The Boomer Cuckservative Interpretation of Western Civilization

I’m sure all of you have experienced it:  A boomer cuckservative lavishing praise on Western Civilization . . . only to to justify some policy (such as Third World immigration) that is actually harmful to the people who built Western Civilization.

Case in point:  A truly embarrassing American Conservative article by Bradley J. Birzer, “Bring on the Conservative Debate for Immigration,” wherein Brad basically argues that the entire telos of Western Civilization is toward open borders. Seriously.  I’m not making this up.

I had never heard of Brad Birzer before reading this article, but apparently he teaches at Hillsdale College. I asked some academic friends about him and the two responses were: “major cuckservative” and “not very bright.” Both are probably true.  Nonetheless, I’ll use his article to illustrate the cuckservative mindset and what’s wrong with it.

Brad Birzer’s article may well be one of the  most historically illiterate pieces I’ve ever read.  He writes:

In the gloriously pagan Odyssey, Odysseus survives, again and again, because the highest commandment of Zeus is to welcome the stranger and protect him with all that one has. To this day, one finds remnants of this tradition throughout the Mediterranean as the stranger is greeted with olive oil, bread, and, depending on the predominant religion of the region, wine. As staple crops of the ancient world, these signified not just acceptance but actual joy at the arrival of the stranger. The god of the hearth stood as patron of the sojourner.

 

The Athenians, during the tumultuous fifth century before Christ, prided themselves on allowing not just the stranger into their communities, but also their very enemies in.  After all, what did the Athenians have to hide? Why not expose the ignorant to truth? Let the oppressed see how a free people live.

 

During the vast, long expanse of the Middle Ages, the Germanic peoples not only thought of themselves as residents of their own little piece of Middle-earth (Midgard), but they also thought of themselves as citizens of what King Alfred the Great labeled Christendom, the Christiana res publica, as well as believing themselves sojourners en route to the City of God. What Christian could allow—in good conscience—the accidents of birth such as gender or skin tone in this Veil [sic] of Tears to trump the possibilities of eternal salvation in the next?  Neither Greek nor Jew, neither male nor female. . . .

This puerile diatribe is just flat-out wrong on so many accounts.

First, the language he uses, such as “welcoming the stranger” and “sojourner,” is right out of  cuckstianity. Brad, I’m told, is a big “Cathocuck” and virtue signals non-stop like an SJW.  The fact that he uses these phrases shows he’s more interested in current liberation theology than in traditional Western thought.

Brad’s reading of the Odyssey is ridiculous. The Greeks valued xenia (hospitality), but it had limits. The Odyssey is, in fact, a reflection on these limits. Throughout the Odyssey, there is either too little hospitality (e.g. the cyclops, sirens, etc.) or too much hospitality (e.g. Calypso, Penelope and the suitors, etc.).  Odysseus tries to steer between these two extremes and find a mean.    Interestingly, the poem does not end on the note of “welcoming the stranger.”  Odysseus, in fact, murders all the suitors that invaded his island. (I suspect if Brad Birzer were Odysseus, he would have asked the suitors to stay and would have raised the kids they would have with his wife.)

In short, the Odyssey is not a screed arguing for unmitigated hospitality or open borders.  Only an extreme ideologue would read it this way, which makes me wonder whether Brad read the poem at all; if he did, he seems to have failed to understand it.

The Ancient Greeks were not SJWs, as Brad makes them out to be. They referred to foreigners as “barbarians” and in many Greek city-states, it was nearly impossible for foreigners ever to obtain citizenship. (In some city-states, in order to be a citizen, one had to prove citizenship on both the paternal and maternal lines back for two generations.)  Furthermore, there was an ethno-religious component to city-states.  Ancient paganism was a blood (not a creedal) religion and citizens saw themselves bound by blood to each other, to the gods, and to the state.  Aristotle, in the Politics, notes city-states being of the “same blood” and at one point defines city-states as “blood connections of families, brotherhoods, and common sacrifices.” Aristotle goes on to say:  “A state cannot be constituted from any chance body of persons, or in any chance period of time. Most of the states which have admitted persons of another stock, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by sedition.”

Even the Romans did not grant mass citizenship to foreigners until the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD.  By that time, Rome was already in decline and this edict hastened that decline, as later is demonstrated when Rome’s foreign, mercenary armies begin to loot the empire from within. The British historian Peter Heather argues that mass immigration was what finally brought down the Roman Empire.

Things get worse when Brad moves to the Magna Carta.

Nothing in Christendom better represented the ideals of the free movement of peoples than did the Great Charter of 1215, forced upon King John at Runnymede.  Though points 1 and 63 of the Magna Carta demanded freedom of the Church from political interference, points 41 and 42 reveal how fundamental the movement of peoples is to the sanctity of the common law.

41. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.
42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us.

If we accept the Magna Carta as one of the most important documents in the history of western civilization, we Americans cannot afford to ignore it, its intent, or its specifics.  Common law demanded that a people—and the person—move freely, border or not. Even in time of war, the enemy must be treated with dignity.

