The Boomer Cuckservative Interpretation of Western Civilization

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

BradleyJBirzer

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.”

Advertisements

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

Jim Jones Rainbow Familycuckoo1

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

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, 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.”  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 KosDavid FutrelleSalonTRSLibertarian 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: 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