Tag: cuckservative

The self-serving revisionists

It’s more than a little amusing to see these Republican immigrants, who are US citizens but are not Americans, attempting to present their self-serving revisionist histories as not only genuine, but deterministic:

Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican. A health care wonk and editor at Forbes, he has worked for three Republican presidential hopefuls — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio. Much of his adult life has been dedicated to advancing the Republican Party and conservative ideals.

But when I caught up with Roy at a bar just outside the Republican convention, he said something I’ve never heard from an establishment conservative before: The Grand Old Party is going to die.

“I don’t think the Republican Party and the conservative movement are capable of reforming themselves in an incremental and gradual way,” he said. “There’s going to be a disruption.”

Roy isn’t happy about this: He believes it means the Democrats will dominate national American politics for some time. But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.

“Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by that principle, it will not have the moral authority to lead the country,” he told me.

This is a standard assessment among liberals, but it is frankly shocking to hear from a prominent conservative thinker. Our conversation had the air of a confessional: of Roy admitting that he and his intellectual comrades had gone wrong, had failed, had sinned.

His history of conservatism was a Greek tragedy. It begins with a fatal error in 1964, survived on the willful self-delusion of people like Roy himself, and ended with Donald Trump.

“I think the conservative movement is fundamentally broken,” Roy tells me. “Trump is not a random act. This election is not a random act.”

The conservative movement has something of a founding myth — Roy calls it an “origin story.”

In 1955, William F. Buckley created the intellectual architecture of modern conservatism by founding National Review, focusing on a free market, social conservatism, and a muscular foreign policy. Buckley’s ideals found purchase in the Republican Party in 1964, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater. While Goldwater lost the 1964 general election, his ideas eventually won out in the GOP, culminating in the Reagan Revolution of 1980.

Normally, Goldwater’s defeat is spun as a story of triumph: how the conservative movement eventually righted the ship of an unprincipled GOP. But according to Roy, it’s the first act of a tragedy.

“Goldwater’s nomination in 1964 was a historical disaster for the conservative movement,” Roy tells me, “because for the ensuing decades, it identified Democrats as the party of civil rights and Republicans as the party opposed to civil rights.”

Of course, white nationalism is, quite literally, the raison d’etre for the U.S. Constitution and was signed into law by George Washington in the Naturalization Act of 1790. This factual history offends Arik Roy, because he is not white and he is not an American national, therefore he has to revise history and transform it into something that allows him to redefine the definitions of “conservative”, “Republican”, and even “America”.

I’ve yet to see any liberal or left-winger make a statement more unequivocally equalitarian than Roy: “Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by the principle of equality, it will not have the moral authority to lead the country.”


Once more, we see that if you scratch a “conservative intellectual”, you find an anti-American. It is equivalent to stating that there is no moral authority outside of a mindless devotion to equality.

This sort of revisionist nonsense is where intellectual defenses of the proposition nation concept inevitably lead. There is no alternative, because it has no basis in history, fact, or logic. The propositional equality of “Americans” is every bit as conceptual and delusional and nonexistent as the economic equality of socialists, the herd equality of unicorns, and the animal equality of Animal Farm.

Some pigs always somehow end up more equal than others.

That being said, both the conservative movement and the Republican Party in its previous form are going to die. They will be replaced by the American nationalist movement and the American Party, which will claim the moral authority to govern the nation on the basis of actually representing the nation.

What he doesn’t understand is magic

Jonah Goldberg is defeated and depressed, but he’s still not willing to admit that he chose the wrong side:

Personally, I thought Trump’s stentorian address was awful, albeit with a few effective bits, particularly at the end. There was no poetry, no arc, no uplift or modulation. It was like he spent 75 out of 76 minutes shouting the final conclusions on one PowerPoint slide after another. Over time, the sentences seemed to be getting shorter and more blunt. It looked like he might even devolve into just barking random vowels and glottal stops. His delivery reminded me of that old SNL newsroom skit when Garrett Morris’s head pops up in an oval and he just re-shouts everything Chevy Chase says for the hard of hearing.

