Tag: cuckservative

Because civility is more important than winning. And as we all know, for the cuckservative, it’s not whether you win or lose that truly matters, but whether you successfully managed to avoid being called racist:

Maintaining an even temperament and avoiding overstatement and invective can improve our political discourse.

On the right, online pugilists mock more mainstream or “establishment” conservatives as unwilling to do what it takes to win. They mock conservatives who refuse to make Trump-style attacks and decry Trump-style rhetoric as obsessed with “muh principles.” In the face of a ferocious Left, we just don’t have what it takes — or, as Milo Yiannopoulos said earlier this week in a long piece calling me “the most reliably frustrating person in conservative media,” we’re more prepared to “lose gracefully” than to “be seen as lacking in manners.”

First, let’s acknowledge that there’s more than a kernel of truth in these critiques. Civility isn’t always a virtue. There are times when injustice demands a dramatic response. The modern image of Jesus Christ as essentially the nicest person who ever lived is laughably one-dimensional. He compared the Pharisees to “whitewashed tombs.” Jesus cleansed the Temple “with a whip made out of cords.” He modeled grace and compassion. He also modeled righteous anger.

Moreover, it’s also true that calls for civility are often one-sided, manipulative, and made in bad faith. It turns out that each ideological tribe is often quite tolerant of the vicious voices on its own side and positively repulsed by anger in response. You see the double standard all the time. The same people who lament the angry voices on Fox News or talk radio will positively thrill to the latest Michael Moore documentary or make excuses for Democratic leaders who just can’t quite bring themselves to condemn Louis Farrakhan.

There is no improving our political discourse. We’re currently in a cold intra-imperial war. Call an enemy an enemy, a traitor a traitor, and a cuck a cuck. Don’t worry about civility or mainstream approval, concern yourself with speaking the truth, or at the very least, speaking in a corceptive manner that leads the listener to the truth.

David French is doing the opposite here. He is communicating in a deceptive manner. Because, while it is technically true that civility is not surrender, civility is one of the weapons used to help encourage and impose surrender on the right.

Everything the Left does is in bad faith. How could it not be, when they serve the Father of Lies? One absolutely must assume bad faith on their part in all circumstances, based on the evidence of their behavior over the last 100 years.

I look forward to seeing the evangelical Churchians twisting themselves into pretzels to somehow avoid criticizing this rabbi, lest they risk losing the many-fold blessings of Judeo Christ.

On Saturday, an openly gay Leftist rabbi twisted the Bible to support transgender identity, and in so doing he explicitly named eight Bible figures who he suggested were transgender or gender non-conforming.

Responding to a recent statement from the Kansas Republican Party rejecting transgenderism, Jay Michaelson disputed the idea that “God’s design for gender” involves accepting biological sex.

“[W]hat about those men and women who deviate from gender roles in the Bible?” Michaelson asked in a Daily Beast article. “The patriarch Jacob, for example, is clearly gendered female in comparison with his twin brother Esau. Esau is hairy, Jacob is smooth; Esau is a hunter, Jacob ‘stays in the tent’ (which is where women stay) and cooks; Esau is favored by his father, Jacob by his mom. And yet Jacob is the chosen one who becomes Israel, who fathers a nation” (emphasis added).

Yes, this rabbi suggested Jacob was “clearly gendered female.” Since Jacob was biologically a male, and even fathered children, this would necessarily make him transgender. Michaelson went on, “Of course, Jacob didn’t go on hormone therapy, but the way the Bible constructs his gender identity makes it very clear that, at least until his transformative nighttime wrestling match, he is gender non-conforming.”

The rabbi didn’t stop with Jacob, however. “Likewise, Deborah the Judge, who performed a male societal role. Likewise, the beautiful young David in his ‘armor-carrier’ relationships with Saul and Jonathan. (1 Sam. 16;12, 1 Sam. 18:1-3) Likewise the Apostle Paul, who rebelled against the most fundamental gender role of his time, fathering children, by becoming celibate,” Michaelson wrote.

