#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
There is nothing a fat white Delta enjoys more than nobly riding forth to defend the honor of a woman he finds attractive. It’s so cringeworthy, it almost makes you feel embarrassed for them. I could just about smell the stench of self-righteousness all the way across the ocean when Eric Erickson proudly announced that he had invited Dulcinea del Kelly to take the place of the evil Donald Trump, whose uncouth words might assail the virgin ears of his wife and daughter.
It’s increasingly clear that the cuckservatives are the SJWs of the Right, being the self-appointed speech police:
Conservative commentator Erick Erickson on Friday night disinvited GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump from speaking at an activist conference he is hosting here this weekend, citing disparaging remarks Trump made hours earlier on CNN about Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Erickson said Trump had been scheduled to speak at his RedState gathering on Saturday at the College Football Hall of Fame, but he told Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, about an hour before midnight that Trump was no longer welcome….
Erickson, a Fox News regular and face of the popular RedState blog, has long been a foe congressional GOP leaders and an ally of conservative grass-roots organizers. He has also drawn criticism for saying impolitic things, once calling retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter an “[expletive] child molester” and First Lady Michelle Obama a “Marxist harpy.” He has since apologized for both comments.
Trump’s words about Kelly simply went too far, Erickson said Friday, making him, someone who enjoys and appreciates barbed political rhetoric, uncomfortable and queasy. And with his invited guest dominating the 2016 race, and few if any conservatives reining him in, Erickson thought he’d try.
The following is a transcript:
Why did you disinvite Trump?
I think there is a line of decency that even a non-professional politician can cross. Suggesting that a female journalist asking you a hostile question is hormone related, I think, is one of those lines.
Do you see yourself as a referee for the conservative movement to keep Trump from riling the race?
You
know, no. I’m trying to be lenient with him. I told his campaign
manager a few days ago that there have been a lot of people in the party
who refuse to treat him legitimately even though he’s the front-runner.
And I didn’t want to give him a hard time. I felt bad that one of
event’s agendas didn’t have his name on it and felt badly about that,
let him know. I don’t like that I have to disinvite him. But there are
bounds of what’s acceptable in our discourse and they’re not different
for you, or me, or someone else. I’m not going to have a guy on stage
with my wife and daughter in the crowd who thinks a tough question from a
woman is because of hormones.
There is NO PLACE in cuckservatism for anyone who doesn’t kowtow before the feminist line. These guys are perma-losers both politically and socio-sexually. And like the SJWs and gamma males they are, they are hell-bent on keeping the more successful men in the same subservient place they are, at the base of the pedestal.
Look at how he reduces the American political process to an appeal to the emotional authority of his wife and daughter. What a pathetic excuse for what purports to be a man!
Greg from 108 is right. For the cuckservative, as for the SJW, “appearing “not racist” or “not sexist” takes precedence over everything, even the Constitution and the rule of law.”
This is how you handle it when someone calls you sexist, misogynist, or whatever other label they seek to use to discredit, disqualify, or distract you:
MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However that is not without its downsides, in particular when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. Your twitter account–
DONALD TRUMP: Only Rosie O’Donnell.
KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.
TRUMP: I’m sure it was.
KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contesttent that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.
Does that sound like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?
And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?
TRUMP: The big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China, we lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. Frankly what I say and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly, Megyn if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you although I could probably not be based on the way you have treated me, but I wouldn’t do that. But you know what? We, we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That I can tell you right now.
Megyn, YOU are a part of the big problem the USA has. Every SJW, every self-appointed thought policeman is a part of the problem. And it is time to start making sure that every time they try to play thought police, we cram that concept right down their throats.
“The big problem this country has is being politically correct.” It’s certainly one big problem that gets in the way of discussing any of the actual issues that matter.
It was good to see Trump put Kelly in her place. I have never understood the conservative affection for her. She’s a feminist, she’s PC, and she’s pro-immigration, ergo she is on the other side.
That being said, good for her and Fox News for actually putting the candidates on the spot for a change.
Jared Taylor types as slowly as he can and lays out the logical case against them to the cuckservatives:
Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today’s electorate.
Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don’t expect them to be “diverse.” Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.
Your great festival–CPAC–is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That’s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don’t share your dreams. You’ve heard the old joke: “What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.” Outreach doesn’t work. You can’t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can’t reach….
You are not just betraying your principles and dreams–even though you
think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.
That’s the dialectical approach. In my observation, cuckservatives do not speak that language and they are not sufficiently versed in current genetic science to intelligently discuss the subject, which means that we can only expect to communicate with them through the rhetoric to which they are limited. So, allow me to summarize and translate: If you are a white man who thinks other white men calling you names is racist, you’re a cuckservative and a traitor to your nation.
