Tag: cuckservative

The Littlest Chickenhawk clucks again

This time, he’s foolishly taking aim at Mike Cernovich.

The cucks are getting nervous. Their gravy train is rapidly coming to an end, because no one believes anything they say anymore. And the Alt Right is far more interesting, because we actually deal in societal reality, not cultural programming.

Look, it’s a matter of public record that I had (((Ben Shapiro)))’s number back in 2005. He’s not pro-American, he’s not a nationalist, he’s just another nominal Jewish “conservative” who is a professional member of the mainstream media’s Potemkin opposition and more devoted to fighting racism than big government.

And he’s a chickenhawk who went to law school instead of serving in the US military after declaring that the need for sacrifices in “the great battle of our time”.

Most of us realize that during wartime, sacrifices must be made … But taking such a stand requires common sense and the knowledge that we are in the midst of the great battle of our time.
– Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, July 28, 2005

As for the idea that a cable network can grant anyone credibility or legitimacy, well, how seriously do you take any of their talking heads? How much legitimacy does the Littlest Chickenhawk have Meanwhile, he cries out in emotional pain as he rhetorically strikes out at the #AltRight.

I’ve experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump’s candidacy than at any other time in my political career. Trump supporters have threatened me and other Jews who hold my viewpoint. They’ve blown up my e-mail inbox with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They greeted the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber…. Why are the droogs of the alt-right desperate for sexual congress with The Combover?

A much better question is this: why do you prefer the gas chamber for you, your wife, and your two children to Israel, Ben?

Ben, you publicly demanded the sacrifice of young American lives to your interests, a sacrifice you were unwilling to make yourself. So, why should Americans hesitate to sacrifice the lives of you, your wife, and your two children if they happen to believe it serves their interests?

Cucks gonna cuck

Remember, these people actually think they are virtue-signaling their superior morality:

A North Carolina woman has admitted to committing sex crimes involving a 14-year-old boy who her family was in the process of adopting from the Philippines.

Christy Lynn Jaski, 43, of Wilmington, pleaded guilty Tuesday to three counts of misdemeanor sexual battery. She was sentenced to three years of probation, and as part of her punishment she must also register as a sex offender for 30 years.

Prosecutor Lance Oehrlein says Jaski kissed and groped the Filipino sometime between December 2014 and January 2015. Oehrlein says Jaski also sent messages to a friend in the Philippines admitting she had kissed the child, whom she called ‘her son.’

I suspect the aftermath of the new Churchian enthusiasm for interracial adoption is going to be cataclysmic. One of the key advantages of close family ties, both social and genetic, is that they naturally inhibit incest. You can call an alien your son, your daughter, your brother, or your sister, but that natural inhibition is simply not going to be as strong.

And yes, they’re Churchian cuckservatives: “Devout: Jaski’s husband works for a non-profit devoted to promoting Christianity on college campuses around the country”

Yes, I’m sure this is just the sort of promotion that Christianity needs. Someone needs to explain to these virtue-signaling cretins that importing foreigners to have sex with your wife is neither evangelizing nor sharing the love of Christ.

If I was a college student, the only thing Jaski’s efforts would have is to convince me to worship Loki.

Let them go their wicked ways

An eloquent reminder of why women should neither vote nor speak in church. Particularly self-declared “lifestyle theologians”.

Evangelicals are endorsing Trump by and large because he promises to return our nation to the “good old days.” Trump promises to bring back steel and coal, to return our country to an immigrant-free land, and, with gusto, he promises to make America the world super power it used to be. His campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” has deeply resonated with leaders across the spectrum.

But our generation doesn’t quite know what that means. Don’t forget, we grew up during war times. On September 11th, 2001, I was in eighth grade. When the war in Iraq started, I was in high school. Graduation came and many of my high school friends enlisted. I can still remember my friend, Kyle, telling me he had enlisted and feeling this overwhelming sense that we were far too young for all of this. These are the days in which we have grown up. We haven’t known the days of peace and tranquility that older generations reminisce about and desire to return to. It’s not that we don’t think things should change, it’s just that we don’t know a different way.