So, what’s the plan? Declare he’s not a Jew? That’s straight-up Hitlerism! Declare he’s not a true rabbi? What sort of anti-semite polices another religion? They can’t, of course, simply declare that he is evil, because that would not be inclusive and welcoming.

Now, tell us more about these “shared Judeo-Christian values”.

Kurt Schlichter seems to be gradually getting it:

When the liberals and their squishy-soft allies in Conservative, Inc., start moaning about your dreadful incivility, that’s a clear indicator that you are doing something right and that you need to double down. Civility, once properly understood as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself, has morphed from an aspiration into a political/cultural gimp suit designed to prevent you from effectively asserting your interests and your point of view.

For liberals, civility is a grift – they think it’s a punchline and they’re waiting to laugh at you for embracing it. It’s a way to keep you from interrupting their non-stop attacks on your rights, your faith, and your dignity by convincing you that it’s somehow wrong to get upset when, say, some Astroturf Tot backed up by a bunch of leftist Red Guard orgs like Planned Parenthood and Move On starts shrieking that you have blood on your hands.

For the Fredocons, civility is just an excuse for lounging on the Lido Deck while those of us not signed onto Team Submissive wade in and fight. It’s also an excuse to push back against the revolt of the Normals that their incompetent, self-serving bumbling created. They will never, ever attack the progressive cultural aggressors, those leftist savages spewing their death wishes against conservatives while saving the grossest sexual slurs for the brave female warriors whose will not back down in the face of progressive hate. Your refusal to knuckle under shames the sissycons.

No, they will attack you when you resist. It’s unseemly to fight back, according to some True Conservative Principle™ we never heard of but that they insist is the central tenet of conservatism. Not giving in is not who we are, or something….

Yeah, we’re done with their version of civility because their version of civility is a lie too. George W. Bush was civil, oh so civil, or so dignified. He was so civil and dignified that we got eight years of Barack Obama and we came that close to going under forever. But funny how Dignified George’s civility lasted for only eight years of his pal/successor then vanished once the guy who beat his soft bro to a pulp showed up and took what was supposed to be one of the Bipartisan Civility Crew’s gig. Suddenly, when someone who wasn’t part of the Approved Elite got elected, George found his ability to attack again. Of course, it was his own (supposed) side.

Bush was not just attacking Trump. He was attacking us Normals for daring to elect Trump. Many of us defended him when he was busy being oh-so-dignified and civil. And when we defied him and his class, he turned against us. Like a true gentleman.

Civility is desirable, but it is not a necessity. Civility is the way disagreements between friends and neutrals and even civilized enemies can be handled, but it must always be cast aside when dealing with savages and satanists. You simply cannot shake the hand of an enemy who is concealing a dagger in his other hand; you must always keep him safely at a distance.

Fair play is for sports. Winning is for cultural wars.

A nice conservative once told me that the important thing was “to win with grace and style.” No, I corrected rather sternly, the important thing is to figure out how to win, then do it. If you can do it gracefully, stylishly, and civilly, so much the better. But don’t let those things increase the degree of difficulty if the outcome is in any doubt at all.

And if a cuck claims you’re doing it wrong, then you are, at the very least, on the right path.

Civility is not a sign of weakness when a system of reasoned debate is in effect. But it is a sign of weakness, and will be taken as such by our enemies, when we cling to civility because we are too weak and afraid to admit the awful truth, that we are no longer a society ruled by reason but by power.

I do not stand with Jack Burroughs, whose thinking demonstrates why conservatives reliably lose:

The Left’s assault on Free Speech in the US–outside of the Universities–has really only just begun. Most of the public recoils from these repressive excesses. At present, the Right has the considerable political virtue of being pro-free speech. That is a powerful moral and political weapon against the Left. It is an important reason why the ranks of the Right are growing.