Obviously, points 41 and 42 are referencing travelers and merchants selling goods—not immigrating seeking to become new subjects. Indeed, it’s ahistorical (not to mention childish) to conflate, on the one hand, subjects and citizens and travelers with immigrants. Moreover, the notion that the Magna Carta is a template for multi-racial inclusiveness and open borders is truly bizarre, when just 75 years later King Edward I issued the Edict of Expulsion (1290), deporting all the Jews from England.

Brad’s invoking of U.S. history amounts to cherry picking at best.

When it comes to the specifically American tradition of immigration and the free movements of peoples, the issue becomes more complicated.

 

Imagine for a moment that the great waves of immigration never came to America.  In the colonial period, among those who freely chose to cross the Atlantic, you would have to dismiss the Anglicans to Virginia, the Puritans to New England, the Quakers to Pennsylvania, and the Scotch-Irish. Of the unfree peoples, you would have to take out all of those of African origin. In the 1840s, remove the Germans, the Scandinavians, and the Irish.  In the 1880s through the 1910s, remove all Greeks, Poles, Jews, Italians. . . .

 

Yes, the native American Indian population would be justly celebrating, but, overall, and, from any relatively objective view, there would be no America.

 

Between 1801 and 1924—with the critical exception of the Chinese and the Japanese—no peoples were barred from entry into the United States.  Congress forbade further Chinese immigration in 1882, and a gentleman’s agreement ended Japanese immigration in 1905. Otherwise, until 1921 and 1924, any person of any continent, of any religion, of either gender, of any skin color, or any other accident of birth could enter the United States and take up residency the very day of arrival.  Only those with known criminal records or those suffering from tuberculosis were turned away.

 

Unless you are a full-blooded American Indian (less than one percent of the present United States population), you, American reader, would not be here without some ancestor having immigrated—freely or by force—to the United States. And possibly from what one might crassly dismiss as a “sh-hole country.”

 

Brad fails to mention the the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited citizenship to white people of good character.  He also fails to mention how the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited immigration to Europeans and lasted until 1965, actually created a tight labor market and, as many economic historians have argued, created the largest middle class in American history.  (I suppose Brad sides with the open-borders, cheap-labor corporations that want loose labor markets to drive down wages.)

And, of course, Brad makes recourse to religion:

As Christians around the world celebrated the arrival of the Three Kings—the Magi of the Orient—on Epiphany, the president of the United States called for $33 billion to shore up America’s borders with $18 billion for the wall.

 

Would the Magi have been admitted in 2018? “Excuse me, Balthasar, but I need to see that your papers are in order.  Oh, I’m sorry, but your gift of myrrh exceeds our 3.2 ounces of liquid allowed.”

 

Perhaps, President Trump simply chose his timing poorly, but it would be impossible for the Christian to miss the irony.

Brad’s use of Christianity is largely through the lens of contemporary SJW Cuckstianity where Christianity is to be a suicide cult for white people. Historically, Christianity was not always a suicide cult.  Christian nations policed their borders and repelled invaders. Even Thomas Aquinas says people have greater obligations to compatriots and blood relatives than to foreigners.  If Brad were alive at the time of Charles Martel, Brad would have tried to convince Martel to “welcome the stranger” (and then Martel would have bitch-slapped him).

Brad keeps referring to “skin color” or “skin tone” as if race is only about skin color, when in reality race is 100,000 years of evolution and encompasses many behavioral traits.  Brad really needs to read up on human biodiversity, about which I suspect he’s completely ignorant.

In conclusion, Brad has no idea what he’s talking about.  Either he’s a fool or liar, or both.

Mind you, most of my criticisms here are merely academic and show how ridiculous Brad’s historical claims are.  Even if the West were truly open-borders in the past, it would not justify open borders now, as the scale of immigration now is so much greater than in the past and most of the immigration now is from the Third World.  As a recent study in the UK showed, “More people came to the UK in 2013 than from 1066 to 1960.”  The “movement of peoples” is unprecedented.

As an aside, Brad has written a book on Russell Kirk, whom many credit as being the grandfather of American conservatism.  Interestingly, Kirk defended racial segregation in the South, apartheid in South Africa, and at the end of his life became an immigration restrictionist.  Kirk also quipped that Jewish neoconservatives “mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.”  Brad, of course, hates all of this, and wishes to cuck-wash conservatism, which is funny considering that conservatism has already run its failed course and is a dying ideology. Let’s hope something like archeo-futurism or identitarianism replaces it. Soon.

Updates:

This has also been posted at AltRight.Com.

Oz Conservative has an excellent response to Birzer with his piece “Open borders & individual dignity”

Read Ricardo Duchesne’s “The Greek-Roman Invention of Civic Identity Versus the Current Demotion of European Ethnicity.”

The Left wants to use Christianity to police the Alt-Right

Left-wing, Jewish journalist Peter Beinart has a telling piece up at The Atlantic, “Breaking Faith: The culture war over religious morality has faded; in its place is something much worse,” about how the decline of Christianity has lead to an increase in racial identity, especially among many younger whites affiliated with the alt-right.  He writes:

“Secularism is indeed correlated with greater tolerance of gay marriage and pot legalization. But it’s also making America’s partisan clashes more brutal. And it has contributed to the rise of both Donald Trump and the so-called alt-right movement, whose members see themselves as proponents of white nationalism. As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.”

