Tag: cuckservative

A Republican self-throat-cutting ritual

Even the cuckservatives at National Review are aghast at the Republicans in office:

It would be bad enough had Republicans merely acquiesced to foolish policies, but in this bill they actively advanced them. The bill’s most egregious proposal will temporarily expand the H-2B visa program, quadrupling the issuance of visas to foreign workers for nonagricultural or temporary service jobs in 2016 — and it was a Republican initiative from start to finish.

What is the rationale? There is strong evidence that large-scale hiring of foreign workers depresses wages for Americans, and it’s not as if Ferris wheels and ski lifts will go unmanned if we stop importing Peruvian labor.

Clearly, Republican leaders bent to the demands of a tiny segment of employers. Meanwhile, they capitulated on a host of other proposals. Despite serious concerns about the integrity of our refugee-vetting procedures in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, the bill fully funds the government’s refugee-resettlement program, facilitating the president’s promise to settle 10,000 Syrians in the U.S. over the coming year. Despite revelations about outrageous criminal activity in America’s 340 “sanctuary cities,” the bill permits federal grants to those cities without adding any qualifying conditions.

And despite a bipartisan effort to reform the cronyism-riddled EB-5 visa program, under which foreigners can obtain a green card if they invest a certain amount in a business that creates or preserves ten jobs for U.S. citizens, Republican leadership dismissed the reform effort and extended the EB-5 program as is through September.

You know it’s bad when they can’t even bother trying to claim that this is just a tactical defeat that is cleverly setting up a long-term conservative strategic victory. You know, one of those long-term strategic victories that are apparently measured in centuries, because I’ve yet to see one come to pass.

If this still surprises you

Then you really, really, need to read Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America:

Conservatives give Ryan a pass on budget deal they despise

‘The end product here is just cleaning the barn, it’s a disaster,’ one Freedom Caucus member complains.

The House Freedom Caucus hates the massive government-funding bill: Spending levels are billions of dollars higher than what conservatives wanted, and at least two top policy priorities — language addressing Syrian refugees and so-called sanctity of life — were cut.

But unlike past fiscal battles, when lawmakers took shots at GOP leaders and tried to tank bills, this time conservatives are largely holding their fire. Even as they vow to oppose the package, many are still praising Speaker Paul Ryan’s handling of the $1.1 trillion spending bill and $680 billion in tax breaks.

“In terms of the process, I can tell you I’ve had more meaningful conversations with the speaker and leadership in the last couple of weeks than I think I have in the last couple of years,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who instigated the revolt against Speaker John Boehner that led to Boehner’s resignation this fall. “I would give it an A-plus in terms of trying to reach out to the rank and file.”

See, it may be a really dreadful bill, but the important thing is that those who oppose it had “meaningful conversations” and got “to feel included”. It is because they lack any sort of coherent ideology or substantive political principles that conservatives inevitably “grow” in office.

It may not prove much comfort, but the undeniable fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of human history, governments have ruled without much interference from the governed. What we are witnessing is simply a return to historical normalcy. It’s not the end of the world, it’s just the end of a dream that the Founding Fathers knew very well was likely to be transient.

Are we a moral people? No, obviously not. So, it should not be surprising that we are no longer fit for the form of government they created.

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.