Thematically, it was an anvil chorus minus the melody. There was plenty of conservative boilerplate, some of which I agree with. But the message last night had nothing to do with conservative litmus tests or checklists. No, the desired takeaway was, “Behold this Man of Strength! Cast your gaze Trumpwards, plebes, for our new Caesar is here to bring a New Rome (or restore the old one) through force of will.”

Nowhere in his speech did Trump give any sense that he knew — or cared — how he would get things done through his “sheer force of will.” That’s the thing about magical thinking, you don’t need to explain it. The Ones We’ve Been Waiting For get it, and everyone else never will.

All Goldberg manages to demonstrate here is that he will see what he’s determined to see. Trump’s speech was too long, but it was otherwise extremely effective. Poetry, arc, uplift, and modulation are merely tools of the orator, the objective of a political speech is to give the voters a reason to vote for you. Trump’s speech did that, and the polls have responded accordingly.

As has long been the case, Goldberg, the good conservative, is focused on HOW a politician does things rather than WHAT he is doing. These conservative tone police are happy to vote for collective suicide so long as the politician promising to kill everyone does so in well-modulated, gracefully-composed tones while dressed nicely. Goldberg’s reference to “magical thinking” is pure cuckservative projection given that he is one of the many conservative fools who thinks 61 million post-1965 immigrants were transformed into Real Americans through the application of Magic Dirt, and believes a 19th century poem is the Zeroth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Goldberg’s complete lack of business experience also shows glaringly here. The CEO doesn’t tell you HOW something is going to be done. That’s not his role. Steve Jobs didn’t introduce the iPhone by explaining how it was going to be manufactured in China, who would be writing the operating system, and how much RAM it would take up. If he had, it would have failed. The CEO’s job is to establish the vision and inspire others to embrace it. That Trump has done, extremely well, with his Make America Great Again, which is the best campaign vision since Reagain’s Morning in America.

In fact, Goldberg even admits that he is babbling and denying the evidence of his own eyes and ears, as this passage shows: By the normal rules the speech should have been a disaster. But as we all know the normal rules do not apply. I am fairly certain Trump will get his post-convention bump. I am less confident Trump is a guaranteed loser come November. In other words, it was not awful, it was effective.


But the deeper theme of Goldberg’s piece is his shock and despair that so many people are refusing to buy into the Noble Conservative Who Knows What is Good For You schtick anymore.

I hate everything about this year, politically and (not counting some great TV) culturally. It’s clear many of my friends on the pro-Trump right are giddy with resentment-justifying glee at the alleged comeuppance of Trump opponents. One need only listen to quite literally anything Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity say about Trump critics to see how large a role spite plays in the now-unbreachable divide between the new nationalists and the old conservatives….

But the truth is conservatism has become shot-through with a kind of vindictiveness that reflects poorly on everyone, friend and foe alike. I hate that after 20 years of fighting what I believe to be the good fight, so many can’t muster the will or generosity to consider that I’m doing what I think is right.

I hate that after 20 years of fighting what I believe to be the good fight, so many can’t muster the will or generosity to consider that I’m doing what I think is right. I’m entirely open to the argument that my analysis and judgment is wrong. But I am resentful, furious and, most of all, contemptuous of the lazy and self-justifying assumption that my motives are malign.

That’s just it, Jonah. You didn’t fight the good fight. You fought the wrong fight. As a conservative opinion leader, you didn’t manage to conserve one single damn thing, and even more damning, many of your opinions changed over time with the progressive tide. Now you’re choosing to side with the globalists and the progressives because you were never on the side of Americans at all. You fought the wrong fight and now you’ve chosen the wrong side.

Through your open opposition to America’s nationalists, you have revealed that your motives and your objectives are, at the very least, opposed to the interests of Americans and the United States of America.