But if you try to fight fire with fire by arguing that since the Left does censors speech, we should do it, too, then you have sacrificed the moral high ground in the eyes of the broad public. The Right will then be no better on this defining issue than the Left, and will have given up one of the main reasons why fast growing numbers of people prefer the Right to the Left.

If the Right becomes hostile to free speech, then it will drastically weaken its moral standing in the eyes of the broad public, thereby diminishing its political appeal.

Every bad argument has its roots in false foundations. Can you identify the false foundations here?

It’s amusing that he thinks “moral standing” is relevant in a political environment in which basic, fundamental concepts such as “male” and “illegal” are treated as variable, and traditional definitions are designated as outdated and immoral. It’s understandable, though just as incorrect, to claim that free speech is a moral issue. It is not. In fact, the pro-blasphemy position is actually the observably immoral position.

But his biggest mistake is to claim that “the moral high ground” is why one side wins. This is simply more conservative posturing that reliably leads them into disaster. The center is not abandoning the Left because the Left has abandoned a moral high ground that it never held, it is being abandoned by a Left that moves ever deeper into madness.

Those who believe in a path to victory through “the moral high ground” inevitably find themselves outflanked by those who are willing to surrender even more nobly. That is why no successful strategist in history has ever designed a strategy that relies upon moral posturing. And appealing to the moral sense of an immoral people whose morality is constantly in flux is neither a rational strategy nor a winning one.

Listening to a conservative talk about strategy is like listening to a blind man’s advice on how to drive a Formula One race car. They are reliable counter indicators.

“In terms of speech, the Left would reword it: “Say what thou wilt.” And to preserve their natural right to expression–whether it’s pornography, vulgarity, blatant or tongue-in-cheek anti-Christian propaganda–the Left has enacted the Strange Doctrine, happily bludgeoning their enemies on the Right, and this has been going on for quite some time.”

Hey, let’s just censor them, then. Why the hell not?

It’s only going to make the Right much less popular, because it will needlessly sacrifice one of the main positive values that increasingly differentiates the Right from the Left in the public mind.

But when you have people out there who are saying whatever they want–including many mean things about the Right, and even about Christians–it’s obviously far more important to shut them down than it is to prevail politically over the long term.

Let’s just do to them what they do to us, without any consideration of the strategic consequences at all.

We already know what the strategic consequences of relying on the moral high ground are, which is decades of consistent defeat. Not only have we considered the strategic consequences, we have done so and we have found the conservative strategy of “hold the moral high ground and win” to be entirely wanting.

A Hillary staffer attends CPAC:

‘Make sure to check in with us!” one friend told me. “Try not to get killed,” another warned. I wasn’t off to a war zone or a spy mission in Moscow. I was riding a bus from New York to Washington to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference.

To be sure, I’m a tiny, talkative South Asian woman who spent four months on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign staff. I wasn’t exactly in my element surrounded by people in “Make America Great Again” hats chanting “Lock her up! Lock her up!“ But there was more to CPAC than that….

I found myself … nodding my head in agreement with parts of Ben Shapiro’s speech.

Imagine that.

Kurt Schlichter appears to have correctly concluded that more dire warnings will not suffice to deter the Left:

They hate you. And we must act accordingly.

 The first step is the political battle. Wake up – the midterms are coming and we need to ensure that these people do not gain the power to undercut our rights. At CPAC, President Trump demonstrated that his competitive nature is in full effect – he intends on winning. We need to do the same. Volunteer. Donate. Activate. Yeah, it’s a hassle. We’d all like a pause to this constant cold warfare. That is not happening.