As if there is something wrong with whites supporting and promoting their own interests.  Beinart then discusses Richard Spencer, Milo, and how secularization has lead to an increase in racial identity among both younger blacks and whites.  He concludes:

“Maybe it’s the values of hierarchy, authority, and tradition that churches instill. Maybe religion builds habits and networks that help people better weather national traumas, and thus retain their faith that the system works. For whatever reason, secularization isn’t easing political conflict. It’s making American politics even more convulsive and zero-sum.

For years, political commentators dreamed that the culture war over religious morality that began in the 1960s and ’70s would fade. It has. And the more secular, more ferociously national and racial culture war that has followed is worse.”

Beinart is basically correct but there is more to this story.  The two most basic forms of identity are racial / ethnic identity and religious identity.  When the two intersect and form an ethno-religion, which is basically what Judaism is, the religion of Beinart’s co-ethnics, one probably has the strongest identity possible.  (Most early pagan religions were also racial ethno-religions, and arguably some forms of Christianity are too.)

The problem, however, is that Beinart can’t just wave his magic wand and resurrect Christianity to police white people — as much as he may wish it.  The irony is that mainstream Christianity today is on a universalist trajectory that would repel the very people that Beinart wants to police.  As I noted in a previous post, “Is Contemporary Christianity a Suicide Cult?,” contemporary Christianity is becoming more and more effeminate and seems to repulse more manly men.  For example, regarding the recent controversy to expel open-borders Russell Moore from his leadership of the ERLC, just take a look on Twitter at some of Moore’s most ardent defenders:  Nearly all of them literal cuckolds or Christian SJWs.

In short, Beinart fails to recognize that Christianity had a greater hold on young white men when it was in fact more like the alt-right, when it wasn’t as extremely universalistic as it is today and didn’t eschew racial identity for whites.

 

Updates:

Cross-posted at AltRight.com.

Is Contemporary Christianity a Suicide Cult?

Although I’m not very religious, religion interests me, especially the current trajectory of Christianity in the West.  What I mean here is mainstream Christianity in the United States and Europe, not non-Western Christianity such as the rise of black or mestizo Christianity that one finds in the Global South nor the small pockets of Uncucked Christianity one might find.   The Christianity I’m referencing here is mainstream and practiced almost exclusively by white people:  We’ll call it Cucked Christianity.

As I and many others have noted, this Cucked Christianity is fast becoming a suicide cult. Here are some recent examples:

• Christian cucks basically support the Third World immigration and refugee invasion of their own countries.  Literally.  Some of them even wear “Refugees Welcome” t-shirts and make SJWs look masculine.  Granted, some of them, like hustler Russell Moore whose Evangelical Immigration Table is funded by George Soros, have economic incentives, but a good many of them are dong it just for the sake of empty virtue signaling.  And all these people are inconsistent; as someone noted in an email list, “None of them would criticize Israel for building a wall, refusing Syrian refugees, or deporting African immigrants,” but they have no problem condemning their own countries to Third World status.
• Cucked Christians have become obsessed with this notion of all people being “image bearers”.  Their flawed logic goes that all people have the image of God so therefore it’s wrong to deport immigrants, refuse refugees,etc.  By this cucked logic, anyone promoting self-preservation, in fact anything other than ethnomasocism, is wrong because it might hurt the person or feelz of an image bearer.
• Cucked Christians recently have become obsessed with this Cultural Marxist notion of ‘racial reconciliation‘ which essentially amounts to whites promoting their own dispossession.  You literally have white cucks criticizing churches for being “too white”; yet, these same cucks would never criticize Israel for being too Jewish or Ashkenazi, nor a black church for being too black.
• Cucked Christians have recently tied the pro-life movement to the support of Third World immigration.  In this version, to be pro-life one must support the Third World immigration invasion of his own lands.  For example, cuckservative Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently told a crowd that unless they support the Third World immigration invasion of the West, they are not pro-life.  Coupling pro-life with immigration probably signals the last gasp of the pro-life movement.
• Cucked Christians are basically telling white people not to make white babies but to adopt black or mestizo babies instead.  This is literal cuckoldry, which is unhealthy.

How did we get here?  How has contemporary mainstream Christianity become such a suicide cult?

I mean, just over a thousand years ago when a Moorish invasion of Charlemagne’s kingdom was taking place, Christians do not hesitate to take up arms and repel the invaders.  Today, Cucked Christians welcome the invaders.  What happened?

Here’s my brief theory:

Women are more religious than men.  For the past few hundred years, church attendance, for all denominations, has been higher for women than men.   Nonetheless, the leadership of said churches was by men.  And until recently, because Christianity still had prestige, you would get more normal men in church leadership positions.  However, over the past 75 years or so, a selection process has been taking place.  As Christianity lost prestige, more normal, healthy men have moved along to other pastures and forsaken any interest in church leadership positions.  As a result, the entire apparatus of Western Christianity has largely been overtaken by beta girly men.  Today you have a bunch of beta males, often literal cuckolds, who incessantly whine like little pansies:  “Welcome the stranger.”  “You’re deporting an image bearer.”  “Racial reconciliation means for your next kid, consider transracial adoption.”

My hunch is that these new leaders have bad genes for self-preservation.   In a normal, healthy society, they might have jobs as caregivers, but they certainly wouldn’t be given the keys to the kingdom or have any say in politics.  The fact that these people now hold positions of power does not bode well.