It would be interesting to hear a cuckservative explain “the crisis in Calais“. The rational individual looks at the picture and worries about a violent, dystopian future on the horizon. The cuckservative looks at it and wonders why that awful Nazi racist is delaying the myriad blessings those vibrant young immigrants are going to convey upon their new native land.
This is one that isn’t readily explained away by right-wing disinclination or incompetence:
Of the fourteen honorary degrees bestowed by Ivy League institutions to living Supreme Court justices twelve went to those on the left of the Court. Justice Ginsburg is the champ: she has an honorary degree from every Ivy League university except Cornell and Cornell does not award honorary degrees. And she is by some political science measures the farthest to the left on the Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has two such degrees (Princeton, Yale) and Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter have one each (Penn, Princeton, and Harvard respectively). While I am not knowledgeable about all foreign judges, the two I did recognize from the Ivy lists, getting two honorary degrees each, were Albie Sachs of South Africa and Aharon Barak of Israel—two of the most famous left-leaning jurists from abroad. Indeed, some of Barak’s opinions make those of William O. Douglas seem modest and lawful.
It’s interesting how all of these coincidences invariably favor the left. Of course, the left doesn’t understand statistics or probability, so they don’t understand how obvious their cleverly sneaky actions are.
Nero explains it. TL;DR: think 4chan, not Stormfront:
As the leading conservative authority on interracial intercourse, I therefore feel compelled to set the record straight on the so-called racial origin and dimensions of this insult.
Here’s my verdict: all the writers above are wrong. As someone who’s been covering web culture and online memes for years and who has a great deal of respect for how well many right-wingers have taken to internet culture, I’m slightly embarrassed by my fellow conservatives’ inability to understand a term that returned to popular use not on white power websites, but on 4chan.
Before it became a 4chan meme, “cuckold” was a common term of abuse in mediaeval times and through the Renaissance. Shakespeare plays are replete with the word — that’s where I learned it, anyway, where it’s used as a byword for an emasculated male….
On 4chan, “cuck” is used as a general term of abuse, to describe
someone who caves in, surrenders, or sells out his core supporters. (His
base, in political parlance.) 4chan’s founder Christopher Poole, for
example, is called a “cuck,” not for any racially-charged reason, but
because he capitulated to outside pressure to ban controversial
discussion topics on the website. And because he was allegedly cuckolded
in real life – but not by a black man.It’s easy to see why “cuck” makes such a good insult. It’s a byword
for needlessly relinquished manliness, for selling out and caving in.
The original metaphor of watching your partner getting slammed by
another dude now simply means abandoned principles and a lack of
backbone. It’s a byword for beta male or coward….Indeed, the suspicion of many is that this is another case of virtue
signalling from mainstream conservatives, rather proving the point of
the hashtag and demonstrating it better than any gloss yet published. A
sort of meta-definition in action, since it demonstrates supposed
conservatives using precisely the “slander and move on” tactic so
beloved of liberals.
And I think it should be very clear that any cuckservative who would disagree with the leading conservative authority on interracial relations can only be doing so because he is a racist homophobe.
Since, you know, they don’t appear to be hypersensitive to being called names or anything like that.
Ed Driscoll laughs at progressives:
A decade ago, while reflecting back on his seminal “Radical Chic” article in New York magazine in 1970, Tom Wolfe said, “I just thought it was a scream, because it was so illogical by all ordinary thinking. To think that [Leonard Bernstein,] living in an absolutely stunning duplex on Park Avenue could be having in all these guys who were saying, ‘We will take everything away from you if we get the chance,’ which is what their program spelled out, was the funniest thing I had ever witnessed.”
But then 45 years later, the self-styled “Progressives” at PBS still don’t get that the joke is on them — not the least of which because their worldview has been updated in nearly half a century.
It’s a bit ironic that a conservative would laugh at Leonard Bernstein for failing to understand that the Black Panthers would take everything away from him if given the chance, considering how often conservatives tend to wax emotional about the myriad ways in which the mass movement of peoples is enriching America.
Then again, we often see the absurdity in others much more clearly than we do in ourselves. But unlike the progressives, I expect that 45 years from now, any cuckservatives still surviving will understand that the joke, such as it was, was on them.
I expect them to plead “we didn’t know it would turn out like that!” And that, I think, one can accept. People are wrong. But what will not be forgiven is the way they viciously attacked those who have been warning them about the house burning down since it was little more an obvious electrical fault. Now the fire is not only burning, but engulfing entire rooms, and the cuckservatives are still sitting on the coach in the living room, watching television, insisting that nothing is wrong.
