Tag: cuckservative

The benefits of foreign labor are a lie

In Cuckservative, John Red Eagle and I conclusively demonstrated, using official government statistics, that immigrant labor is a net negative to Americans and American workers. Others who are looking into the subject are reliably finding that the importation of foreign labor is harmful:

Last year, thousands of American companies won permission to bring a total of more than 150,000 people into the country as legal guest workers for unskilled jobs, under a federal program that grants them temporary work permits known as H-2 visas. Officially, the guest workers were invited here to fill positions no Americans want: The program is not supposed to deprive any American of a job, and before a company wins approval for a single H-2 visa, it must attest that it has already made every effort to hire domestically. Many companies abide by the law and make good-faith efforts to employ Americans.

Yet a BuzzFeed News investigation, based on Labor Department records, court filings, more than 100 interviews, inspector general reports, and analyses of state and federal data, has found that many businesses go to extraordinary lengths to skirt the law, deliberately denying jobs to American workers so they can hire foreign workers on H-2 visas instead….

At the same time, companies across the country in a variety of industries have made it all but impossible for U.S. workers to learn about job openings that they are supposed to be given first crack at. When workers do find out, they are discouraged from applying. And if, against all odds, Americans actually get hired, they often are treated worse and paid less than foreign workers doing the same job, in order to drive the Americans to quit.

What’s more, companies often do this with the complicity of government officials, records show. State and federal authorities have allowed companies to violate the spirit — and often the letter — of the law with bogus recruitment efforts that are clearly designed to keep Americans off the payroll. And when regulators are alerted to potential problems, the response is often ineffectual.

I know it’s painful for the devotees of free trade, who love nothing better than to compare 21st century analyses to 18th century dogma, to admit, but the increasingly undeniable empirical reality is that free trade, and the free movement of labor, are about as Marxist, globalist, socially destructive, and economically harmful as Communism.

I’ve read every single defense of free trade that I can find. None of them, not a single one of them, holds up. And as for those who babble childishly about a protectionist government picking winners, as if that suffices to make a rational case, what on Earth do they think is happening in the USA and in the EU now?

All that free trade accomplishes is that it allows governments to pick winners from around the world rather than from inside their own borders. And the winners are those who are willing to pay the most for the privilege, which is why the dominant figures in the U.S. media are a) an Australian and b) a Lebanese based in Mexico.

It burns! It BURNS!

Peggy Noonan, a “conservative” who voted for Obama in 2008 because reasons, can barely bring herself… to say…that terrible, terrible word.

Remember, the more they protest the term, the more they shriek “Nazi” and “fascist” and “racist” in an attempt to escape the burning flames, the more rhetorically effective you know it is. Calling a self-styled conservative a “cuckservative” is akin to brandishing a cross-shaped stake that was soaked in garlic and holy water in a vampire’s face.

Then driving that bad boy home.

That being said, if for tactical purposes you wish to have a calm and etymologically untainted dialectical term of use that they cannot reasonably protest in your arsenal, I suggest you utilize “demi-conservative”, as the cuckservative is an individual who only subscribes to three of Russell Kirk’s six conservative canons.

The three canons to which the demi-conservative observably fails to adhere are:

  • A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize “natural” distinctions
  • A faith in custom, convention, and prescription
  • A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Their failure to do so may not be entirely clear by these summaries of Kirk’s canons, but I will write a more detailed post later which will make it eminently clear that this is unquestionably the case. As you can see, many of today’s “conservatives” are actually demi-conservatives who have rejected literally half of what the father of American conservatism declared to be the conservative mind.

In a word, they are cuckservatives.

Speaking of which, Greg Johnson interviewed me about the book. I’ll post the link to the transcript when it’s available.

An invitation

A few folks have said that they felt the economic chapter was the weakest part of the book, which I find absolutely fascinating as I have yet to hear anyone even begin to present the first glimmerings of a case against the key concepts in it beyond the usual “free movement of labor is not free trade”, which is observably false.

So, this is an invitation to anyone that wants to take me on; critique the chapter and I’ll post it here and respond to it. Declare your intentions in the comments, and if several of you are interested, you can even join forces and work on it together.

Bring it on. As a former free trader, I would very much like to be proved wrong.

Fun with cucks

It’s always amusing to run into the King of the Cucks, Nick Searcy, who waves his adopted black son as if he was a bloody flag rather than the get-out-of-racism free totem that is, apparently, the poor kid’s great purpose in life as far as Mr. Searcy is concerned.

