Friday, February 12, 2016


I've avoided the word 'cuckservative' not because it lacks utility, but because it's rather gross. But thinking it over lately, and also thinking about the highly effective use of vulgar language on the part of Donald Trump, I've decided that the grossness of the word contributes to its strength.

Lord knows the left is gross, and maybe we need to fight grossness with grossness. I'm reminded of the little-known fact that the fascists didn't originate street fighting, but responded to communist strongarm tactics by organizing their own counterforce of street fighters to protect their public speakers and rallies from being destroyed by leftist thugs.

So right now I'm proclaiming that it's valid to fight grossness with grossness, and fire with fire, and not concede any such tools for the exclusive use of the left to destroy us.

And that includes vulgar language. I wonder when and if Trump will annihilate his opponents with 'cuckservative.'

Glaivester tells us all about the word at his site [link]:

The Point of "Cuckservative"

Someone on Twitter asked me what the point of name-calling, e.g. "cuckservative" is. Won't the term simply alienate people instead of change their minds?

I think this misses a vital point. While there are people who are mistaken on the amnesty question and on racial questions in general (that is, they think that aping the liberals is going to help the Republicans win, or believe that the liberal paradigm for race relations, e.g. "denouncing white privilege" is correct, there are many who are simply cowards who would sell anything out not to be called racist, or who are taking positions to please donors and who do not actually take their positions based on well-considered morality.

The point in such cases is two-fold; first, to counter the idea that hating your own people in the name of "equality" is a good thing. For someone to celebrate the idea that their ethnic group is going to become a minority in a country they created is insane. It is not something that anyone has done throughout history or that it is assumed to be normal that someone does. When someone says that it is racist to be against an immigration policy specifically because it will make whites a minority in the United States, the best response is to point out how ludicrous it is to call someone a name for wanting to keep the majority population of America what it has always been (more or less, obviously we are not going to revert to the WASPiness of the 18th and 19th centuries). The point is to have a counter-insult to racist.

The point also is to point out that many of these "conservatives" are determined to pander to those who hate them. They will reach across the aisle to Democrats who are not willing to reach back in return (note how all the Democrats in lockstep refused to defund Obama's executive amnesty), and are constantly trying to find ways to reach out to minority communities that have no interest in voting for anyone who does not support a generous welfare state and affirmative action, and more-or-less become a Democrat, while ignoring reaching out to their mostly white base. In other words, the term refers largely to "conservatives": who are desperate for approval by liberals and who will concede whatever they need to in order to get approval.

Note how in 2012 the Romney campaign was more interested in reaching out to blacks and Latinos than in trying to reach out to the disaffected Paul voters who were concerned about interventionist foreign policy.

"Cuck" is an appropriate term, because it suggests a hatred or indifference to one's own blood, and to one's own friends, while supporting those who have no interest in being friends. The point of the term, when used amongst allies, is to remind one's self of what the problem with the traitors within are. When used at others as an insult, the goal is to make "cuckish" behavior as unacceptable as "racism." Maybe we will alienate people, and maybe people will embrace the term. But long-term, the effect will be the same as the term "racist." People will try to deny that they are "cucks" as as people realize that they cannot escape disapproval by conceding to liberals.

The idea, in short, is to reverse the dominant paradigm of political discourse, which always favors liberals.

The fact of the matter is, the current immigration debate reflects an America that is being cuckolded; its people are being replaced by foreigners, whose children we are told we must support. As a Steve Sailer commenter pointed out in 2014, we lack a vocabulary to describe this, and so we are defenseless to stop it. The term "cuckold" isn't even in popular circulation to describe literal individual cuckolding, and we are supposed to think it fine to force a man to pay child support for the product of a wife's infidelity, with absolutely no negative consequences for the faithless wife. Terms such as "cuckservative" are a way of regaining that vocabulary, and of trying to reframe the debate on terms that are (a) favorable to conservatives, and (b) reflect the unstated realities of our current situation.

That is all.
Quibcag: I couldn't find any illustrations that suggested 'cuckold' that weren't downright disturbing, so I thought, why not do something pretty, instead. So here are the girls of Kannagi: Crazy Shrine Maidens (かんなぎ Kannagi) dressed in bunny suits.


  1. In a lot of ways, I think that the GOP, and a lot of conservatives, never got over being blamed and punished for the Great Depression. For decades, the GOP was the part of "Us, too...but not quite as much or in the same way!" Then when they were finally outliving that nonsense, along came Watergate, another club for the Hezb-i-Shaitan (my pet name for the Democrats) to club them with unto eternity.

    Getting rid of the GOP (and, ideally, the Democrats) and allowing new parties to form would cure a lot of problems.

    1. Technomad: "Getting rid of the GOP (and, ideally, the Democrats) and allowing new parties to form would cure a lot of problems."

      Not possible. At best, these alleged political parties might be modified, but there is no possibility of replacing them, because both the Red Faction and the Blue Faction are simply wings of what historian clyde Wilson identified as "the court party."

      ("Put in terms the Founding Fathers would have understood, the interests Republicans serve are merely the court party — what Jefferson referred to as the tinsel aristocracy and John Taylor as the paper aristocracy. The American Revolution was a revolt of the country against the court. Jeffersonians understood that every political system divides between the great mass of unorganized folks who mind their own business — that, is, the country party — and the minority who hang around the court to manipulate the government finances and engineer government favours. It is much easier and quicker to get rich by finding a way into the treasury than by risk and hard work. That is mostly what politics is about. Of course, schemes to plunder society through the government must never be seen as such. They must be powdered and perfumed to look like a public good.")

      See "The Republican Charade, Lincoln and His Party" (19 November 2014, ).

      What we lack - what the "two-party system" operates to obliterate - is the electoral option of voting for a genuine "country party" advocating even a shred of the political philosophy associated with Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Grover Cleveland.