Tag: cuckservative

Why he left the conservative movement

A lifelong conservative Republican informs the conservative media why he is no longer a conservative:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.” The word seems to have become a brand that some people attach to a set of partisan policy preferences, rather than the set of underlying principles about government and society it once was. Conservatism has become a dog’s breakfast of Wilsonian internationalism brought over from the Democratic Party after the New Left took it over, coupled with fanatical libertarian economics and religiously-driven positions on various culture war issues. No one seems to have any idea or concern for how these positions are consistent or reflect anything other than a general hatred for Democrats and the Left.

TL;DR: He is an American nationalist who rejects cuckservatism.

For many years, people on both sides of the political spectrum have repeatedly tried to label me a conservative. If you look back to the very beginning, to my first column on WND after 9/11, I have steadfastly resisted that label because I have always known that I do not share an outlook with those who proudly wear it.

I am a nationalist, I am a traditionalist, I am a Christian, and I am right-wing, but I am most definitely not a conservative. I never was and I never will be.

The reason is this: conservatives are nothing more than progressives in slow motion.

The author, a veteran, proceeds to address the neoconning of conservatism, as reflected in conservatism’s newfound enthusiasm for violently exporting what it deceptively calls “democracy” around the world:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve?

Devastating. Absolutely devastating.

The death of conservatism

Mike Cernovich explains how the pro-American mask has been stripped away from the globalists formerly known as conservatives:

Nationalism v. Globalism: The Death of Conservatism.

Trump’s rise has been met with cries that he is not a “true conservative.” The once-prestigious National Review devoted an entire issue crying about Trump. Called Against Trump, the issue brought in attacks from pro-war neocons and even the mentally-unstable Glen Beck.

What attacks on Trump failed to do was define conservatism. No one has been able to explain why waging wars on foreign soils or increasing federal spending more than any president since Lyndon B. Johnson, as George w. Bush did, was conservative. No one has explained how socialized medicine, which Mitt Roney enacted as government of Massachusetts, is conservative.

Question begging aside, Trump is not a “true conservative,” and in fact conservatism in the U.S. is dead.

Trump is a nationalist, which is a loaded term worthy of definition.

Nationalism derives from the root nation. A nationalist puts the interests of his own country, and by extension countrymen, above the interests of other nations. A nationalist puts America first. Nationalists will work with other countries, but only when in the best interest of the United States.

You’d think that the President of the United States would by definition be a nationalist. Nation is in the title of the job description. Yet mainstream conservatives have drifted away from nationalism and towards globalism.

To a globalist, Americans are no different from a Nigerian. If someone in a foreign land is able to do a job much cheaper than an American worker, then those jobs should be offshored. Americans, according to globalists, do not deserve to exist as an identity.

Globalists thus favor open borders, even though increased immigration lowers the wages of native-born Americans while increasing crimes. Marco Rubio, the darling of conservative elites, even sought to open America’s borders.

As part of the Gang of 8 (so named because 8 United State senators joined forces to bring a new world order to the U.S.), Rubio also sought to increase the number of migrants from Syria by millions. That the migrants from Syrian tend to be overwhelmingly men of prime-fighting age means nothing to Rubio or other globalists. America has no right to exist as a nation under the globalist worldview.

Trump rejected globalism with a powerful statement: Build the Wall. By building a wall, Trump meant the U.S. must erect a border between the United States and Mexico, as illegal immigrants, including drug dealers and even Islamic terrorists, poured across in the tens-of-millions. Building a wall is a powerful representation of nationalism.

“A nation cannot exist without a border,” Trump declared. A nation is it borders because a nation is its people. When you allow people who hate American values like freedom of speech, free enterprise, and tolerance for religion, you change the nation for the worse.

Mainstream conservatives, again, are globalists. They believe Americans do not have a right to exist as a people, and that America does not have the right to exist as a nation. Some my call that statement extreme, but if you do not define your borders or control who comes to America, as they do in Israel, how can you claim to be pro-America?

There is more, considerably more, there. A fair amount of it will be familiar to you if you have read Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, but Mike puts his uniquely energetic spin on the matter. Read the whole thing.

And then ask yourself, how can any American, real or propositional, claim to be conservative when he actively opposes the conservation of America?

A Churchian sermon on politics

A Churchian cuckservative, appropriately named Peter Wehner, preaches a sermon against Donald Trump in the New York Times:

Among the most inexplicable developments in this bizarre political year is that Donald Trump is the candidate of choice of many evangelical Christians.

Mr. Trump won a plurality of evangelical votes in each of the last three Republican contests, in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. He won the glowing endorsement of Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, who has called him “one of the greatest visionaries of our time.” Last week, Pat Robertson, the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, told Mr. Trump during an interview, “You inspire us all.”

