Important: Roundup of #Cuckservative articles and memes

Note:  Please add links to new cuckservative articles and memes in the comments below.  I’ll add them.

Wow, oh wow. The cuckservative meme, which started among the Dissident Right / alt-right, has gone completely viral. It is really quite amusing to watch. The real power of the cuckservative meme is it deprives the cucks of their masculinity, making them figures of ridicule. The very word cuckservative, cuck (a white man who watches his wife have sex with a non-white, usually a black man) + conservative, aptly summarizes cuckservatives who act as cuckolds by facilitating mass non-white immigration and other policies detrimental to whites.  The cuckservative does not know how to react.  He either thinks these people are “secret Democrat agents” or he just points, sputters and yells, “racist!”

Roundup:

The early incubation of the cuckservative meme seems to have started at MPC and TRS. The virus then quickly spread on Twitter by accounts like these:  here, here, here, here, here, herehere, here, and many more.

I’m proud to say that I was one of the first to write on cuckservatives: “What is a Cuckservative?

This was later cross-posted at Radix Journal:  “Cuckservative, A Definition

Popehat & Erick Erickson help ‘cuckservative’ go viral.

Matt K. Lewis writes at Daily Caller on ‘cuckservative'; TRS responds (great read); Tommy Christopher points and sputters.

Heartiste provides a must-read tour de force on cuckservatives.

Many others weighing in: Renegade Tribune, The Right Drama, Atlantic Centurion, VDare (twitter), RooshV (twitter), Outside In.

Gregory Hood offers a must-read analysis of cuckservatism.

Mike Cernovich & Vox Day weigh in.  More TRS.

Hot Air:  “Don’t believe the cuckservative lie.” TRS responds (must read).

Radix Podcast: The Cuckservative Mind

Ethnocentric Indian Jeet Heer doesn’t like whites being ethnocentric. Gregory Hood responds:  “The Cuckening” (must read).

Buzzfeed: “Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter.”  RooshV: “Ten Signs You Might Be A Cuckervative.” Xenophobe: “Cuckservative Inc Stock is Tanking ($CUCK).”

Heartiste:  “Shit Cuckservatives Say” (must read)

Matt Lewis: “I do worry that this white nationalism business is starting to take off

TRS: “It Would Be Very Cuckservative” (podcast)

More:  Milo Yiannopoulos (misses the point on origin and meaning). MPC: “Cuckservative mega threa.”  Theden: “The Cuckservative Civil War.”

Popular Memes

Here are some memes that I found on Twitter, /pol/, Renegade Tribune, and elsewhere:

Continue reading

What is a #Cuckservative?

Among the alt-right crowds, one of the most fascinating labels has emerged:  The Cuckservative (aka Conservacuck).  I’m not exactly sure where it started or who coined it (if you know, please say in the comments below), but it is truly brilliant as it crystallizes a particular personality that we all know too well.   If Anthony Trollope were alive today, he’d write an entire series on the cuckservative — or at least make him a re-occurring character in novels.

What is the cuckservative?  Well, I’ll paint in broad strokes here to provide a preliminary portrait.  Mind you, only preliminary.  Perhaps commenters can fill in the gaps below.

Very basically, the cuckservative is a white gentile conservative (or libertarian) who thinks he’s promoting his own interests but really isn’t.  In fact, the cuckservative is an extreme universalist and seems often to suffer from ethnomasochism & pathological altruism. In short, a cuckservative is a white (non-Jewish) conservative who isn’t racially aware.

In some ways, the cuckservative is the counterpart of the SJW (social justice warrior), and they are more alike than dissimilar. You often will hear the cuckservative screaming at an SJW about how “the Democrats are the real racists.”

The cuckservative feels very passionate about issues like abortion, which rarely directly affects his own life.  In fact, you might often hear a cuckservative talking about how abortion is “racist” since blacks and mestizos overwhelmingly get more abortions that whites.

On the other hand, the cuckservative feels uncomfortable about issues like immigration.  If the cuckservative is not an outright open-borders shill, he will only give lip service about “securing the border” or “opposing illegal but favoring legal immigration” but he will never talk about immigration very much.  After all, immigration has very serious implications for Western Civilization, so it doesn’t concern the cuckservative.

