency, it does so explicitly within the context of a single industry, and makes no claim that the findings should be applied between industries. There is a big difference between supporting Microsoft relative to Apple or Google, and supporting America’s entire IT industry relative to foreign competitors. These are different debates, and the nuance is clearly lost on Shapiro….

Shapiro acknowledges that not all industries are of equal value when it comes to economic growth; economic growth depends upon technological development; growth is non-linear in that certain individuals (or industries) generate most of it.

Wait a minute! Shapiro just said that we “cannot tell which sectors will be the most profitable.” Which Ben do we believe? This is a perfect example of domain-specific knowledge in action. When Ben Shapiro has his “businessman” thinking-cap on, he acknowledges that you can tell which industries are most likely to generate economic growth—he even gives us an example. Yet when he has his “economist” thinking-cap on, he denies this categorically. This is what happens when you parrot sources without evaluating them for yourself.

Now that last sentence looks a little familiar, does it not? Perhaps it is merely a coincidence, two parallel observations. Or perhaps not….

Anyhow, it’s obvious that Benny was too busy playing the violin and copying Human Events for his weekly WND column to ever play computer games, or he would understand the basic concept of path dependency that every turn-based Civ or RTS player has had to master. The little guy somehow managed to graduate cum laude from Harvard Law School without ever reaching the level of knowledge possessed by the average computer gamer.