But war was not the only thing the separated the “good old days” from today in many leaders’ minds. There were many “benefits” of that by-gone era for those supporting a traditionalist view. Women were in the home raising the children without complaint, the Christian feminist movement hadn’t yet touched the churches and immensely inconvenienced pastors who had not had to grapple with these issues in a long time, and the notion of being politically correct wasn’t as demanding on conference speakers, writers, and preachers as it is today. When some Evangelicals look back, they see more tranquil days simply because these things were absent. But when millennials look back, we see how far our society has come. Evangelicals have warned us against the allure of progressivism, but I’m here to say that we actually like the progress. We actually like that women are on their way to equal pay, we like that you can’t make a racist comment as a public figure and go unnoticed, and we like that there are more female theologians and teachers and professors than ever before in American history. So when you try to pull us back to the “good old days,” you’ll miss us.

She’s right. National greatness doesn’t appeal to these millennials because they have no idea what it is. They love their degradation and their evil. They crawl like animals and believe themselves superior to those who came before them and walked upright. They genuinely believe that a descent into a crime-ridden third-world hellhole that can’t even teach children how to read, let alone put a man on the Moon, is “how far our society has come”.

Let them go. They worship feminism, globalism, and progressivism, not Jesus Christ. Follow the Divine example and abandon them to the Hell of their own choosing. We don’t need them. We don’t need numbers. All we need is 12 God-fearing men.

You will be hard pressed to find a millennial nationalist outside of the Republican intern pool. Perhaps it is that international travel is more available to our generation, or that we are living in more diverse communities that celebrate that diversity, but we don’t think America is the only great country, and we certainly don’t think that America is a Christian country.

Evangelical leaders are not just supporting nationalism, but are elevating nationalism to a Christian virtue. Many point back to the founding fathers as Christian leaders in our nation and impress upon us that we must support the constitution and protect our country because it is a Christian thing to do. We have deeply muddied the language between serving our God and serving our country. Forget the martyrs of the faith around the world, posters show us that soldiers make the “ultimate sacrifice.” As Christian millennials, we just can’t buy this. We look over our shoulders at our nation’s history and wince a little. We don’t have a lot of national pride because we are waking up to the immense on-going racism that exists in our nation’s systems, the horrors of early American history, and the tragedies around the world that happen because every country has nationalists. So when you equate nationalism with Christian virtue, we’re out.

Then you’re out and good riddance too. It’s not so much that nationalism is a Christian virtue as anti-nationalism being a Satanic one; globalism is overtly anti-Christian Neo-Babelism. Foolish millennials like these belong to neither the nation nor the church and should be kicked out of both without hesitation or regret. Evangelicals aren’t losing a generation, rather, Satan is running out of Baby Boomers and is in the process of reloading.

Although it may be tempting, there is no need to tell stupid young women like this to go to Hell. They are already well on their way.

“The West will die….”

A Hispanic reviews Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America:

I read quite a bit but this is the most powerful political book I’ve ever read! Vox Day lays it out plain and simple – Western Civilization is in a VERY DANGEROUS situation right now because of reckless immigration policies created by liberals and politically correct cuckservatives. This book acknowledges that Donald Trump has played a huge role in pushing this very important issue to the forefront of political discussion.

Cuckservatives are so afraid to oppose uncontrolled mass migration from the Third World that they’re instead willing to let the United States move away from Western Civilization and become less free. I’m Hispanic and I agree with the argument in this book that Hispanics are not natural conservatives/libertarians who favor limited government and a broad range of freedoms. The voting patterns of Hispanic immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren are evidence of these voting patterns but cuckservatives have let their own self-interest and fear of being called racist prevent them from standing up for the survival of the country. As the book points out, we also have seen a similar paralyzing fear in other parts of the West such as Western Europe where Third World immigrants are flooding in and failing to integrate because they don’t embrace Western values, not because of any inherent racism on the part of the host country.