“I actually do things in the real world.” – Nick Searcy, actor. 
Now that is funny!
Apparently cuckservatives, like SJWs, are prone to projection. Meanwhile, after accusing me of being “hateful, mean-spirited, and foul-mouthed”, Searcy directed this at another critic.
Yes, Nick $earcy! ‏@yesnicksearcy
Your chickenshit unwillingness to tweet your racism under your real name is also a factor, fuckhead.
The man has the emotional continence of a teenage girl who just found out her favorite boy band broke up. What I found even more amusing, though, was that our make-believe tough guy is actually tweeting at me from behind a block!
You are blocked from following @yesnicksearcy and viewing @yesnicksearcy’s Tweets. 

He even tried to justify it.

Yes, Nick $earcy! ‏@yesnicksearcy
I’m tweeting ABOUT you so that I don’t have to look at your repetitive racist bullshit, Coxday. Call Twitter, pussy. @voxday

Yes, I’m sure I’ll get right on it. Then I’ll cry harassment and start a Patreon account. But tonight’s pièce de résistance was this:

Yes, Nick $earcy! ‏@yesnicksearcy
I’ve made a fortune as an entertainer, 296 follower nonentity loser. You’ll NEVER be that clever. @Nosajio @voxday

Yeah, so, about that….
It would have been funnier, of course, if Einstein, rather than Machiavelli, had been third instead of fifth. And I was wrong. The pièce de résistance was when he went running to tell Larry on me.

Yes, Nick $earcy! ‏@yesnicksearcy
Wonder if @monsterhunter45 knows what a piece of shit @voxday is. 

The call of the cuck

A review of Cuckservative anticipates, correctly, I suspect, that it is Christians who will find it most difficult to give up their extra-Biblical Good Samaritanism:

The chapter on Christianity and cuckservatism is perhaps the most devastating in the book, and will be the most difficult pill to swallow for those at whom it is aimed. Your ordinary political cuckservative is, at some level, aware of his own pusillanimity and bad faith. Christian cuckservatives are, generally speaking, much more naive, good-hearted and truly well intentioned. For them, looking in the mirror that Vox Day and Red Eagle hold up will be extremely difficult. I would not be surprised if the loudest condemnations of this book come from Christian cuckservatives. Ordinary political conservatives reading this book may reproach themselves for their former credulousness and lack of good judgment, but they may more easily and readily be won over to the worldview that Vox and Red Eagle advocate since they can place the blame on the leaders of the movement. The Christian will have to go through a complete paradigm shift over his basic understanding of his own religion before he will be capable of making that same leap.

I’ve seen this repeatedly in Churchians. Their religion consists of equating “love” with “being nice”. It puts a premium on whatever makes them feel good emotionally; they are essentially emotional hedonists rather than physical ones.

Churchians can no more accept the concept of a God who is intolerant, or a Savior who does not save everyone (except, perhaps, for the intolerant), any more than an inveterate deviant can accept the concept of a God who considers sexual deviance to be abomination. It is not an accident that they are so easily subverted by the wolves in sheep’s clothing, who use the intolerance intrinsic in the concept of a fallen state of Man requiring salvation to deny the Cross, deny the Resurrection, deny Hell, and finally, deny Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

It’s not conservatism, it’s NATIONALISM

The coming Republican civil war on immigration:

“This is not conservatism.” With those four simple words, House Speaker Paul Ryan dismissed Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entry into the United States until the federal government gets terrorism committed in the name of Islam figured out.

“This is not what our party stands for,” Ryan added, “and, more importantly, it’s not what our country stands for.”

That may depend on how the party is defined. While elected Republicans have almost unanimously distanced themselves from Trump’s Muslim gambit, one poll found that nearly two-thirds of GOP voters agreed with him. Another determined that more than three-fourths believe the United States is accepting too many immigrants from the Middle East.

There is a civil war in the Republican Party on immigration. Those on Trump’s side tend to see the enemy as including the party’s leadership, consultants, intellectuals and donor class. (The dust-up over Trump and Muslims is likely to bolster that perception.) But they’ve been courted by other GOP presidential candidates too, including Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Rick Santorum.

Walker is already out of the race and Santorum has stalled in the low single digits. But Cruz is ascendant and Trump has been leading in the New Hampshire polls for a longer period of time than Walker’s presidential campaign lasted.

Trump isn’t the most articulate or consistent spokesman for immigration control in the GOP. That distinction goes to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. And Trump’s Republican critics would be the first to point out he isn’t the most conservative. But his rise has fueled a family argument inside the party about how conservatives should view immigration.