If this embrace strikes you as discordant, it should. This visionary and inspiring man humiliated his first wife by conducting a very public affair, chronically bullies and demeans people, and says he has never asked God for forgiveness. His name is emblazoned on a casino that features a strip club; he has discussed anal sex on the air with Howard Stern and, after complimenting his daughter Ivanka’s figure, pointed out that if she “weren’t my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her.” He once supported partial-birth abortion and to this day praises Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. He is a narcissist appealing to people whose faith declares that pride goes before a fall.

Mr. Trump’s character is antithetical to many of the qualities evangelicals should prize in a political leader: integrity, compassion and reasoned convictions, wisdom and prudence, trustworthiness, a commitment to the moral good…. At its core, Christianity teaches that everyone, no matter at what
station or in what season in life, has inherent dignity and worth.
“Follow justice and justice alone,” Deuteronomy says, “so that you may
live and possess the land the Lord your God is giving you.” The attitude
of Thrasymachus is foreign to biblical Christianity. So is Trumpism. In
embracing it, evangelical Christians are doing incalculable damage to
their witness.

There are few Churchian phrases I hold in more contempt than “damage to their witness”. It’s passive-aggressive manipulative nonsense. In combination with their actions, use of the phrase shows what forked-tongued liars the Churchians are. The Churchian “witness” is pure poison. They preen and posture and virtue-signal and criticize and condemn, driving genuine believers from the pews while simultaneously welcoming women and sexual deviants and atheists to the pulpits.

Any decent, honest, self-respecting man would rather pledge his life to Satan, Cthulhu, or the Nameless Spirit of the Abyss than live life the way these mealy-mouthed, nominal Christians do. They don’t follow Jesus Christ and worship God, they follow public opinion and worship at the altar of social approval.

The punchline: Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the last three Republican administrations.

I don’t know if Jesus would vote for Donald Trump or not, but I know that he wouldn’t constantly lie like the Churchians do. And frankly, I think he’d drive an awful lot of Churchian sermonizers out of the Church with bullwhips, just as he drove the moneylenders out of the Temple.

American or Ameriboo?

Sarah Hoyt insists that she was “born American” in Portugal, to Portuguese parents:

I was born American. Yes, I was born in another country of foreign parents who would no more become American than fly unassisted, (and who desire it less than they wish to have have their heads shaved by a warthog) but I figure that was an accident of circumstance.  What really matters is that I was an American in my heart.  I just had to get here and become one in truth. (And that, by itself, is an American attitude.)

This week while talking to a friend about his foreign SO, I found myself explaining that other people, in other countries, have a hierarchy in their heads all the time — who is powerful, who isn’t, what attitude is proper.  You can find it (if you know where to look) even when reading British novels.

We’re not like that.  Whether we were born elsewhere or here, Americans — those of us who are proud of the name —  are rebels, revolutionaries, something new under the sun: a people who believe people should be equal in their right to life, the right to liberty, the right to pursue their happiness undisturbed by either inimical neighbors or oppressive “betters.”

It’s a bit ironic, in that the ideas she is using to justify her “born American” claim were initially put forth by four not-exactly-American individuals, one a French tourist, one a French immigrant, one a Russian Jew living in Britain, and one a Jew of Portuguese descent born in New York City.

Not a single one of whom belonged to the American posterity for whom the blessings of liberty were intended, according to the Preamble to the Constitution.

It’s telling, is it not, how all of these foreigners and immigrants just happened to produce a new definition of American that included them, a definition that was not held by the Founding Fathers. Nor is it a coincidence that this self-serving definition was subsequently used to justify the largest invasion to have ever taken place in human history, an invasion that has severely weakened the once-mighty American nation.

My fellow Native American, John Red Eagle, and I addressed this very point in our book Cuckservative:

America is not a propositional nation, it is a distinct nation of people with their own customs, traditions, DNA, and culture, and it is a nation that has the right to defend its own existence. 

The Founding Fathers were clear on the issue:

All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm.
 – Samuel Adams

“Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.”
 – Thomas Jefferson

The opinion advanced is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? 
– Alexander Hamilton


Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?
– Ben Franklin

One cannot no more become an American by virtue of one’s thoughts or feelings about revolution or equality than one can become Australian, Canadian, or any other nation of English descent. That’s why, unlike Irish-Americans, Swedish-Americans, and Italian-Americans, there are no hybrid “English-Americans”. Like it or not, the fact is that they are the American nation and the posterity of the Constitution.

The Japanese have a word for a foreigner who is so enamored of Japanese concepts and culture that they come to identify with it. We had a few in my class in Tokyo; they would wear their yukatas and religiously perform tea ceremonies every day. Sarah could be reasonably described as an American weebo.

The fact that America is a nation weakened and watered-down by mass immigration and over a century of intermingling with other nations does not change the fact of its historical existence. Many of its predecessor nations are now gone, lost forever to history, but that does not mean that they never existed in the first place.