We don’t care that you think what you’re doing is right. We care that you have declared yourself to be an enemy of those who are trying to make America great again. We care that you have openly declared yourself to be an enemy of the American identity.

Frankly, I’m very disappointed in Jonah. I genuinely thought he was smarter than this. I defended him many times from those who regarded him with suspicion on the basis of his (((heritage))) and who considered him nothing more than a typical neocon. Unfortunately, when the time came to choose between America and his imaginary proposition nation, he chose the latter.

Derb embraces the cuck

The globalist shaming, I hasten to add, not the feckless and misandrist anti-nationalism:

In a conversation with Gavin McInnes while waiting for a subway train, I learned a new word: “cuckmercial.” That’s one of those TV commercials — one of the many, many — in which a clueless doofus male is set right by a smart, confident woman.

Browsing the Twitter feed later, I see that this is now a hashtag.

I’ll admit I wasn’t crazy about the “cuck-” prefix when it got started, but I’m seeing the light. Let’s try to get it up to dictionary-inclusion level. So far we have cuckservatives and cuckmercials. What else can we cuck-shame?

Well, there have been TV sitcoms along the same lines as those cuckmercials, going back to at least The Dick van Dyke Show. Cuck-coms!

I spotted the word “Cuckstians” in some comment thread, referring to Christians whose faith leads them out into missionary endeavors among people — preferably African — who accept their aid packages and medicines while laughing at the missionaries’ naive idealism when their backs are turned. Fair enough, I suppose, but I doubt “Cuckstians” will catch on: too hard to pronounce.

How about Cuck Lit.? Vanity Fair comes to mind, and Gone With the Wind. The memory’s dim, but I think The Wife of Bath’s Tale gets in there, too. And recalling the plot of Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream, I think I may have contributed to the Cuck Lit. genre myself.

However, I wouldn’t advise going into a bookstore (supposing you can find one nowadays) and asking for the Cuck Lit. section. They’d probably just send you to the cookery books.

This is why we don’t let Derb come up with the neologisms. Still, he’s right in thinking that Cuckstian will never catch on – not only is it hard to pronounce but it sounds too much like “cockstain” – and anyhow, there is already a term that covers cuckservative Christians, which is “Churchian”.

What usually causes a term to catch on is its effectiveness as rhetoric. Cuckmercial is good because it is rightly dismissive of both the subjects of the commercials and the commercials themselves. Cuckservative is even better, because it observably flays the soul of those to whom it applies. An offensive term is supposed to offend; one reason the Left is so alarmed by the #AltRight is because they have long intimidated conservatives by taking offense at inoffensive terms.

What are they going to do when faced with terms like “cuckservative” and “Churchian” and visual memes like the flag on the right? The contempt fairly drips off the rhetoric; it is very clear that any offense given is not incidental, but intended. This immediately puts the Left on the defense and leaves them unsettled, as they find it very frightening when their hisses of “racist” and “sexist” and “xenophobic” meet with indifference and derision.

Everybody else is racist!

A cuckservative clucks an oft-heard theme:

 The norm throughout history has been that different peoples are different, and that one people would either replace another peoples culture, or even replace them outright genetically.  That is the default, and a default which is still the norm in this day and age throughout most of the world.  The great exception to this is the exceptionalism the embodies America.

Ours is a civic heritage that transcends ethnicity and is not restricted by geographic extent.  And because that is so ingrained into the very essence of America, that there is a revulsion against the global and historical default to define a people by blood or land.

And so, the not-so-great hullabaloo of the “cuckservative” flap reared its head.  The vast majority of conservatives, including the veritable Ace of Spades, the veritable Stacy McCain, Erick Erickson, the folks over at HotAir, and especially SooperMexican (who was subject to rac­ist insults), have outted the White supremacists who are pushing the term — though the term has had its defenders….