In terms of sociobiology, the current trend of Cucked Christianity is not healthy, i.e. adaptive.  And this maladaptive behavior cannot last forever.  Does it mean that end of Christianity in the West, or will a newer, uncucked form of Christianity rise to replace it?

Related:

“Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?”

“Russell Moore and the ERLC Exposed”

“What is Christian Cultural Marxism?”

Updates:

This article was also posted at alright.com.

Russell Moore and the ERLC Exposed

Something rotten is happening with the ERLC (Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, a lobbyist organization of the Southern Baptist Convention) and its president, Russell Moore.   Throughout the latest presidential campaign, Russell Moore used the resources of the ERLC to viciously campaign against Donald Trump, while simultaneously, at least in the GOP primaries, to campaign on behalf of open-borders neocons Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.  Trump won, and now many Southern Baptists are calling Russell Moore to resign from the ERLC, thinking he has damaged their image.  (Nonetheless, Moore still has a vocal cheerleading squad of largely whiney beta males.)

In an email list I’m on, I recently found some very interesting gossip about Russell Moore.  For at least a couple years, Russell Moore has been criticized by many on the right.   His theology seems not far removed from liberation theology (Christian Cultural Marxism).  His real passion is the support of the Third World immigration invasion of the West and, it turns out, his open-borders Evangelical Immigration Table is actually funded by George Soros.  Nonetheless, the media love Moore, largely because he agrees with them on nearly everything, so they’ll use him as their “go to” “religious conservative” for sound bites in favor of Third World immigration or any of their other pet causes.

People within the field of theology have said that Russell Moore is not very bright. One hundreds years ago, a Protestant theology professor would be proficient in Greek, Latin and German (German to fully understand the Reformation).  Moore, I’m told, is largely historically and linguistically illiterate.  Moore, it has been said, seems to watch a bunch of television, absorb the Cultural Marxist values presented on television, and then read these values back into Christianity.  In some respects, he’s a more southern version of what Jim Jones was doing in the 1970s.

So, why was Moore chosen to head the ERLC?

This is where the story gets really interesting.  It turns out that the chairman of the ERLC, Ken Barbic, is in fact an open-borders, cheap-labor lobbyist for the ag-industry.  Furthermore, it seems that Ken Barbic was central in selecting Russell Moore to replace Richard Land as the head of the ERLC.

Let that sink in for a moment.  The ERLC, which is supposed to be devoted to pursuing religious liberty, is chaired by an open-borders, cheap labor lobbyist, who chose, for its president, another open-borders fanatic.  What does this have to do with religious liberty?  Do most Southern Baptists even know about this corruption?

Perhaps the ERLC should change its mission statement to: “For the express purpose of driving down American wages, draining social services, and making the USA a Third World wasteland though mass Third World immigration.”  This seems to be the real agenda of the ERLC.

Updates:

As others have noted, the major divisions within Christianity are no longer Protestant vs Catholicism vs Orthodox, but rather Western Christianity vs Global-South Christianity.  In Africa and Latin America, new, non-Western forms of Christianity are quickly arising and, in many cases, they’re explicitly anti-white.  On the other hand, within the West, we’re witnessing the division between Cucked Christianity vs Uncucked Christianity.  Cucked Christianity largely entails white beta males, and some females, constantly virtue signaling about the need for Third World immigration, transracial adoption, etc.  Cucked Christianity, as you can imagine, contains mostly whiney, girly men.  Representative of this trend would be Pope Francis and, the subject of this post, Russell Moore.  Uncucked Christianity, however, entails Christianity at peace with reality, such as human biodiversity (HBD), ethnocentrism, and the ability for nations to repel the Third World immigration invasions.

More Updates:

Check out Allan Wall’s “How Anti-White Soros Evangelical Russell Moore And Cheap Labor Profiteer Ken Barbic Provoked Grasssroots Baptist Rebellion”

Some interesting memes and images floating around 8Chan:

Related:

Are Christian Leaders Today A Bunch of Girly Men

Human Biodiversity and Immigration

What is Christian Cultural Marxism?

Mainstream Christianity today is not only weird, it’s crazy.  And it’s not only left-wing Christianity, it’s supposed “conservative” mainstream Christianity as well.  The entire vessel seems to be on a course of collective suicide.

When surveying the insanity of contemporary Christianity among white people, it’s hard exactly to label it.  There seems to be no precise label.  “Cuckoldy” is probably the best label, but since others already call it “Christian Cultural Marxism,” I’ll stick with that term.

What’s the Holy Trinity of this new form of Christianity – Christian Cultural Marxism?

The Holy Trinity of Christian Cultural Marxism

1.  You must support open-borders.  White people must commit collective suicide and turn over their nations to the invading hordes of the third world.
2. White should avoid having too many white babies and adopt babies of color instead.
3. Fighting racism is one of the main priorities of Christians.

If you think I’m exaggerating, just look around.

Immigration. The entire Catholic leadership and a significant portion of Protestant leadership support the third world invasion of the West.  The Catholic Church is the worst in this respect, but you have many Protestants (like Russell Moore and others) who also support the invasion.