Ryan’s position has a long conservative pedigree. He has followed in Jack Kemp’s intellectual footsteps. He can cite Ronald Reagan as well. The Wall Street Journal editorial page that championed Kemp and Reagan’s tax cuts also called for open borders. Republicans like Ryan tend to see America as a proposition or an idea, defined by the political principles laid out in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

In this telling, immigration affirms the truths we hold to be self-evident, particularly that all men are created equal and the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. The willingness of immigrants to come here is a testament to the success of those principles. “Immigration,” writes veteran conservative columnist George Will, “is the entrepreneurial act of taking the risk of uprooting oneself and plunging into uncertainty.”

Restricting immigration, according to these Republicans, isn’t conservative because it requires government bureaucracies to interfere in labor markets. Immigration is like free trade and restricting it is like protectionism.

Read that last sentence again. Those who have read Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America will now understand, if they didn’t already, why we addressed free trade and immigration in the Immigration and Economics chapter, because the latter, in its open-borders variant, is a subset of the former.

It’s interesting, is it not, that the cuckservatives are willing to fight fellow Republicans to the death, but they’re always eager to negotiate a genteel surrender with the liberals. Of course, as we showed when discussing the six conservative principles laid out by Russell Kirk, cuckservatives reject the last two.

Cuckservative at Return of Kings

Roosh introduced Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, to the Return of Kings readership. If you’ve already read it, perhaps you might leave a comment there with your impressions for the benefit of those who haven’t otherwise heard of the book. From the Prologue:

What is now taking place in Europe is a microcosm of what is happening, on a larger scope and timescale, in the United States of America. Although the European population of 508 million is larger than the U.S. population of 320 million, the 28 member nations of the E.U. fit into about half the land taken up by the 50 united States. Moreover, unlike the heterogeneous American “nation of immigrants”, the European nations are homogeneous and distinct, with long histories, traditions, and collective memories that stretch back for centuries. That is why a much smaller number of immigrants arriving in a much shorter period of time has triggered the powerful nationalistic response that is already overturning governments and will ultimately shatter the European Union.

That is why it is important to realize that the same divisive process is well underway in the United States, albeit at a larger order of magnitude. And one of the tragic ironies of American politics is that it is the very group of people who most proudly proclaim their loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and to the traditional values of America’s founding fathers, conservatives, who have helped lead the way to America’s decline and eventual collapse. They have done so by forgetting the central purpose of the very document they revere.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America contains an extremely important phrase that is almost always ignored by those who appeal to it, or to the men who wrote it, in defense of immigration. It states:

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key phrase is this: “to ourselves and our posterity.” The blessings of liberty are not to be secured to all the nations of the world, to the tired and huddled masses, or to the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of other lands. They are to be secured to our children, and their children, and their children’s children.

To sacrifice their interests to the interests of children in other lands is to betray both past and future America. It is to permit an alien posterity, like the newly hatched cuckoo in another bird’s nest, to eliminate our own, and in doing so, defeat the purpose of the Constitution. It is, like the cuckolded husband, to raise the children of another man instead of one’s own sons and daughters.

It is, in a word, cuckservative.

Muslim immigration ban is constitutional

Furthermore, there is even precedent for it:

Is an immigration ban on Muslims unconstitutional? Probably not. The Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. This is called the plenary power doctrine. The Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections. While the Court has not ruled on religious discrimination, it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from the general rule.

There is even precedent for Trump’s plan. In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court–as far I know–ruled it unconstitutional.

Plenary power doctrine. Shove that in the face of every cuckservative who blathers ignorantly about the unconstitutionality of Trump’s proposed policy. There is more than a century of precedent demonstrating otherwise. Anyone who says a religious immigration ban is unconstitutional is either ignorant or lying.

Furthermore, the Federalist Papers make it clear that the several States have the ability to pass religious bans as well. And in a MSNBC poll, 92 percent of Americans 18-24 said Trump is not going too far in his proposal to ban all Muslim immigration.

After all, they’re the ones who would have to live with them.

Cuckservative: initial responses

The sales have been exceptional. The reviews have been excellent, by which I don’t mean that they said the book is great, although they mostly do, but in their attention to detail and their substance. Sadly, some observers are just not taking it well.

Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Man, Vox Day must be spending an awful lot of his daddy’s money to drive up his new book’s Amazon ranking this high.

To which there can really only be one response.

Otherwise, the usual SJWs have been stunned into silence; the observable fact that I not only have considerably more support than they do, but actually happen to be in harmony with the popular zeitgeist at the moment is rather more than they are equipped to rationally process. The success of SJWs Always Lie was bad enough, as far as they were concerned, but to follow it up with an even bigger success of broader appeal is simply beyond imagining.