The cuckservative is often fanatically in favor of transracial adoption.  He sees it as some divine calling.  In a sense, this is cuckoldry at its essence, since these whites are usually forgoing their own inclusive fitness to adopt someone from another race.  As Heartiste notes, they’re race-cucking their own families.

Although the cuckservative is eager to show his PC bona fides by openness to other races, he really doesn’t want to know about other races.  Human biodiversity terrifies the cuckservative, as deep down he has bought into blank-slatism and egalitarianism.  The cuckservative would rather just have a Herman Cain  or Clarence Thomas poster on his wall than actually have to honestly think about race.

The cuckservative, although never Jewish, often seems vicariously to live through Israel.  Since the cuckservative feels that he cannot defend his own ethnic interests, he’ll defend Israel’s.  The cuckservative cares more about Israel’s borders than his own.  Israel adamantly defends its own ethnic interests and perhaps deep down the cuckservative respects this on some unconscious level.

On the other hand, the idea of whites acting as a group to secure their own interests terrifies the cuckservative. If you ever want to troll a cuckservative, just repeatedly use the word “white,”  such as “this isn’t beneficial for the white community.”  The cuckservative will be triggered immediately.

The cuckservative is a fascinating personality.  They’re all around us.  Can they be helped?  Is their condition terminal?  Who knows, but maybe by pointing out their condition they can seek self-improvement.

Updates:

This was only a general sketch — as there are many more nuances of the cuckservative, but I hope this is a good start.  Perhaps others can help fill in the blanks below.

This has been cross-posted at Radix Journal.

Update:  Who coined ‘cuckservative’?  Still not 100% sure, but from what people are saying it was probably MPC, or possibly TRS, with various Twitter accounts like this one popularizing it.

Important:  Roundup of #Cuckservative articles and memes

Cuckservative

It’s Official: Conservatism is Dead

If there is one pic that could be put on the obituary of conservatism, it’s this pic of British philosopher Roger Scruton visiting Michaela to talk about philosophy and fox hunting, where he allegedly was met with blank stares and mild ridicule.

Don’t get me wrong.  I respect Scruton and have read the majority of his books.  His writings on conservatism, aesthetics, classical music and modern philosophy are superb.  But this pic symbolizes the changing times.  The 20th century was the century of competing ideas like liberalism and conservatism – which largely took place within white homogenous states.  The 21st century will be the century of ethno-politics.

B_wiN2sW8AA9Np-

Problems with the “Puritan Thesis” in #NRx

Around the neoreaction spheres, there is a commonly held belief that much of leftist can be attributed to “Puritanism”.  This idea was first popularized by Moldbug and has since been championed by various bloggers, which recently has erupted into a debate (see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.)

While I’m a Moldbug fan and like some of his concepts, I think that Moldbugian critique of progressivism is wrong for a number of reasons.

First, the radicals who have drastically changed Western society over the past 150 years or so have not been Puritans but in fact Ashkenazis:

Marx – undermine traditional European regimes

Freud – legitimizes sexual degeneracy

Franz Boas – popularizes the “race doesn’t exist” meme

Ashley Montagu – also popularizes “race doesn’t exist” meme and makes racism the greatest sin of the West

Adorno and Horkheimer – Cultural Marxism, delegitimize white people

If the Puritan Thesis were correct, then if one subtracts the contributions of Jewish leftists, the trajectory of the West should be comparable to what it is today, but this seems highly unlikely, which means that the Puritan Thesis is too simplistic.

Second, it is true that Puritans have been a little more leftist than other Anglo groups. David Hacket Fischer’s Albion’s Seed well documents the contributions of the four major Anglo folkways in the United States (Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers & Scots-Irish).  While the Puritans are more leftist than the Cavaliers and Scots-Irish, the Quakers might actually be more leftist than Puritans, since the Puritans have vacillated in their causes.  While the Puritans might well have caused the American Civil War (their greatest failing in my opinion), Puritans were also some of the most adamant to demand repatriation of blacks after the Civil War. Furthermore, the greatest president of 20th century, Calvin Coolidge, was of Puritan stock. It was Coolidge who in fact passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited immigration both in numbers and to Europeans.  This type of patriotism would hardly be found among America’s New Elite (the Ashkenazis who have replaced the WASPs in  America’s elite institutions – Yale now is less than 20% WASP). In fact, the New Elite seem overwhelmingly to support open borders (for the West, not Israel), as evidenced by George Soros, Sheldon Adelson and Mark Zuckerberg, to name but a few. Furthermore, it was the early 20th century people of Puritan stock (e.g. Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard) who took Darwinism to its logical conclusion and championed the idea of racial differences, and who were opposed by people like Franz Boas.