Adoption.  You literally have Catholic priests and Protestant pastors telling whites it’s their duty to adopt the unwanted garbage of the third world. This is not only maladaptive in a sociobiological sense, it’s also literal cuckoldry.  Resources are finite.  By adopting the third world, these whites are forgoing their own reproductive inclusive fitness.

Fighting Racism.  Both Catholics and the Southern Baptist Convention recently held conferences saying that churches need to devote more of their resources to “fighting racism.”

So, basically, in short, Christianity today, even “conservative” Christianity, is basically a form of SJW-ism…

How did this happen?

Christianity 200 years ago certainly wasn’t this way.  But was the momentum there?  By being too universalist, is Christianity doomed to become eventually a suicide cult?

If you want to see something sad — actually look at these cuckolds adopting the third world.  They’re pathetic.  They’re barely even men.

Which raises another question of why masculine men aren’t drawn to Christianity today, although this tendency has been there for the past 300 years.  Indeed, even 200 years ago, more women attended church than men.  But today it’s even worse. Could part of it be that nearly all the pastors and priests today are cucked, effeminate weaklings that alienate any man with even the slightest bit of testosterone in his testicles?

You decide.

Is #CommonCore the ultimate idiocracy or complete sabotage?

A good friend of mine recently has become embedded in his state’s common core debate and, as a result, I’ve been been proxy to some of the chain emails among his friends.  I’ve always thought common core a bad idea for various reasons but it’s never been something I’ve really looked into.  Some states have recently dumped common core, as it has been attacked both by traditionalists and even some inner city districts.  But as the ship is going done, it seems to become more and more radicalized. Based on the info I’ve received recently from a couple friends, one of whom is a professor of mathematics, here are some interesting facts I’ve discovered about Common Core.

– Common Core was originally packaged as standardized testing on reading and math, which was supposed not to involve content, but that quickly changed.  The original intent, it seems, all along was to modify content.

– Common Core has radically changed the way mathematics is taught — basically the general trend from Newton / Leibniz to the present has been overturned.  Most of the symbols, notations, descriptions, vocabulary, etc., have been discarded and are replaced by more “visual” approaches, often involving silly video-game-like graphics. A math professor I know said students who have learned math by this approach aren’t even able to comprehend traditional math because it seems like a foreign language to them.  Apparently the unspoken rationale behind this approach is that blacks and mestizos cannot learn traditional math and Common Core  is more “POC friendly,” although it seems to have made little difference in test scores.  Nonetheless, at least trying to advance blacks is a worthy cause to discard two thousand years of accumulated mathematical wisdom.

– Common Core has dumped the study of grammar altogether.  Literally, no traditional grammar.  Grammar has been replaced by “feel good” unstructured expository writing and basic new-speak guidelines.  There are students now who have no idea what an adjective, relative clause or diagramming a sentence is.  Students who learn English this way would never be able to learn an inflected grammar-heavy language, like Latin or German, but maybe that’s the point.  Rationale?  Apparently the Schools of “Education” think grammar is racist because blacks and mestizos cannot fully comprehend it.  Modern (as in post-Middle) English grammar must be discarded to make way for some new Third World hybrid language (Dindu-Spanglish?).

– Although Common Core was originally sold as “content free,” it quickly scrapped nearly all the European and other white writers from reading lists.  Vergil’ Aeneid, Beowulf, Goethe’s writings, and Shakespeare’s plays have made way for bunch of non-white writers complaining about something — usually white people for their shortcomings.  Defenders of Common Core say it prescribes no particular books.  It’s about “how to read,” not what to read. It just so happens in learning “how to read” one shouldn’t read white people.

If these descriptions are true, and I really have no reason to believe they are not, as I’ve seen many of the source materials, what in the hell is going on here?  Is it complete idiocracy or a deliberate ((( attempt ))) to sabotage learning and the accumulated knowledge of the past 2000 years?  Both?

If you know kids in a public school, tell them to GTFO.  The bitch is run by Upgrayedd now.

Related:

“School Vouchers: A Trojan Horse to Destroy Private Schools”

Human BioDiversity Reading List

What is the #AltRight? A brief explanation.

Last night on the Chris Hayes show, Rubio SuperPAC advisor Rick Wilson lost it and felt the need to attack the alt-right.  Almost immediately afterwards, Jonah Goldberg and many others began attacking the alt-right on Twitter.  In short, the establishment now feels threatened by the alt-right.

Interestingly, for a while, there has been a short memo about the alt-right floating about among “Conservatism Inc” warning people of the alt-right.  I’ve read parts of this memo and surprisingly its description of the alt-right is not inaccurate, just too succinct.  Here I’ll give a more detailed explanation of the alt-right.

The alt-right was first coined by Richard Spencer, as an intellectual alternative to the dry “Conservatism Inc” that then passed for right-wing thought.  Since then, the term has really taken on a life all its own.  As others have noted, the alt-right really isn’t a political movement per se but rather a zeitgeist.  The big-tent alt-right includes identitarians and archeofuturists, race realists and HBD bloggers, European New Right (ENR), edgelords, neo-reaction (NRx) and reaction (Rx), trad Christians, neo-pagans, white nationalists, PUAs, etc.  (Note, these groups are not mutually exclusive.  For example, an alt-righter might consider himself an identitarian and race realist.)