They must think conservatives are mind-bogglingly stupid. Hot Air defends cuckservatives by claiming that trying to appeal to black voters is an effective long term strategy for Republicans:
This is horrifically shortsighted. It was amazing, yet unsurprising, how much agreement there was between FreedomWorks and Center for American Progress representatives during their joint summit on justice reform in DC. This wasn’t talking government spending, it was talking freedom, liberty, and getting the government out of things they shouldn’t be involved in. Rand Paul speaks at Bowie State and Howard universities and gets people nodding their heads in agreement. He’s discussing the importance of government getting out of the lives of others, not placating them or speaking about reparations. Paul is thinking long term and hopes to eventually get more conservative and libertarian African-Americans, instead of the current crop of leftists. It may take 30 to 50 years, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth the effort.
Well, if people are nodding their heads, clearly that must trump 50 years of electoral voting patterns! What are demographics in comparison with a single politician’s hopes?
1960 presidential election
White percentage of population: 85.4
Black vote: 68 percent Democrat.
1984 presidential election
White percentage of population: 75.6
Black: 10 percent of voters. 91 percent Democrat.
Hispanic: 3 percent of voters. 66 percent Democrat
2012 presidential election
White percentage of population: 63.7
Black: 13 percent of voters. 93 percent Democrat
Hispanic: 10 percent of voters. 71 percent Democrat
At this rate of progression, in 30 years the white percentage of the population will be 53.7, blacks will be voting 95 percent Democrat and Hispanics will be voting 76 percent Democrat. All of the Republican outreach efforts over the last 30 years have only made matters worse, and in the meantime, over 20 million new Democrats entered the country via post-1986 immigration. Another 30 to 50 years means another 30 to 50 million immigrants, less than 25 percent of whom will be inclined to vote for smaller government. It is obviously and observably the cuckservatives whose strategy is horrifically shortsighted.
The demographic implications are perfectly clear. Either the Republican Party moves considerably to the Left or it becomes the White Party. Those are its only two viable options. It is obvious which of those two options are preferred by cuckservatives, the only question will be whether they can retain their control of the Republican Party or not.
That being said, I happen to think the question is largely irrelevant. The current American political system doesn’t have 30 years. It doesn’t even have 20 left to it. As I have long predicted, I think the decline element of decline-and-fall will be complete by 2033.
Hateful Heretic’s response to the Hot Air piece is straightforward and powerful:
Most of us really like capitalism, meritocracy, property rights, and the rule of law. Unlike you we recognize that the left’s program of demographic replacement will destroy those things forever, and that those values, as “universally good” as they may be, are largely only attractive to persons of Anglo-European heritage….
You know what’s short-sighted? Displacement-level immigration. Hispanics are not going to vote for freedom and capitalism. They don’t vote for it in Mexico, they don’t vote for it in Venezuela, they don’t vote for it in Colombia, they don’t vote for it in Bolivia, they don’t vote for it in Argentina, they don’t vote for it in Brazil, they don’t vote for it in Chile, they don’t vote for it in Guatemala, and they’re not going to vote for it here.
He’s right. Each successive wave of immigration, dating back to those coming from Europe, have pushed the USA further from its concept of liberty, limited government, and “the Rights of Englishmen”. And on a related note, Mike Cernovich explains why he, and others on the alt-Right, have no qualms about dismissing and disregarding these theoretical “conservative” allies:
Cuckservatives control the right-wing airwaves. Have any of them reached out to me – someone who objectively speaking has a far greater reach and sells more books than the usual talking heads – to discuss men’s issues? No. The right has ignored me and other men – even more palatable men like the A Voice for Men Camp – for years. They choose to ignore out concerns and refused to give us a platform.
When Gawker and MSNBC attacked me, where were these so-called “allies” on the right?
When the only time they bother to notice you is to join the Left in attacking you, then they aren’t an ally. Regardless of what they claim to believe. Also, and more importantly, the cuckservatives are on the wrong side of all three of the only three issues that really matter: national sovereignty, immigration, and the Federal Reserve. They might not be Leftists, but for all practical intents and purposes, they may as well be.
Considering how many of them have come out recently and endorsed gay “marriage”, it appears that they’re little more interested in conserving anything about traditional America than the neocons are. But conservatives don’t agree with their cuckservative would-be leaders.
Big majority of GOP voters favors mass deportation, poll finds
The recent hashtag fireworks between the pro-immigration and anti-immigration right appears to be the second step of a long-awaited political battle that I have expected for more than a decade now. For years, conservatives afraid of being called racist have stupidly attempted to finesse the immigration issue, claiming that “it’s not the immigration, it’s the illegality” while loudly declaring their support for LEGAL immigration to balance their opposition to ILLEGAL immigration. But the distinction was always meaningless; the behavior of the individual immigrant and the cumulative effects of mass immigration have historically had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the act of immigration. The intra-Right conflict we’re seeing now is in part the result of the Obama Administration punching right through that ridiculous position by simply legalizing larger-scale immigration than before. This is the second step of the battle; the first step was the publication of Ann Coulter’s Adios America, which marked the first time a major American conservative media figure besides Pat Buchanan had the courage to finally come out and admit that the real problem with immigration is a) the quality of the immigrants, and b) the quantity of the immigrants.