The second step is the cultural battle. The left is intent on mobilizing the corporations that form the infrastructure of society against us. We need to respond with our own political power, and that means casting off the tired shackles of an ideology that assumes we are in a pure free market scenario. “Free market solutions” don’t apply where companies instead act based on political ideology when choosing to exercise political power; how, exactly, do we respond to a company that acts against us but decides it doesn’t care about the market consequences? Well, we can’t – unless we use our own political power. Georgia refusing to give Delta a tax break – which it should not have gotten in the first place – is the template. If they want to declare a cultural war on us, let’s give them one. It’s not how you or I want it to be, but it is how it is. Maybe pain will motivate them to re-adopt the old rules. Surrender sure won’t.

The third step is to create deterrent facts on the ground. Demonstrate your commitment to your rights by joining the NRA and, further, by buying guns and ammunition. Tyranny is not out of the question – hey, aren’t they always calling Trump Hitler? Tens, even hundreds of millions of armed American Normals provide a deterrent to the kind of insanity we’ve seen the left hinting at. Be prepared to protect the Constitution, and the chances of them getting violent will diminish exponentially. Remember, they don’t want to fight; they prefer we give up under a barrage of hectoring from CNN and vicious tweets about how we hate children.

Yes, it’s ugly. Yes, perhaps it’s even frightening. But it is how it is, with leftists who makes no bones about what they think of you. They hate you. And you need to act accordingly.

It’s something. It’s a start. But it’s still very far from sufficient. If you’re still hoping that “pain will motivate them to re-adopt the old rules”, then you’re still failing to understand and accept the current situation. And sure, it could be somewhat demoralizing to see how many so-called conservatives, and how much of the so-called Right, simply refuses to support the only people willing to stand up and defend America, Christianity, and the West.

But so what? We don’t need those cowardly, lukewarm ninnies more concerned about appeasing the enemy than they are about defending their nation, their faith, and their families any more than Gideon needed the mouthdrinkers, George Washington needed the Tories, or Jesus Christ needed the masses he fed with the bread and fish. Alt★Hero has 2,160 backers. After only one video, Voxiversity already has 261. And all our Lord and Savior needed was 12.

We can win. And we will win. All we have to do is find the courage to show up and fight. Support those who openly stand up for the good, the right, and the true. Ignore those who won’t, and oppose those who attack them.

CPAC underlines my point about the total worthlessness of the so-called “conservative movement”:

The Stream has been warning Christians that our religious liberty is in danger. Both Maggie Gallagher and John Zmirak pointed to the crucial upcoming race in Pennsylvania. There the GOP establishment has endorsed a candidate who sponsored a pro-trans “bathroom bill” with no protections for dissenters.

Such disasters don’t come from nowhere. They emerge because the conservative movement itself is undergoing an LGBT-inspired purge.

Consider the phone call Dan Schneider made to Brian Camenker in early February 2018. Dan Schneider is the Executive Director of the Conservative Political Action Conference. (“CPAC” wields great influence in politics. Just how great? Donald J. Trump is speaking at their yearly convention!)

Brian Camenker is the president of Mass Resistance. That’s a decades-old network of grassroots organizers. His groups fight radical left-wing movements in schools, local communities, and state policies. You may not have heard of Mass Resistance because its chapters focus on local activism, not always elections. They tend not to congregate on Twitter but encompass many people. Mass Resistance works with the folks who got Donald J. Trump elected.

Mr. Camenker had applied to run a table at CPAC’s big conference. CPAC approved his application and took his payment. Then about ten days before CPAC, Mr. Schneider told Mr. Camenker that he had changed his mind. He unilaterally rescinded the contract between Mass Resistance and CPAC.

Why? Mr. Camenker opposed transgender and homosexual curriculum for children in 2015. He used language that is less than perfectly … winsome. How does Mr. Schneider know about these comments? Because he found a video clip online. That’s thanks to gay activists who have indexed Mass Resistance as a “hate group.” So gay activists are now vetting who can speak at “conservative” events. Isn’t that special?