One thing commenters have correctly noted is how young the alt-right is.  While there is no objective way to determine the average age of the alt-right, I would place it in the early 20s.  (Compare this with the average age of a National Review reader, which is about 65.)   And this youth movement is different from, say, the “College Republicans” of the 1980s.  These young alt-righters did not grow up reading National Review (a good thing).  They grew up with /pol/, Reddit, Twitter and other social media, and were later introduced to sites like Radix Journal, AmRen, VDare, Occidental Observer, Heartiste, MPC,  and The Right Stuff.

How large is the alt right? Really impossible to tell, but some estimates have placed it around 4 million people (mostly in the USA and Europe) and growing rapidly.

While the alt-right is a large tent that disagrees on some issues, one issue that really unites the alt-right is immigration.  The alt-right is fed up with Third World immigration into the West and wishes to see most of these immigrants / migrants / refugees / invaders repatriated back to their ancestral lands.

The alt-righters usually are not free-market ideologues.  They believe the health of the nation should supersede free-market globalism, which often leads to a deracinated cosmpolitanism.  It’s why many on the alt-right are skeptical of free trade.

Philosophically, the alt-right might be called a rejection of universalism, itself a left-wing idea and product of the Enlightenment.  Nonetheless, the alt-right does not reject all Enlightenment ideas, especially science. (And those trads who say they do are probably liars.)   The alt-right might be thought of as archeofuturist which attempts to combine ancient relativistic and manly virtues with the findings of modern science, including those in human biodiversity.

Michael Brendan Dougherty recently called the alt-right “race obsessed”.  A better phrase might be:  race realists.  Most alt-righters actually take Darwinism seriously. (If you are at a loss of what “taking Darwinism seriously” means, you might want to read this book.)  Young alt-righters are comfortable with modern science which shows that human biodiversity is a facet of life.    The fact that so many today in Conservatism Inc. want either to ignore or deny human biodiversity, shows how untethered from reality modern conservatism has become.  It is living in a politically correct fantasy land.

Someone recently emailed a list of “popular college majors” of alt-right people.  I have no idea how someone could determine this, but here’s the list: computer programming, mathematics, genetics, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, economics, classical languages, Germanic studies (think Tolkien & Wagner), and philosophy.

The younger alt-right is quite technologically savvy and has made many hashtags go viral:  #Cuckservative, #WhiteGenocide, #MerkelMussWeg,  #NRORevolt, #ISaluteWhitePeople, #WhiteGirlsAreMagic, #BoycottStarWarsVII, etc.

The most successful alt-right meme to infect the general public by far is the cuckservative meme (roundup here), which I’m happy to say I played a part in.  Other memes created by the alt-right:  white genocide, ((( ))), the current year, dindus, and many more.

Some critics have asserted that the alt-right is anti-Christian.  This is not true.  What the alt-right is against is mainstream Christianity today where you have “Christian leaders” supporting the Third World immigration invasion of the West and telling white people that they should adopt non-whites instead of procreating and white babies.  Much of modern Western Christianity has become suicidal and the alt-right is correct to mock and criticize it.  But in terms of religion, the alt-right is quite diverse.  Some are atheists and agnostics.  Some are neo-pagans. And many subscribe to an “uncucked form of Christianity” that is not antagonistic toward Western Civilization.

Trump.  Many mainstream journalists seem obsessed with the fact that many in the alt-right support Donald Trump.  Yes, many (but not all) do.  Nonetheless, the alt-right would still exist without Trump.  And many in the alt-right are not even American and are more interested in leaders like Orbán, Le Pen or Putin.

Many journalists have labelled the alt-right anti-semitic, which is more a smear than an actual description. There is actually diversity among the alt-right on the “Jewish question” (JQ).  Some like Jared Taylor do not discuss it.  Others like Kevin MacDonald do.  There is little dispute that Jews have disproportionally been involved in starting left-wing movements of the last 150 years:  Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Freudianism, Boasian Anthropology, etc.  Also, many Jews support Israel building a wall, deporting Africans and refusing Syrians while simultaneously supporting mass immigration for the West. Most in the alt-right would probably agree that a free and open society should not have a problem discussing this.  Some younger Jews sympathetic to the alt-right I’ve talked to see more comfortable with these ideas being discussed, so there might be a generational divide on this.

Whatever happens, one thing is clear:  The alt-right does not seem to be going anywhere.  In fact, it seems to be growing very rapidly.

Updates:

Interestingly, we’re also witnessing the rise of an alt-left, which in many ways compliments the alt-right.

 

Extreme Anti-White Tweets from #BlackLivesMatter Movement

For those in the know about human biodiversity, it comes as no surprise that multi-racial states lead to societal decay.  As Robert Putnam has demonstrated, the more racially diverse a neighborhood or organization is, the lower the social trust.  (For a more expanded reading list on this theme, see here.)

Add blacks into the equation (who have low average IQs and low impulse control), the situation becomes even worse.  Blacks have been told their entire lives that all their failures are due to some mysterious white magic called white racism, so now they angrily attribute all their failings to this magic.  The #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement illustrates this truth.

People on Twitter have been taking screen shots of various BLM activists, which run the usual litany of anti-white hatred.  Here they are:

Some truly amazing identitarian / alt-right videos

One thing American conservatives never understood is that art is more important than politics.  If you can create and impose your own aesthetic vision, politics will follow.  Politics without art is untethered.