These groups and individuals who used “cuckservative” to rage against racial marginalization are defaulting to the tribal norm that has held back humanity throughout the world and throughout history.  It is a rejection of American Exceptionalism, just as much as the Progressivism is a rejection of the same.

But it is true that destroying Western Civilization and America more specifically is a goal of the Progressive Left in order to create a “blank slate” upon which they may paint their deluded pseudo-utopias.  Sweden is but one international example, but this drive towards eliminating White people eliminated in a “soft genocide” does exist and there are indeed those who would love to do exactly what many of the “anti-racism” crowd most fear.

In conclusion: Would you prefer an America with the physical characteristics and beliefs of Thomas Sowell, or an America with the physical characteristics and beliefs of the Swedish Prime Minister?

First, this is more of our friend Sarah’s ridiculous “born American in Portugal” nonsense. It isn’t historical, it isn’t true, and it isn’t intellectually honest. It’s just lofty, but nonsensical rhetoric meant to convince through evading one’s logical circuits by appealing directly to one’s emotions. The American civic heritage does not “transcend ethnicity”, as I, or any other American Indian, can tell you. And it is restricted by geographic extent. The Chinese, the Portuguese, the Swedes, and the British are not Americans.

Second, a people are defined primarily by their blood, secondarily by their land, tertially by their religion. There are no other definitions. America is not a Proposition Nation, which is easily provable as no one has ever lost their American status for failing to abide by whatever these mythical propositions might be, or granted American status on the sole basis of claiming to accept those propositions.

If you still claim that America is a Proposition Nation despite it having been conclusively proven that it was not and never was, you are worse than ignorant. You are either in denial or you are a deceiver.

Third, the Alt-Right does reject American Exceptionalism. There is nothing exceptional about America except its superior founding stock and its geographic advantages, both of which are now significantly reduced. Indeed, in light of how rapidly America squandered its unique post-WWII military and economic superiority, one can quite reasonably argue that it is the least exceptional empire since the Austro-Hungarian.

Fourth, I would absolutely prefer an America with the physical characteristics and beliefs of the Swedish Prime Minister to those of Thomas Sowell, especially after the Sweden Democrats take power. This is for three reasons:

  1. Genetic Reversion to the Mean.
  2. The MAOA-2R gene.
  3. Based on my personal interactions with him, Dr. Sowell is neither as smart nor is he as intellectually honest as most conservatives wish to believe.

Fifth, an absolute priority of not being racist is neither a functional ideology nor a sound foundation for public policy. Regardless of one’s personal perspective, the historical reality is that racism is far closer to being the solution than it is to being the problem.

Self-destructive ideologies

Most people understand that communism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The same is now obviously true of feminism. What is remarkable is that Steve Sailer grasped that this was also true of American conservatism as long as 12 years ago:

As a native Los Angeleno, Northern Californian snobbishness has always gotten on my nerves. Nonetheless, the payoff has become undeniable. Rather than being inundated with unskilled immigrants from one country, Northern California mainly attracts skilled immigrants from a wide diversity of countries.

The lesson for the GOP is sobering. If it won’t fight to enforce immigration laws on the national level, citizens will try to parry the effects at the local level.

And the socially acceptable way to keep out swarms of poor immigrants is the Northern Californian liberal way: environmentalism, unionism, historical preservationism, NIMBYism—indeed, the whole panoply of Democratic Party policies at the state and local level.

There are a number of structural flaws in conservatism, but the fatal one has proved to be the embrace of the Proposition Nation mythology. In the same way that communism destroys personal initiative and feminism destroys reproductive rates, conservatism destroys the ability of a nation or even a community to sustain and preserve itself.

The #AltRight may or may not replace conservatism as the primary challenge to the Left in America, but we already know that conservatism was destined to fail. It doomed itself to failure as soon as it embraced the “equality of opportunity” concept, which inevitably led to the doctrine of accepting “hard-working immigrants”.