Third, many neoreactionaries mean “Puritan” as a shorthand for Protestant (and seem somewhat hostile toward Protestantism, wanting to blame all the West’s problems on Protestantism) but there is no evidence that Protestants today are more leftist than Catholics.  If Protestantism were the cause of modern-day leftism, it seems that modern-day Protestants should be more leftist than Catholics – but they are not.  First, in the United States, the voting patterns of Catholics are considerably more leftist than Protestants.  Second, Catholic countries have a much higher rate of Marxism than Protestant countries (think of mestizos in South and Central America, or even Southern Europe).  Third, and most importantly, outside of Jewish groups, the Catholic Church today supports the Third World immigration invasion of the West more than any other religious organization.  In short, the Catholic Church today is actually calling for the genetic destruction of Western Civilization.   In fact, the Catholic Church is so vehemently in favor of mass non-white immigration that some European traditionalists have recently begun to wonder whether Catholicism is just as big of a threat to Europe as Islam.

Fourth, I wonder whether any of the neoreactionaries championing the Puritan Thesis have ever read Nietzsche, Spengler, Benoist, et al.  If one wants to talk about long-term cladistics, then what you have is not a Puritan problem, but rather a Christian problem.  As Spengler noted, “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”  The Christian idea of the “universal brotherhood of man,” some have maintained, is the fons et origo of all modern-day leftism.  In short, the problem is not with Puritanism per se but with a deeply held Christian mindset, which is much older than Puritanism.   Nonetheless, even if this Christian thesis is correct, it seems highly unlikely that our current trajectory would be the same but for the Jewish leftist movements of the past 150 years.

In conclusion, the origins of modern-day progressivism are complex.  While Christianity (not Puritanism) might be a part of the cause, leftist Jewish intellectual movements certainly are too.  There are probably other causes as well, such as pathological altruism and ethnomasochism.  Instead of committing to a dogmatic ideology (“Puritans and Protestants caused everything bad”), which is something leftists do, it’s better to keep an open mind and realize that the problem is much more complex.

Updates:

R/H/E Notes: Of the top 25 most liberal journalists in the USA, by far more are of Jewish or Catholic ancestry than Puritan 

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry (@pegobry) jumps on the Marxist bandwagon

The French Catholic neoconservative Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry has a ridiculously trite article out at The Week entitled “Gay marriage, racism, and what everyone misses about the inevitability of social change.” Normally, I wouldn’t pay much attention to such prattle, but since it is getting attention on Twitter, I thought I’d address it.  Gobry, by the way, has had contact with various reactionaries, although he has denounced the Dark Enlightenment as “racist” — shocking.  That said, Gobry is not new to parroting the latest nonsense of neoconservatives and Cultural Marxists — whether it’s bombing North Korea, flooding Europe and the USA with Third World immigrants, or demanding that whites pay reparations to non-whites.

I indeed find it interesting that mainstream Christians today – both Catholic and Protestant – seem to have wholeheartedly adopted the mindset of Cultural Marxists, as Gobry does in his latest article by insisting that race is a “social construct”.  The one issue that Christians have not yet given into the Cultural Marxists is gay marriage, but this is only matter of time and, as I’ll show, Gobry’s very “reasoning” paves the way for gay marriage.

Gobry, in his latest, argues that gay marriage is not inevitable because tokens of progress have been wrong in the past.  His bogeymen of false tokens of past progress are the concept of race and eugenics (with, of course, the obligatory reference to Margaret Sanger).  He writes:

“As people on the left of the left, who usually care more about the history of ideas than milquetoast progressives, never tire of pointing out (and rightly), race is a social construct…. [Race] is an idea that has a very specific history, whose birth can be dated, which came to dominate the cultural worldview, and thence changed law and behavior. In other words, it was a socio-cultural revolution.”