On an email list, I was recently sent some videos that are truly amazing.  I’ll go through some of them.  If you only have time to watch one, watch the first. But please, take the time and watch all of them. You won’t be disappointed.

The first is by the French female band Les Brigandes and it’s entitled “Le grand remplacement” (French for the “Great Replacement” which denotes the racial genocide of whites and their replacement by other races).  For more of their videos, see here.  Counter Currents has a piece about them here.

Another by Les Brigandes on antifas (anti-fascists):

Lana Lokteff and her friends Sinead and Megan on white privilege:

Shiksa Goddess on internet trolls.  (Her YouTube channel is here.)

Another by Shiksa Goddess:

Finally, @UncuckTheRight, on the Alt Right:

There is so much new talent out there.  I hope to see more talent coming out of the woodwork soon.

On the @DavidAFrench & @NancyAFrench affair & race – #cuckservative #nrorevolt

David A. French of National Review recently published a piece criticizing the alt-right and Ann Coulter (he even quoted at length this piece from Occam’s Razor).  And as can be expected, there was an enormous uproar on social media, with many people criticizing David as a cuckservative since he decided to adopt an African child instead of birthing more of his own children.  David French responds here, employing the usual cliches of cuckservatism.

For instance: “We defend a culture, not a race.”

David should really read up on human biodiveristy.  Race and culture are inseparable, as I recently pointed out in this reply to Rod Dreher.  Race is the root, culture the flower.  As Cochran & Harpending argue in the 10,000 Year Explosion (free PDF), race and culture have co-evolved. It’s what others are now calling gene-culture co-evolution.  Culture is not some abstract cloud living apart from humans; it’s a part of humans and reflects genetic dispositions.  (Some interesting charts mapping the genetic distances between human races are here.)

On to transracial adoption.  Take this for what it’s worth, but I’ve heard rumors that Nancy French, the wife, was the one who really pushed for the African adoption.  Apparently, she was heavily influenced by cuckservative Russell Moore, a noted “conservative” Southern Baptist leader.  Russell Moore has for years been trying to cajole whites into not having white babies but to adopt children of color instead.  (Moore also is pro-Third World immigration and criticizes churches that are “too white”).  This general trend among mainstream Christianity (which is equally pronounced among Catholics, such as Cardinal Dolan and Pope Francis supporting the Third World invasion of the West) is a maladaptive, suicidal ideology.  You essentially have Christian leaders telling their white parishioners that they want them extinguished.

If I were David French and the rumors are true, I’d seriously consider divorce. Even if one is morally opposed to divorce, traditionalist societies have allowed for divorce in cases of infidelity and failure to issue offspring.  This would fall under the latter case, since David’s wife is essentially saying she would rather raise the spawn of some random African than David’s own seed.  While she may no longer be able to have children, I assume that David is.  He could find a fertile younger white wife and further his genetic line.  Let Nancy raise the dindu by herself.

But I assume this will never happen and David will remain cucked for the rest of his life.

Updates:

Jared Taylor:  “David French: A Cuck Begs for Mercy”

Hunter Wallace: “Cuckservatives: French Family Edition”

Another #Cuckservative Cause: School Choice

In my original essay, “What is a Cuckservative?,” I failed to mention school choice, which is unfortunate as it really is a key cuckservative policy.

What is school choice?  It’s an idea championed by cuckservatives, which essentially, in its most popular form, involves a school-voucher system where students are able to use public tax money to attend private elementary or secondary schools.  For instance, the government would give a student at $10,000 voucher (which normally would go to a public school) to attend a private school

As one can easily discern, there is nothing too “free market”  about this concept, since it essentially entails private schools being financed by tax dollars, and school choice would eventually bring private schools under government regulation since the private schools would receive government funds.  But this won’t stop the cucks from supporting it.

In every single conversation I’ve ever had about school choice with GOP types, whenever I bring up the above problem, the same talking point always comes up:  “It would be great for blacks and Hispanics.  It would allow more of them to attend private schools.”

So, at last, you can see that this proposal is nothing more than status signaling by cuckservatives to those on their left: “See, look at us, we have diversity-promoting proposals too!”

The problem with school vouches?  Let’s see….

Most public schools across America have been completely devastated by hordes of unruly, low-IQ blacks and mestizos. The only refuge for many whites is either homeschooling or private schools.  Many have not the luxury for the former, so private schools are the only option.

Unfortunately, private schools today are unable by law to discriminate against students based on race.  (Interestingly, you don’t see cuckservatives today arguing for freedom of association for private organizations.)  Private schools, however,  can economically wall off the ghetto:  tuition.  Most blacks and mestizos cannot afford or do not want to pay private tuition.

Now, if you wanted to destroy the last vestiges of civility among primary education, what would be more efficient than smashing this economic wall?

Enter vouchers.  Vouchers in short:  We’ll give taxpayer money to violent, low-IQ blacks and mestizos so that they can go to private schools and destroy them too!

Only the most myopic fool would support such an idea – the cuckservative.

