Tag: cuckservative

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.

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.