I am an immigrant myself; my children are second-generation immigrants. Keep in mind that to the extent you consider us to be more-or-less normal Americans, that is precisely how all of the first- and second-generation Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians living in America are still more-or-less normal Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians. The only difference is that we’ve been here longer, we’re more integrated, and we speak the language. Potete domandare Giuseppe cosi. Geographical translocation is not magic. Move enough Mexicans into California, you don’t make them Californians, you turn California into Mexico. I’ve seen the same thing over here on a smaller scale in British expat colonies where people who have lived in Italy for 15 years don’t speak more than 10 words of Italian, still drink tea instead of espresso and can’t cook worth a damn. Being there doesn’t feel like Italy, it feels like being in England, and more properly English than Londonistan is these days.
I should probably mention that if you’re going to try to disqualify me as an anti-Mexican racist simply because I observe the indisputable truth, my response is simple: va fanculo, my great-grandfather rode with Villa, fought with Villa, and barely escaped Villa’s assassins. The truth is the truth regardless of the genetic heritage of the individual observing it.
The Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has a brilliant essay on the martial implications of immigration that will be published in Volume 2 of Riding the Red Horse, which I am now beginning to assemble. And the remarkable thing is that he reaches a disturbingly similar conclusion to Heartiste’s well-known aphorism, Diversity + Proximity = War, only one that is even stronger. One reason the world is in the process of descending into war all over the globe is due to the unprecedented mass movement of peoples – as Umberto Eco pointed out more than a decade ago, to call it “immigration” is fundamentally a misnomer – and the sheer scale of these mass movements makes war inevitable.
Remember, the entry of the Nazis into Austria was arguably more legal than the actions of the Obama administration with regards to immigration. The Nazis even let the immigrated invaded Austrians vote on it in a national referendum, which is something neither the Democrats and the Republican #cuckservatives would permit the American people. But the end result of the Anschluss was no different than the Nazi’s subsequent illegal immigration into invasion of Czechoslovakia, Nazi rule.
I think Mike Cernovich’s definition of #cuckservative is probably the most useful one. If you are in any way an advocate for those who intend to rape and pillage you and yours, you are a #cuckservative. I also think that what we’re seeing is a generational divide. People my age and older tend to view things from a perspective of a permanent white majority. So, they tend to view everything from a view of racial noblesse oblige. They believe America’s success can be shared with the New Americans without that success being destroyed.
The younger generation of white Americans know better. They know they are just another racial group among many, larger, more divided, advantaged in some ways, disadvantaged in others, and with a target tattooed on their chests due to their historical “privilege”. Those inclined to buy into the rainbow mythology become SJWs or submissive moderates, those who are not don’t buy into any of it, including the various aspects of “melting pot” theology in which their conservative elders still foolishly believe. They know that what their elders still think to be theoretically achievable is impossible, because unlike their elders, they didn’t grow up with diversity being a theoretical objective to be celebrated, but a terrible reality to be suffered.
The most ridiculous thing about #cuckservatism is that it’s an inherently losing strategy. If your primary political objective is to avoid being called racist, you will lose. And then you will be called racist anyhow.
Someone asked me at the Brainstorm session last night how abortion foes could utilize #GamerGate tactics to take down Planned Parenthood. I said I didn’t know, but that it would be tough if they were reliant upon government funding, because choking off government funding is difficult.
Well, Moe Lane just provided the answer.
“Here are the 41 companies that have directly funded Planned Parenthood.”
Adobe
American Cancer Society
American Express
AT&T
Avon
Bank of America
Bath & Body Works
Ben & Jerry’s
Clorox
Coca-Cola
Converse
Deutsche Bank
Dockers
The rest of the 41 corporations are listed at the link. Start sending emails, complete with quotes from the Planned Parenthood people about selling organs from aborted infants, to the PR/Marketing departments of these corporations and asking them if they support those practices. Put all the relevant names and emails on a central site, complete with various draft emails, and then start sending emails. Recruit others to do so. Talk about your activities under the #PPGate hashtag.
Don’t threaten, don’t talk about boycotts, don’t quote Bible verses, just try to get a statement from them concerning whether they support Planned Parenthood’s sale of harvested human organs. Don’t whine, suck it up and recall that thousands of gamers did this for weeks before getting any results. Another important thing is to regularly push encouraging graphic memes on Twitter; this is only one of hundreds of examples of the images posted by #GamerGaters to keep the emails flowing.