The ironic thing about all this is that Sarah has repeatedly insisted that I “don’t get Europe” despite having lived in a European country for nearly two decades and most of my adult life. And perhaps she is right. Every European country I have visited has customs that occasionally strike me as certifiably insane. But what is also true is that she doesn’t know what America is, she is no more properly “American” than a Spanish-speaking Peruvian who has lived his entire life in Iquitos, and she certainly wasn’t born American in any sense of the term.

She is, without question, what might be called USian. But it is increasingly apparent that there is a large and growing gap between the USian transnationalists and the American nationalists, a gap that history strongly suggests will lead to either secession or civil war.

Moreover, in order to claim that she is American while simultaneously denying that I am Italian, she must deny that America is – or increasingly, was – a distinct nation of people with their own customs, traditions, DNA, and culture. And is that something that anyone who loves the American nation and is truly part of it would do?

Marco Rubio and Rupert Murdoch claim to be Americans too. But their actions observably belie their claims. What Sarah is pushing is a bizzare form of replacement theology, where right-thinking New Americans are grafted on to replace those pesky Old Americans whose blood and traditions and Constitution are no longer deemed necessary to the replacement nation.

Sarah writes: “We are a radical experiment, a nation not of blood and genes, but a nation of heart, of mind, of belief.”

Perhaps. But that is not America. That is the alien collective which is in the process of devouring the genuine American nation, staking claim to its property, and assuming its identity.

UPDATE: It is hilarious to see the commenters over there posturing, assuring Sarah she as American as they are, and asking “do you even history” while producing howlers like this:

The big difference you are missing – whether deliberately or not – is
that the United States is not one of those nations formed by forcing
other countries together into a whole.

In addition to eliminating hundreds of Indian nations (which is handwaved aside because Cherokee), there is the very slight matter of THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR which ended the voluntary union of sovereign countries and established the modern USian empire.

Like every other multi-ethnic empire in history, the USA is held together by force and nothing more than force. And it won’t hold together much longer, in part because there are now more Ameriboos than Americans residing in it.

UPDATE 2: See, they’re all about freedom of speech because they are totally real Americans. A white knight nobly riding to Sarah’s rescue – as if she can’t defend herself – tweeted both of us this:

Vox Day is a fucking fascist… I will punch the guy in his nazi face if I ever find him!

It’s funny to think how many people have said something like that. Yet for some reason, in person everyone tends to back down. I wonder if 29 years of weightlifting might have anything to do with that?

I find this view unacceptable

Shall we therefore target him and hurt his career?

“Of course there are legitimate racists and we should target them, We
should find them and we should hurt their careers because racism is
unacceptable.”
– Ben Shapiro

Remember, these are the sort of people who not only say they’re on our side, they actually claim to be our opinion leaders and to speak for us.

They’re not on our side. They don’t share our opinions. Don’t fall for their nonsensical posturing. They’re just like every other pig that found itself on the upside for once and is trying to declare that equality now renders it more equal than others.

More and more, it seems the primary difference between the cuckservative and the SJW is that the former gives lip service to classic liberalism while the latter gives it to equality and tolerance. But they both exhibit a strong desire to play thought and speech police.

Trump drives the narrative

A conversation about the way Donald Trump is forcing the cuckservatives at National Review and elsewhere to confront their failures.

AN: “I never thought I’d see the day. NRO is actually admitting that the Iraq war by Dubya was a mistake. Trump nailed it again, no wonder they hate him so much.”

VD: Exactly.

AN: He’s now driving the narrative, what a huge shift.

VD: That’s all it took. Instead we had to listen to those pussies telling us surrender was inevitable for 20 years.

AN: They really are cowardly, that’s what Trump has exposed and I still get a chuckle out of Bill Kristol being mad that there aren’t any strong leaders amongst the cucks to face him. Dude, they are cucks for a reason.

VD: Exactly. If they were strong leaders, they wouldn’t be cuckservatives in the first place.

The Chrishanger reviews Cuckservative

Chris Nuttall, the bestselling SF author, reviews Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” betrayed America:

If there is nothing else that can be said about Vox Day – and a great deal of nonsense has been written about him – it is that his mere existence is a testament to the damage done to free speech and common sense by the politically-correct. To try to avoid giving unnecessary offense is a laudable goal, but to declare whole fields of study verboten because of the potential for offense is just plain stupid. Worse, perhaps, when the difference between words and reality becomes impossible to avoid, it undermines faith, the faith we need to keep our society running. Reality does not change on command.

After the runaway bestseller SJWs Always Lie (reviewed here), Vox Day tackles two subjects that don’t, on first glance, seem to go together. On one hand, there is the tidal wave of immigration pouring into America (and Europe) and, on the other hand, there is the supine surrender of American Conservatives to liberal thoughts and ideals that have very little relationship to reality. These people have become known as ‘Cuckservatives’ – a combination of ‘cuckoo’ and ‘conservative’ and the fact that the word itself has been declared offensive tells you a great deal about its power.