There has been only one real criticism aimed at the book to date, namely, the absence of footnotes. It’s a legitimate point, and I will address it, first as if I were Red Eagle, and second in my own inimitable fashion.

Cuckservative makes a strong rhetorical appeal to defend historic America, but its weak point is that you have to read it as an appeal addressed to you, the reader. It’s not factual ammunition for you, the already-convinced reader, to use in a debate with the unconvinced, because the authors have omitted footnotes. Cuckservative uses a lot of facts, and Vox Day has said on his blog that he’s got solid sources for everything, and that omitting references gives critics less to attack. That’s fine if you believe he’s not bluffing, and I do; but “one of the authors says he has a source for that, but he won’t say what it is” doesn’t fly in a serious argument.

Ann Coulter’s Adios America will supply facts by the ton when it comes out on Kindle. Meanwhile Cuckservative is the best current statement of the militant right-wing case against mass immigration and against ineffective “respectable” conservative politics regarding it.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a married man. You’ve worked a long day. You’re tired and you’re not in the mood for explaining yourself or getting into an argument with your wife, so when she asks you if you want Chinese for dinner, you have two choices. Either A) you simply say no, or B) you tell her no and you explain why.

If you say no, that ends the debate. Perhaps she suggests something else, perhaps you do, either way, there is no need for discussion. But if you go with option B), you have given her the opening to take issue with why your position is incorrect and to attempt to convince you that you really do want Chinese. Whether she manages to convince you or not, you’re in for an argument, and most likely, you’ll end up eating Chinese even though you didn’t want to.

Now, in case the analogy has escaped you, the reasons for not wanting Chinese food are the footnotes and the wife is the critics. Here endeth the lesson.

From my perspective, books are discourse. I expect and anticipate criticism both fair and foul. I remember when Ann Coulter was absolutely pilloried for having endnotes rather than footnotes. I also know that not having footnotes allows me, or the Cuckservative reader, to call out the critic who attempts to cast doubt on them.

The correct response to the critic who claims that something in Cuckservative is wrong is to ask him what the correct answer is. If he wishes to deny that the Danish army’s measured average IQ has fallen by 1.5 points, ask him for the correct delta. Ask him if it has risen, fallen, or stayed the same. He will not be able to do so, thereby discrediting himself and revealing that he is not an honest interlocutor.

The only people who actually need the footnotes are those who are attempting to undermine the arguments presented in the book by disqualifying the source data. Red Eagle and I simply made their task more difficult by denying it to them. If you want to cite a source, then cite our book. That is sufficient.

But perhaps my chief reason for not providing my sources, which are, of course, impeccable, is my experience with TIA. Simply because I cited my source, many people who read the book took my original arguments and credited them to the source, who, ironically enough, made precisely the opposite argument in the face of the data they had collected.

For much of the world before the 17th century, these “reasons” for war were explained, and justified, at least for the participants, by religion.
– The Encyclopedia of Wars, p. xxii

No, they really weren’t. I make mistakes, but I seldom make the same mistake twice.

UPDATE: My co-author speaks for himself:

This isn’t an academic treatise, it isn’t a book report we’re submitting for approval and critique by authority, and it isn’t a defensive, plaintive rearguard work in the cuckservative style.

We’re on the attack. Let the lefties and cuckservatives be on the defense. Let them impotently quibble and whine about us failing to cite our sources. Let them do their own homework if they want to argue or nitpick, and let them be the ones who try to qualify themselves.

Preach, preacher!

Kicking the cuckroaches

Donald Trump knows what the American people want a lot better than the cuckroaches in the media who claim to be “opinion leaders” do:

Donald Trump acknowledged Monday during a raucous South Carolina rally that his call for barring all Muslim foreigners from entering the United States is “probably not politically correct.”

But he had three words for his critics: “I don’t care.”

And if his South Carolina rally — with its whoops and cheers — was any indication, that support will stick.

Six of eight Trump supporters at the rally who spoke with CNN said they supported the Muslim travel ban, which has drawn swift criticism from other Republican and Democratic presidential contenders alike who slammed the proposal as contrary to American values of religious tolerance. And the two supporters at the rally who disagreed said they were still likely to vote for Trump.

By contrast, here is the Littlest Chickenhawk’s take on what he calls Trump’s desperation, which is only one of the many cuckservative hissy fits being thrown in response to Trump’s moderate proposal.

Desperate Trump Drops Ugly Policy Bomb: Ban All The Muslims Abroad

That can mean only one thing: it’s time to trot out a headline-grabbing, nonsensical policy proposal.