Updates:

“Important: Roundup of #Cuckservative articles“

Camp of the Saints: Why @RodDreher is wrong about race and culture

Rod Dreher recently decided to review the 1973 novel Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail.  In my estimation, this is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, a novel that everyone should read (here’s a free PDF of the English translation), so I was pleased that Dreher was bringing attention to the novel.  Nonetheless, I am disappointed at the politically correct tone and factually incorrect nature of the review.

For instance, Dreher writes:

Raspail does not separate skin color from culture and civilization…  …Everything else in the novel ties civilization precisely to skin color.

Dreher throughout the review seems disturbed that Raspail considers race as an important factor.  Dreher seems to think that culture somehow hovers in some hyperdimensional sphere completely removed from the biological reality of race.  I know that Dreher occasionally reads HBD blogs, so I’m a little surprised that he would advocate a position so contrary to recent findings in science.

Here are some problems with Dreher’s account….

Dreher is too hung up on skin color.  Yes, skin color, or let’s just say general “looks,” are important in evolution.  For instance, in the famous Russian fox experiment, we know that when the foxes were selected for behavior it also affected their looks.  As the foxes became more behaviorally domesticated, their looks become more domesticated as well.  In short, as far as we can tell at this point, “looks” are probably in many cases tied to behavioral traits.

Nonetheless, race is more than just skin color.  It encompasses tens of thousands of years of evolution. As this chart shows, humans genetically cluster into races:

And you can measure the genetic distances between ethnic groups and races:

Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.

On average, Europeans are around 100x more closely related to each other than to sub-Saharan blacks. Something more than mere “skin color” obviously is going on here.

What Dreher fails to understand is the gene-culture evolution thesis.  Ancestry / race and culture are interlinked – and probably deeply so.

For instance, Peter Frost offers a succinct summary here of recent findings.

For a more detailed and theoretical account, Cochran and Haprending’s 10,000 Year Explosion is necessary reading (free PDF).  This book traces the gene-culture evolutionary history of humans over the past 10,000 years.  It is definitely one of the most influential books I’ve ever read.  If Dreher has not read it (I suspect he hasn’t), I hope he does so.  Perhaps he could even write about it at TAC.

Raspail in the 1970s was not aware of recent findings in human genetics and evolution, but as a novelist he was way ahead of his time.

Updates:

Here’s a translation of an essay Jean Raspail wrote more recently:  “Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic“

Important: Roundup of #Cuckservative articles

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

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, here, here, 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.”  Forney: “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).  Theden: “The Cuckservative Civil War.”  TRC:  “The Alt-Right as Disruption.” Age of Treason: “Calling out the Cuckery.”    Tommy Christopher: “Trump Fans Target ‘Mike Cuckabee’ for Being a ‘Cuckservative’.”

MPC: “Cuckservative mega thread.” Counter Currents: “The Conscience of a Cuckservative.” TRC:  “Cuckservatism: The Alt-Right.” Michael Savage discusses cuckservatives (6 min in). The Mitrailleuse weighs in.

David Weigel: “‘Cuckservative’ — the conservative insult of the month, explained” (best mainstream article on cuckservative, quotes Richard Spencer). Richard Spencer responds.

Cuckservative Erick Erickson is having a meltdown (doesn’t link to alt-right, hoping readers won’t discover it).  David Freddoso also in meltdown mode over cuckservatism.

Kevin MacDonald:  “The Cuckservative Phenomenon” (good read)

Alexander Hart: “First They Ignore You, Then You Laugh At Them, Then You Win: How The “Cuckservative” Meme Is Undermining Conservatism Inc” (good read)

Jared Taylor: “An Open Letter to Cuckservatives” (good read)

More: Ted Sallis: “On Cuckservatives.” William Solniger: “The Cuckservative” (poem).  Andrew Anglin writes about cuckservative here.

Charles Johnson: “Refugee From Cuckservatism” (misses point on origin and meaning.  As pointed out in an email to me: “Goldberg and Podhoretz are neoconservatives, not cuckservatives, and the neocons aren’t cucked. They work for their own ethnic interests.  They actually have their own ethno-state.”)  Richard Spencer responds here (a must-read, important for getting the cuckservative meme right).

More: Iron Legion: “I Was A Conservative Once.”  Daily Kos.  David Futrelle.  Salon.  TRS.  Libertarian Republic. Daily Kos (again). PJ Media.

Alexander Hart: “Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo In The Conservative Movement’s Nest”

Colin Liddell: “Restoring the European Subject: The Historical and Economic Roots of ‘Cuckservative’.” Duns Scotus: “The Klueless Kucks Klan”

Heartiste on cucks. Gavin McInnes offers this very disappointing take on cuckservatives; The Right Stuff responds (excellent read).

The Cuck Song. Amanda Marcotte (lols). Matthew Rozsa (cuck).

The New York Times covers cuckservative. Richard Spencer responds.

The Guardian (UK) covers cuckservative.

David French is in meltdown mode over ‘cuckservative’.  Apparently he still thinks “Democrats are the real racists” because he is a cuck.  Massive twitter criticism of David and then he publishes this response. Jared Taylor responds.  Hunter Wallace responds.

Alfred W. Clark: “On David & Nancy French, cuckservatives, and race”

Must see series of musicals inspired by the cuckservative meme.

Alfred W. Clark:  “Another #Cuckservative Cause: School Choice”

Popular Memes

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

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

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.