Mr. Schneider has barred Camenker him from exhibiting at CPAC. It seems that CPAC wants more gay lobbyists with deep pockets. So CPAC is now stiff-arming religious folks who want the public library to stop pushing sodomy on four-year-olds.

CPAC has come a long way since it worried about including gay Republican groups like the Log Cabins. Now CPAC serves as their enforcement wing. It silences conservatives for stating that homosexuality or transgenderism might be objectionable.

Which, of course, is why they should have kept the Log Cabin Republicans out in the first place. Convergence always begins with foolish inclusivity. Sacrifice one principle, and it is only a matter of time before you sacrifice the rest of them.

Alt-Right or nothing, Christians. This proves, again, that there is absolutely no point in relying upon the conservatives to accomplish anything except your surrender. Conservatives have COMPLETELY failed in literally every possible way. It was a movement that was always destined to fail, since it was never anything more than a posture and a pose. About the only progressive objective that conservatives haven’t embraced is your disarmament.

And I wouldn’t count that out in the aftermath of the next school shooting, considering the way in which their donors are threatening to stop writing checks if they don’t cave on gun control too.

I am proud to have never described myself as a conservative. People used to wonder why I didn’t, but I trust that my reasoning is more readily apparent today.

Kurt Schlichter sternly warns liberals for the 37,479,842nd time that they are now treading DANGEROUSLY near to some very thin ice. Again.

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing violence and terrorism?

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing denormalizing your political opponents?

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing dehumanizing your political opponents?

You may think you do now, but trust me, you really don’t.

Take heed: You are going to hate the new rules.

There is a way out, a way that is obvious to anyone of good faith and common sense, and since it’s always a leftist attacking Republicans, the Democrat leadership needs to lead the way. The way out is to join together with the President and other conservatives and unequivocally reject violence and terror.

Not obliquely.

Not with clichés.

No with a smirk and a wink.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and all the other key Democrat leaders must stand on a stage beside Donald Trump and Don Jr. and say, without qualification that this is unacceptable and wrong.

The “dire warning” column is a longtime staple for conservative columnists. I’ve been hearing conservatives issuing dire warnings to liberals about the dreadful consequences of their actions for nearly 40 years now.  And do you know what I have concluded as a result? Conservatives are not going to do anything at all to resist liberal or government violence, ever. They never have.

They didn’t resist when their children were bused. They didn’t resist when their schools were secularized. They didn’t resist when their country was invaded by 130 million foreigners. They didn’t resist when their churches were converged. They didn’t resist when their right to carry cash was restricted. They didn’t resist when their rights to speech were removed. They didn’t resist when their wives left them and divorce-raped them. They didn’t resist when their children were kidnapped by judicial fiat.

I no longer believe they will resist even when their guns are confiscated or when their religion is outlawed. What evidence do we have that conservatives will do anything at all except complain about liberals, vote for do-nothing Republicans, and carefully distance themselves from anyone who looks even remotely possible of actually doing anything?

I’m not saying that no one will ever resist gun confiscations. But I am entirely confident that no one who calls himself a conservative will. Conservatives are tough-talking cowards who simply will not disobey whatever they are told by an authority figure is the law. And liberals figured this out a long time ago. That’s why they targeted all of the positions of perceived authority. That’s why they have to hide their smiles every time someone like Kurt Schlichter waxes dramatic and solemnly warns them… again. Why would anyone expect them to heed yet another dire warning, when every single previous warning has proved to be an empty one?

The last conservative will be still be shaking his finger and warning the cannibals that they had better watch out if they don’t change their ways or else while he is being thrown into the boiling cookpot.

The Washington Post makes the minimum possible move rightward:

The Washington Post today announced Megan McArdle will be a columnist for the Opinions section starting March 1. In this role, McArdle will write columns with a focus on the intersection of economics, business and public policy.

“Megan offers one of the liveliest, smartest, least predictable takes on policy, politics and everything else, from the history of washing machines to essential rules for living,” said Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page editor for The Post. “We’re excited to share her perspective and her distinctive voice with our readers and to deepen our coverage of economic and financial topics.”