While Cuckservative has sold well, it hasn’t taken off the way SJWAL did, despite the fact that immigration is the only serious issue in the presidential campaign and the European migrant crisis has been the primary news item for the last six months.

I think this tends to indicate that many people are still holding out hope that the immigration issue will somehow sort itself out, that it’s not something with which they actually have to come to terms. This is unlike the situation with SJWs, who cannot be avoided in the media, at school, at work, or even, in too many cases, in the family.

Lies about the Alt Right

Cathy Young blatantly lies about the etymology of the term “cuckservative”. And that’s just the start:

A few months ago, Trump supporters on the Internet started mocking his
conservative detractors with the bizarre slur “cuckservative.” The word
is an amalgam of “cuckold” and “conservative,” derived from a
pornographic genre in which a man is forced to watch while his wife has
sex with another man (who is often black, while the “cuckold” is white).
To the white nationalist alt-right, the “cuckservative” is a
conservative race traitor who does not prioritize the interests of
whites — who, most important, does not seek to restrict nonwhite
immigration.

As those who have read Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America know, the term does not derive from either pornography or race. That is a lie repeatedly bruited about by cuckservatives and others who fear the rise of the Alt Right.

This is just another attempt by fearful conservatives, who have conserved nothing, to discredit and disqualify. Their cry of “racist, anti-semite, impolite” is their hapless imitation of the SJWs’ “racist, sexist, homophobic, bigot”.

Conservatives are not our allies. They never were. They are surrender monkeys, and as such they are the subservient allies and handmaidens of the Left.

And if they are afraid of the Alt Right, just wait until they encounter the Mil Right….

National Review against America

A helpful list of all the National Review contributors who are against both Donald Trump and the American national interest.

National Review is so desperate to prop up its fading anti-nationalist conservatism that it has turned its entire magazine into an anti-Trump hit piece.

For months, Republican leaders have worried about how to stop 2016 frontrunner Donald Trump. Now, one of the conservative movement’s most influential publications is taking matters into its own hands.

National Review is dedicating a special issue of its magazine, one week before the Iowa caucuses, to stopping Trump. “Against Trump,” blares the magazine cover. Inside, a blistering editorial questions Trump’s commitment to conservatism, warning voters that backing him is tantamount to allowing the conservative movement to have “fallen in behind a huckster.”

“Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones,” the editorial reads.

And that’s just the start.

The National Review issue features anti-Trump essays from more than 20 conservative thinkers, leaders and commentators spanning the GOP’s ideological spectrum from David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian-infused Cato Institute, to William Kristol, the hawkish editor of the Weekly Standard, to David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth. All call for Republicans to nominate someone other than Trump.

Or to put it another way:

So much for Republican loyalty

The Republican Establishment always demands loyalty from its base, but never offers any of its own:

I have voted Republican in every presidential election since I first became eligible to vote in 1980. I worked in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser. I have also worked for Republican presidential campaigns, although not this time around. Despite this history, and in important ways because of it, I will not vote for Donald Trump if he wins the Republican nomination….

No
major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of
knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness. It
is little surprise, then, that many of Mr. Trump’s most celebrated
pronouncements and promises — to quickly and “humanely” expel 11 million
illegal immigrants, to force Mexico to pay for the wall he will build
on our southern border, to defeat the Islamic State “very quickly” while
as a bonus taking its oil, to bar Muslims from immigrating to the
United States — are nativistic pipe dreams and public relations stunts.

No wonder people have increasingly little use for Republicans. They stand for nothing but the status quo. They promise nothing but the status quo. They offer nothing but the status quo. They are, quite literally, hopeless.

For Republicans, there is an additional reason not to vote for Mr. Trump. His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism, in ways that Hillary Clinton never could. For while Mrs. Clinton could inflict a defeat on the Republican Party, she could not redefine it. But Mr. Trump, if he were the Republican nominee, would.

Mr. Trump’s presence in the 2016 race has already had pernicious effects, but they’re nothing compared with what would happen if he were the Republican standard-bearer. The nominee, after all, is the leader of the party; he gives it shape and definition. If Mr. Trump heads the Republican Party, it will no longer be a conservative party; it will be an angry, bigoted, populist one. Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions.

An angry, bigoted, populist party sounds a lot more appropriate and viable in the last days of a failing multicultural empire than a go-along-to-get-along Wile E. Coyote party. And a dramatic break with the Republican party’s best traditions, which are stabbing its base in the back and caving into Democrats, is long overdue.

The most certain way to know that Trump is doing well is to observe the way in which the liberal mainstream media is affording these cuckservatives a national platform to take these futile shots at him.