Those who argue that because DNA is not 100 percent determinative, it is irrelevant, are failing to grasp that in this regard DNA is a necessary factor, though it is not, in itself, a sufficient one. And while I welcome disagreement, do try to avoid putting on a clownish demonstration of how you are limited to binary thinking. That’s not criticism, that’s just embarrassing.

UPDATE: WF has an intriguing thought:

Evil is always ultimately self-destructive, suggesting the latter, when found in a system, likely indicates the former. In other words, if a system  (ideology, structure, philosophy, individual, or thought) contains within it the seeds of contradiction, be it internal or external, or systemic collapse, it’s a good bet it is against God and therefore evil. This is just as true for individuals with unresolved or incorrectly resolved cognitive dissonance, for example.

This is because God is both real and Creator of reality, and all that is in conflict with reality is necessarily in conflict with Him, too.

Ladies and gentlemen, your third party candidate!

Bill Kristol’s Israel First party unveils their stealth Trump killer, who we are reliably informed is “an independent candidate–an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.”

Yeah, so, about that…. it appears Kristol was talking about David French. National Review’s David French. By whom, we mean this sad sap.

Hi-freaking-larious. In an nationalism-driven election, Israel First is going to try to beat the nationalist candidate with a literal cuckservative. No wonder even the #NeverTrump types are completely underwhelmed.

Laura Ingraham Verified account ‏@IngrahamAngle
Kristol’s pick! That would be the same David French who defended Kevin Williamson?

Byron York Verified account ‏@ByronYork
My sense is much of the commentary isn’t really about David French. More about implausibility of choice after so much hype.

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog
I think David French would be a better prez than Trump/Hillary/Bernie, but then again so would Fat Bearded Libertarian Guy in Thong

Ben Shapiro Verified account ‏@benshapiro
Trumpsters are going to have a rough time convincing people that it’s somehow David French’s fault if their man doesn’t win.

A.J. Delgado ‏@AJDelgado13
I only know that David French name bc I think i’ve seen it in a few NRO articles I hated…

Ed Morrissey Verified account ‏@EdMorrissey
The “major figure” for an indie bid is … @DavidAFrench? I like and respect David, but this can’t be right.

Ricky Vaughn ‏@Ricky_Vaughn99
DAVID FRENCH FOR PRESIDENT: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our wives’ sons.”

 “I gather Donald Trump said I’m a loser. I’ve won some and I’ve lost some, but one thing I’ve always tried not to be is a roaring jackass.”
– Bill Kristol

Can’t say that anymore, Billy. Do you hear that sound? That is the ENTIRE INTERNET laughing at you. Even Susan Estrich, the architect of the Dukakis debacle, is shaking her head and wondering what planet you think you’re orbiting.

Anyhow, I think concerns about the potential effects of a third-party candidate on Trump’s prospects can be safely dismissed now.

Book review: Cuckservative

The Essential Malady reviews Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America:

One of the most ferociously written (and critical) broadsides hits
what Day often calls “Churchianity”. It is well known by those who care
to find out that church groups have a huge hand in assisting mass
immigration – often absurdly of non-Christians that have no intention of
converting. This is facilitated by the state and as I understand it,
quite lucrative for all involved except the native population. This
chapter deals more with the perversion of Christianity towards earthly
ends than with this fraud though and the generally touchy, feely and
ultimately suicidal niceness of committed Christians especially of the
Evangelical persuasion. This has hopefully reached peak insanity with this couple but I’m not so sure. Christ wants us to bring other nations to him not other nations to us.

On a personal level, I can relate to the term and I would say that
for a long time I was myself a “cuckservative”. I knew deep down in my
gut that what I wanted to preserve as a conservative was white Christian
society but knew that openly stating such would get me called a racist
and worse. Part of the reason for this is I was cultured to think so and
the only mainstream voices available tripped over themselves often
embarrassingly to avoid being called racist. Yet, if they’re honest with
themselves, that’s where the conservative instinct should lead.