At least Gobry is honest about siding with the far left, although he doesn’t correctly identify its origins.  (One of the first Marxists to champion the idea of race as a “social construct” was Franz Boas, who recently has recently been proven to be a fraud. Marxist Stephen Jay Gould has also been shown to be a fraud.)

Gobry seems to think that somehow the science of race is wrong since it’s a product of the Enlightenment, or, more specifically, the Scientific Revolution:

GobryThis reasoning, however, is wrong on a number of counts.

First, race in and of itself is not a modern concept.   As Vincent Sarich & Frank Miele point out in the “Ancient Concept of Race,” the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and later Muslims all had concepts of race.

What is different about the modern concept of race is that it is more scientific.  And this is supposed to discredit it?  Modern genetics is also a product of this “socio-cultural revolution,” so it should also be discredited?  Maybe Gobry thinks so, since genetics overwhelmingly proves the biological reality of race:

RacesoftheWorld3

Like all good Marxist Christians today, Gobry quotes Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.”  I’m not very religious nor am I an expert on Biblical exegesis, but scholars have told me that the traditional interpretation of this passage is one of a heavenly allegory but the more recent Marxist interpretation is that on Earth race and gender aren’t real but are “social constructs”. Gobry obviously sides with the later interpretation.

Which undermines Gobry’s very support of traditional marriage.  For, if gender – like race – is but a social construct, then why should any credence be given to traditional marriage grounded in a biological notion of reproduction (as the Latin verb maritare suggests by meaning both to marry and impregnate).  If gender is but a social construct, then participants in marriage should not be be discriminated against by gender.

Such deductions, however, may be beyond the intellectual powers of grandstanders like Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry.

Updates:

Michael B Dougherty seems to agree with the article because of something someone might have once said about his ancestors 100 years ago.  Newsflash, Michael, the Irish genetically cluster with Europeans and and there were never anti-miscegenation laws against the Irish.

Gobry warns that ideas like HBD must be kept “marginal”.

The Duck tells it like it is.

Genetics: White Americans are VERY white

A recent genetics ancestry survey by 23andme found that White Americans (European Americans) on average are: “98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.”  Wow, that’s pretty white.  I’ll come back to that in a minute.

The survey also found that Latinos are “18 percent Native American, 65.1 percent European and 6.2 percent African.”  There might be a little self-selection here, resulting from testing more upper-class Hispanics, who tend to be more white. For instance, Rubén Lisker found the average admixture of a lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be: 59% Amerindian,
34% European,  and 6% black.

Back to European Americans and their utter whiteness. The 98.6% figure, mind you, is an average. According to other studies, more than 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and the 5% who do seem to have very little, so it is probably this 5% of White Americans who might be adding the 1.4% admixture into the average.

Let that sink in: 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and those who do seem to have very little.  Wow.

Nonetheless, this study puts African Americans at “73.2 percent African, 24 percent European and 0.8 percent Native American.”  Other studies have estimated African Americans at around 80% African and 20% European.

What does this mean?

As I previously noted:

First, the USA historically has not been a hotbed of miscegenation as Cultural Marxists like to tell us.  Your eyes and common sense should tell you that if there were widespread miscegenation, there would be hardly any white Americans but rather large mestizo/mulatto-like populations such as one finds in many Latin American countries (and even there, small white upper classes still exist).

Second, the people in USA tended to cross the color line in only one direction: white —> black. Mulatto people would identify as black and then reintegrate into the black gene pool.

Which brings us to another question, why do mulattoes almost always identify as black?

The standard Cultural Marxist answer to this question is because of culture, such as the one-drop rule.  But the reality of the situation belies this half-truth.

The most straightforward answer is what Oxford zoologist Jonathan Kingdon suggested in 1996:  black looks are dominant while other looks are recessive.  Observation seems to bear this out.  A person with only 1/16th black ancestry will still often have visible black characteristics, whereas a white person with 1/16th Japanese ancestry would probably pass for 100% white.

In other words, the reason why most mulattoes identify as black is at least in part biological.  Perhaps the white phenotype really is recessive and is easily diminished.

As philosopher Nick Land succinctly formulated: White + Color = Color.

Updates:

Razib Khan: “American Racial Boundaries Are Quite Distinct (For Now)

Sailer: “the big surprise has been how white are American whites

On only a semi-related note, you should read Peter Frost’s recent post on human biodiversity.