To that end, Trump released a statement today calling for a ban on entry to the country for all Muslims. He said this would include Muslim servicepeople serving overseas, as well as Americans traveling abroad. He did not create a timetable, or a list of requirements to be met at which point such a ban would be lifted. Instead, he explained, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred [of Americans by members of the Muslim world] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it faces, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Asked about what prompted the statement, Trump said simply, “death.”

In other words, Trump believes the only way to stop terror attacks like those that happened in San Bernardino would be to ban Muslims from entering the country. That’s idiotic, for at least three reasons.

American Citizens Have Citizenship. Trump is not referring only to foreign Muslims. He says his ban applies to “everyone.” If that’s the case, why would he quash the rights of millions of Muslim Americans, many of whom serve in the police and armed services? How would he propose to take away rights without due process? And why in the world would he? This is truly frightening  and disgusting stuff. Up until now, it’s been the left calling for Americans to give up their rights. Not anymore.

There Is A Difference Between Profiling And A Religious Ban. Looking at religious practice as one component of Islamic terrorism makes sense, given the association between religious practice and Islamic terror. But Islamic practice is necessary, not sufficient, for Islamic terrorism – in other words, there are lots of Muslims who aren’t terrorists, obviously. Being Muslim should not be an outright disqualifier for entering the country if we are actually capable of vetting you. That’s why Ted Cruz’s suggestion of a moratorium on Muslim immigration from countries like Syria makes sense, but Trump’s global ban makes no sense. Our security services will have to be much better than a total Muslim ban if we hope to keep Americans safe anyway, considering the threat of homegrown terrorism – we’ll have to discriminate between Muslims who are a threat, and those that aren’t. There are a billion Muslims on planet earth. Banning all of them is simply impractical, as well as immoral.

Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night.

So no, this isn’t a good idea. It’s a rotten idea all the way around: legally, ethically, practically. Trump’s supporters need to realize at some point that knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment. It’s ugly when it’s President Obama looking to grab guns from American citizens without due process, and it’s ugly from Donald Trump. Given the poll numbers, it’s not clear whether Americans will get wise to that truth.

It’s a bit disappointing to see that Ben Shapiro, who has admittedly grown up a bit since his Littlest Chickenhawk days when he was all keen on sending all young male Americans who weren’t Ben Shapiro to war in the Middle East, falling back into generic #cuckservatism here. Ben wasn’t in my league back in our mutual WND days, and he still isn’t today. Allow me to demonstrate:

  1.  Trump isn’t “desperate”. It is his critics, like Shapiro, who are growing increasingly desperate. Ben is projecting. “The latest Rasmussen Reports (Dec. 4) weekly Trump Change survey finds that 68%
    of Likely Republican Voters believe Trump is likely to be their party’s
    nominee next year, up from 53% two weeks ago.”     And recent events in San Bernardino only helped Trump’s cause.
  2. It is not “idiotic” to say that banning Muslims from entering the country is the only way to stop terror attacks like the one that occurred in San Bernardino because doing so would have stopped the terror attack in San Bernardino. That being said, it’s true, that won’t stop all Muslim terror attacks; the only way to do that will be to repatriate all Muslims to the Dar al-Islam. Which, sooner or later, is exactly what will eventually happen across all the parts of the West that stay West.
  3. The Preamble to the Constitution trumps both the Constitution and the Amendments. The citizenship that can be granted by the stroke of a government pen, can be taken away by the stroke of a government pen as well. Citizens are not nationals and the Nation trumps the State.
  4. There are a billion Muslims on Earth. None of them have to live in the West. It is neither immoral nor impractical to suggest that Muslims should live in the House of Submission and to refuse to permit them to bring war to the House of War. Furthermore, it is not only impractical, it is both ahistorical and utterly impossible, to expect large quantities of Muslims to live in the West in peace. They will not. They never have. Shapiro is demanding the Muslims stop being Muslims, a much greater offense to them and their religion than not permitting them to colonize the West.
  5. Our foreign intelligence apparatus in the Muslim world is practically nonexistent anyhow. And it obviously escapes Shapiro that we will not need a domestic intelligence apparatus spying on Muslims if there are no domestic Muslims on whom to spy.

Speaking of cuckservatives and their propensity for betraying the American national interest, Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America has risen to #134 on Amazon, and after surpassing the 2015 nonfiction National Book Award winner by Ta-Nehesi Coates, is now the #1 bestseller in all Politics & Social Sciences. It is also the #1 hot new Nonfiction release.