The racial equalitarians, particularly in the Christian churches, need to be called out and held accountable for their treason. If you’re going to claim “there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither American nor Chinese, in Jesus Christ” means that no one has any more right to live in the magic dirt of the United States than anyone else, that’s fine from a free speech perspective, but you should probably also be considered an open and avowed enemy of America and of the Christian church.

You’re also a liar. The Churchians who sell that line are perfectly happy to welcome the immigration of animists, Muslims, demon worshippers, Hindus, and every other form of religion under the guise of Christian equality. Like all deceivers, they rely on bait-and-switches, they hide behind rhetorical fogs, and they deny the obvious consequences of their actions.

If you are an elder in a Christian church, you must expel the churchians and cuckservatives from your midst whenever they reveal themselves. They are deceivers and destroyers, and they do not serve that which they claim to serve.

Of SJWs and Saruman

This tweet illustrates SJW posturing, incivility, and ignorance in a nutshell:

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
The #cuckservative is Saruman. He counsels surrender and submission to Mordor because he despairs. The #AltRight are the Men of the West.

Richard GadsdIN R@po8c
*headdesk* Even granting the racist his premise, that’s Denethor, not Saruman.

He’s completely wrong. Denethor despairs, to be sure, but even in his despair he neither surrenders nor submits to Mordor. You do recall the grand scene when Denethor ends the siege of Gondor by opening the gates to the army of the Witch King, right? Of course you don’t, because it never happened.

Denethor despairs and commits suicide. Saruman, on the other hand, despairs, submits, and surrenders to Sauron, with the idea that by doing so, he can eventually achieve some level of influence over Sauron. Consider his address to Gandalf, after revealing himself to be Saruman of Many Colors:

“A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Numenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends.”

Kunae ‏@Kinslaughterer
It’s worse: Saurman, after preaching moderation, turns on his erstwhile allies and attacks them with words, then armies.

In other words, I was correct. Saruman is a true cuckservative.


The #AltRight will never join with that Power. We are the Men of the West and we will neither bow to Mordor nor listen to the mouths of its emissaries sent out to deceive the ignorant.

UPDATE: Give Richard some credit. Unlike many, he can admit when he is wrong.

Richard GadsdIN ‏@po8crg
I’ve read your blogpost and I owe you an apology. I’d forgotten the post-Helm’s Deep stuff and you were right.

I’m not going to say there is absolutely no chance I will get something wrong about The Lord of the Rings, but let’s just say the odds are very, very, very low considering how many times I have read the books over the years. As a general rule, if it is a) Tolkien, b) economic theory, or c) computer games from 1980 to 2000, think twice, then think again before you call me out on what you think is an error.

Zuckercucks

The irrepressible Milo continues to make friends and influence people as he criticizes the pointless, humiliating genuflection to Facebook performed by a few cuckservatives playing noble loser one more time:

A delegation of Establishment conservative types descended on Silicon Valley today to make Facebook look good. I have some thoughts about it. This is going to be a long column, so strap yourselves in.

I’m sure it wasn’t these conservative figures’ intent merely to assist in Facebook’s marketing efforts, but at this point, if maliciousness is ruled out as a motivation, extreme stupidity is the only possible remaining explanation.

That, and perhaps a touch of pathetic egotism. I think many of those invited are a little starstruck by Zuck. After all, he’s the millennial billionaire CEO of the largest social network on the planet, and has spent the last decade making old media irrelevant, a point made plain by the amount of “I’m on my way!!!!!!” Facebook posts posted by attendees today.

It’s hard to imagine Truman posting selfies on the way to Potsdam, or really any serious person about to engage in an endeavour that might affect the course of the national election. But hey, it’s current year, and all bets are off.

Eric Bolling let this attitude slip on Monday’s broadcast of The Five, where he congratulated Fox pundit Dana Perino on the “fantastic honor” of being invited to the meeting.