The sad truth is that despite her long list of columns and articles proving otherwise, McCardle really does look pretty smart in comparison to everyone else at the Post. But it is amusing to see the Left try to claw back the audiences they have lost by doing the absolute least they can possibly rationalize.

It’s not going to work. Of course, they could put Cernovich in charge of the editorial page and Milo at the helm of the Lifestyle page and I’m not sure that would be enough.

This is the fourth and final part of my critique of the Churchian response to the 16 Points of the Alt-Right. The first part, covering Points 1-4, is here. The second part, covering Points 4-8 is here. The second part covering Points 9-12 is here.

13. I have already talked about laissez faire economics. By rejecting free trade, they reject the one of the foundational economic principles of conservatism and political freedom. I reject their absolute ignorance and their ridiculous opinion.

International free trade is not, and has never been, one of the foundational economic principles of conservatism or political freedom. It was Karl Marx, not Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk, who actively supported free trade. When this guy talks about absolute ignorance and ridiculous opinions, he is projecting as badly as any SJW.

14. I completely disagree with this racist garbage. Nothing about being “white” matters in any conceivable way. This is pure racism. I fully reject the Alt Right’s racism.

He claims that nothing about being white matters and he completely disagrees that the survival of white people is a moral imperative. This guy is a racist, white-hating monster. He’s actually more akin to a Slav-hating Nazi than a well-meaning cuckservative.

15. Let me see if I can nail down what’s wrong here. “Human sub-species.” As I type I am aware of my righteous indignation. I am typing this paragraph rather slowly because the words “human sub-species” make me so furious that I am trying my best not assume God’s authority in who is and is not damned. Let me make this clear, any fool who believes there are “human sub-species” necessarily believes some people are better than others. The Alt Right just expressed something so detestable that opposition to it was the very reason I served in the military. It is absolutely contemptible. It stands against the very nature of God and His creation of mankind in His own image. I hate, no loathe, everything about that deceitful statement. I condemn it with every fiber of my being.

He doesn’t just hate white people, he also hates and fears science. Human sub-species absolutely exist. There is absolutely no question about this. In fact, depending upon how strictly one defines species, humanity today is not even all the same species, due to the fact that some people are pure Homo sapiens sapiens while others are not even full Homo sapiens. He can condemn reality all he likes, but genetic science is what it is.

16. There is a lovely Greek term the Apostle Paul uses, σκύβαλον (skubalon). It means a pile of feces and that is what this statement is. After fifteen increasingly vulgar hate-filled statements of sheer ignorance and pride, these creep slapped this disclaimer on their platform like a surgeon general’s warning on a pack of cigarettes. “We advocate a bunch of racists, misogynist, elitist, nationalist, fascist putrescence, and march around with literal torches and automatic weapon; but hey, if any violence irrupts from all our instigation, we’ve got a CYA (cover your @$$) policy in place. We’re all about peaceful social change, like Gandhi.” It is skubalon. You cannot preach “diversity + proximity = war” knowing you live in a diverse society and then say, “I value peace.” Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20) The fruit of the Alt Right is poison. They are hate filled liars seeking to destroy and steal. I reject every part of their message.

It’s remarkable how the point about diversity, war, and peace flies right over this guy’s head. The point of preaching diversity + proximity = war in a diverse society is to warn people and discourage them from making what is already a serious challenge even worse. Conflict is coming to every diverse society, but with a proper understanding of why that conflict is inevitable, we can hope to mitigate it somewhat, even if we can’t reasonably expect to entirely avoid violence and bloodshed.

As for Matthew 7:15-20, we already recognize the evil fruits of Churchianity, chief among which is the enthusiastic acceptance of the rule of Antichrist. They are the deceived of whom the Apostle John warned in his Book of Revelation. They call good evil and evil good.