What I absolutely LOVED about this book the most is the bravery in talking about human biodiversity. The author points out that even the The Economist has written about a plethora of scientific research proving that there are biological differences between the races. And yes, this makes some races better at some things than others. Vox Day, Charles Murray, and Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio are such brave souls to talk about this incredibly important but controversial topic. Ann Coulter briefly mentions this issue of IQ differences between the races in her book, “Adios America” but Vox Day really lays out the evidence without giving a damn about what is politically correct. How refreshing to find an honest, brave, and politically incorrect book like this standing up for Western Civilization!

It’s hard for the older generation to realize things are as bad as they are. Trapped in memories and increasing isolation, they have no idea what the USA has become. It’s all but impossible for the younger generation to realize what they have lost, or more precisely, of what they have been robbed.

Conservatives have betrayed America. Progressives have destroyed it. What remains is the tattered remnants of a nation that still cannot grasp that not only is it not stronger, healthier, and more powerful than ever before, but it is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of its invaders. The USA is like a cancer-stricken patient whose oncologist keeps assuring him that the cancer cells are white blood cells that are strengthening his immune system.

The great irony is that immigrationists point to the great waves of past immigration to whom the adulteration and ideological misdirecting of the nation can be directly traced, the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Scandinavians, and the Jews, and using them to justify the beneficial nature of the current wave of Central American, Asian, Arab, and African immigration.

But what we have witnessed is the invasion and destruction of the American nation. You may not understand this yet, you almost certainly will not accept it, but you have nevertheless witnessed it, and soooner or later, you will eventually grasp what you were seeing.

There is a reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution for their posterity, and for their posterity alone. There is a reason they limited naturalization to whites. There is a reason they enacted the Chinese exclusion act. Americans foolishly abandoned the wisdom of their forefathers for a self-serving myth concocted by immigrants in the name of anti-racism, and they will experience the inevitable consequences of that foolishness.

Nothing good has come of this. And worse is yet to come. But none of this means that the American nation cannot rise again, if the surviving posterity returns to the principles that made America great in the first place.

Recant your absurd equalitarianism. Give up those ridiculous myths that enchain your mind. Embrace your American identity and stop thinking that because a member of a competing identity is nice, or polite, or smiled at you, that their interests are not diametrically opposed to you and your people. The survival of America, and possibly Western Civilization, depends upon it.

The map is not the territory. The state is not the nation. The citizen is not the national. The metaphor is not the material.

Mailvox: Churchianity and Cruz

JM is mystified by the continued enthusiasm of Churchian cuckservatives for Ted Cruz:

I used to respect the authors of this blog and some of those they quote with approval, but I’ve lost respect for them in the last few months, and have dropped them from my blogroll.  I find it both interesting and annoying to see how they rationalize Ted Cruz’s refusal to keep his word into an act of Christian principle.  To be charitable, they may be unaware of all the dirty tricks pulled by the Cruz campaign, but they’d probably find some way to justify them, anyway.

I suspect that Cruz, Jeb, and Kasich never had any intention of supporting Trump regardless of the pleedge they made, and they’re just making up excuses to rationalize their dishonesty.

Most of the women mentioned in this post who are so upset at Trump and Christians who favour Trump are extremely judgmental Calvinists, who seem to be making this a test of Christian orthodoxy.

If these people are so enthusiastic about Cruz’s alleged adherence to the Constitution, why don’t they notice that he isn’t even constitutionally eligible to hold the office he was running for?

It’s just a form of Christian identity politics, that’s all. After all, once you’ve determined that Ted Cruz is the Holy and Anointed One, it’s a little hard to back down and admit that not only are you wrong, but you’ve been listening to false prophets you should never again give any credence.

Like any other cult that’s faced with dealing with false prophecies, the response of the hard core is to double down even as everyone else falls away.

The only reason they’re so upset with Trump is because he has shown their prophets to be false, their principles to be fake, and their pretensions to be ridiculous. I suspect that most of these die-hards are either women or gammas, as neither can ever forgive someone who humiliates them by publicly proving them to be wrong.

I wasn’t even a little bit surprised to see the poster boy for Churchian cuckservatives, Matt Walsh, being prominently featured in the approved quotes club. That is the sort of people JM is dealing with here.

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.