A meeting where Facebook refuses to admit they did anything wrong, held purely to make the company look good? I’m not sure, but I can’t remember the last time it was an “honor” to be invited as window-dressing by a corporation’s public relations department. Cucked by Zuck. How embarrassing!

We don’t need their platforms. We don’t kiss the gatekeepers’ asses. We storm the gates, tear them down, and erect our own institutions using their skulls as decorations. The Brainstorm knows what’s coming next. In August, the rest of you will too.

There is nothing to accommodate. We will replace them by Fox Newsing their CNNs, Breitbarting their Salons, and Castalia Housing their Tors. They can keep the left-liberal third of the literate population.

We’ll take the rest.

A message for the conservative establishment

Milo thunders like the prophets of yore:

I have a message for the conservative establishment: you fucked up big time… The assorted, well-fed, burbling lunatics, idiots and losers of the conservative media establishment and in conservative circles in general… These useless, fat blubbering losers!

“You conservatives made all the right noises but you have no appetite whatsoever to fix anything. You allowed the Left to continue to gain ground and gain ground and gain ground until a point at which — and I don’t think this is an exaggeration to say — the fabric of western culture is now at risk. From immigration, from multiculturalism, from the lies the Left tells.

Trump and I represent something that scares the Left — the utter, wholesale rejection of political correctness. Total defiance. The idea you don’t back down, you double down. When somebody comes to my event and says they’re offended by a joke, I rack my brain for a more offensive one… Trump does the same thing.

He has shown the one thing that no conservative politician or pundit or anybody really on the political Right in American public life has done for some 30 years. He has shown fearlessness, he’s not afraid of the Left. And that inspires terror in their hearts and I’m the same, I like to think.

Regardless of what you think of Milo, he is absolutely and utterly correct to condemn the craven conservative establishment in this manner. Their spirit of fear is not God-given, and their vaunted ideological principles have proven to be entirely nonexistent.

As my co-author, Red Eagle, conclusively demonstrated in Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, conservatism is not even an ideology per se, but rather, an attitude, or to be less kind, a pose.

The early new rightists were interested in discerning the deeper roots of historical American political thought, and in turning its various strains into a viable, coherent political tradition. Some of them looked so deeply that they found inspiration from decidedly non-American sources, such as British conservative political thought. The latter was a generally elitist tradition, openly contemptuous of American-style independent citizenry and the freewheeling style of American political discourse. Among the leaders of this Anglophile camp was Russell Kirk, who is generally credited with coining the American use of the term conservative as a distinct political label. His most famous work, The Conservative Mind, proved to be quickly and profoundly influential soon after its publication in 1953. Kirk’s book synthesized various ideas from diverse 18th- and 19th-century thinkers, most prominently Edmund Burke, into six canons, or principles, of this new conservatism:

  1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body, of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.
  2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
  3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a “classless society.”
  4. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked.
  5. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.
  6. Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations.

Whatever the left may say about them, Kirk’s principles are hardly the stuff of SS rallies. As a set of ideas, they’re not particularly systematic, particularly when compared with more radical philosophies like Marxism and its innumerable offshoots, or at the other extreme, the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. They are arguably more a set of generalized assertions and attitudes rather than principles per se. Even so, they do represent a particular worldview, though it is not the worldview of the Founding Fathers or of the early American political generations. Notice as well that several of these principles are primarily defined by that which they opposed: the dominant left-liberal worldview of the mid-20th century. From their very beginning the principles of conservatism were subordinate and defensive in nature, or less charitably, they were submissive and passive-aggressive in their relation to the left.

Conservatism cannot win. It cannot even conserve. If the West is to survive, it needs to abandon its consistent failures of the past and confidently embrace the pillars of its foundation: Christianity, the European nations, science, and capitalism. Any other strategy will fail. Any man who considers himself a Man of the West would do well to abandon the conservative establishment; it has already abandoned you.