Wednesday, June 1, 2016

The Cuckservatives' Preemptive Surrender in the Race War

You know that communist Kristol family? Old man Irving Kristol, the Trotskyite, wife Gertrude, née Himmelfarb, and their bouncing baby boy, William, who is fighting a valiant action to prevent the anti-communist Trump from taking the Communist Republican Party over. Well, it looks like he's too late to keep Trump from being nominated, but he's doing his best to keep him from being elected President, and put Hillary in office. It's not that the Republican Party isn't important to William Kristol — it's that communism is more important, and a Hillary victory will put the Republican Party back in the hands of the Kristols and other communists where it belongs. Their communist cousins, who lean towards Stalin rather than Trotsky, of course have and have had control of the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember, but We're talking about belt-and-suspenders people here, who don't want to leave anything to chance. They got sloppy and lost Russia, and they don't want that to happen here.

And his cunning plan to hand the White House to Hillary is to run David French as a third party "real" conservative. You know, the sort that those of us in the know refer to as "cuckservatives." The Kristol gang usually calls actual conservatives "dangerous," or "extreme," or "Nazis." Over at, Jared Taylor explains why Kristol finds French so perfect for his role:

David French: A Cuck Begs for Mercy

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, September 21, 2015
Banishing the word “cuckservative” won’t save him.
David French, a staff writer for National Review, is the latest “conservative” to yelp after being called a “cuckservative.” It’s hard to think of anyone who deserved it more. Mr. French managed to father two white children but then adopted an Ethiopian girl. Here she is with Mrs. French, who uses the photo as her Twitter profile picture.
Nancy French, who also claims to be a conservative, is just as unhappy about “cuckservative.” She wrote her own complaint that found its way into that famously conservative publication, the Washington Post.
Being called a “cuck” hurts because it cuts close to the bone. The word cuckold comes from “cuckoo,” the bird that lays its eggs in the nest of a different species. The other mother bird can’t tell the difference, and feeds the cuckoo chick along with her own. The chick rewards her by pitching the other babies out of the nest, so it gets all the food. A cuckold is a man whose wife had an affair, had the baby, and the poor sap thinks it’s his. The cuckold is a figure of derision and contempt because he’s been tricked into lavishing care on a child that’s not his.
The Frenches haven’t even been tricked. Instead of having another child of their own, they deliberately decided to adopt someone who is as alien to them–genetically, racially, culturally–as possible. Adopting African trophy babies is what addle-headed movie stars do. Madonna has a little African. So does Charlize Theron. Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, Jane Fonda, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Nicole Kidman are all raising black children. It’s what you expect from people who crave the limelight and don’t want to conserve anything. That’s why they’re not “cuckservatives.” They don’t know any better; they’re lefties.
True conservatives understand that race is the bedrock of culture, and that virtually nothing they love will survive in an America without white people. “Cuckservatives” are chasing phantoms if they think small government, rule of law, Western culture, the Bill of Rights, good sportsmanship, WASP manners, or incorruptible institutions will survive in an Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America. At a time when whites are not even having enough children to replace themselves, to adopt Africans instead of having more white babies is deliberately to shove the country towards the Third-World mishmash the Left actually wants. It is a betrayal–especially of one’s own parents and grandparents–but also of everyone who is part of the greater extended family of Europeans.
This is how Mr. French ends his yelping:
We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, “All are one, in Christ Jesus.”
If he had written “Allah” rather than “Jesus Christ,” Mr. French would sound just like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS–except that Muslims have a different idea of how to spread the faith and what to do afterwards. But the culture goes back well before Christianity; the Greeks started it. And blacks are the most church-going, Bible-believing people in America. Does that make Detroit and East Saint Louis the citadels of Mr. French’s culture?
How can anyone who is not deliberately blind write as if race were irrelevant? How can Mr. French fail to see that his culture sprang from one race and that others reject it as alien? Africans have been in America for 400 years, yet wherever Africans gather together the culture Mr. French claims to defend is almost nowhere to be seen. Does he really think his little Ethiopian will embrace and strengthen what millions before her have despised?
Look around the world. Wherever you find whites you find a common culture. Wherever you find non-whites you find something different. It is their special talent for failing to see that that makes “conservatives” cuckservatives.
Mr. French’s tactics are as lamentable as his delusions. He wants to banish the word “cuckservative.” He doesn’t want to banish “racism” or “xenophobia” or “white privilege” or any of the other insidious formulations that have tricked whites–included Mr. French–into thinking white racial awareness is wrong. No, it’s “cuckservative” that’s got to go, and it’s easy to see why: It reminds him that culture is flesh and blood and centuries of struggle. It reminds him how bloodless and futile his own “conservatism” really is. He wants the word to go away so he can close his mind to biology, history, common sense, and even his own experience, and go on “defending” a culture while betraying the very people–the only people–who make it possible.
Quibcag: It's very hard to find anime illustrations that suggest 'nonWhite' that aren't either ambiguous or too silly, so here I used the girls from Ranma ½ (らんま½) . Before you tell me they don't look nonWhite, I assure you that, technically and despite appearances, the Japanese Anime style being what it is, they're all nonWhite, all of them being Japanese, except for the second from the left, who is Chinese.
Reaction to the Quibcag: tz writes:

No. Greeks, Spaniards, Welsh, Norwegians differ from each other profoundly, so when you say "where you find 'whites'", you need to say which whites. To say they have a common culture is at best laughable. Italy borders Germany. Italians are not borderline Germans. Aida is not Fidelio. Goethe is not Aquinas. Berlin is not Rome.

He's right, of course. But the quote still stands when you look at it in context. The nationalities he mentions do differ from one another profoundly, but when you compare them to Luos, Nepalis, !Kung, or Cambodians, they seem virtually identical, what with their Christianity, civic virtue, and remarkably similar ideas of ethics and honor. Again, a Frenchman and a Russian may regard each other as aliens, but send them to be administrators in Africa, and they'll realize that they're blood brothers!


  1. No. Greeks, Spaniards, Welsh, Norwegians differ from each other profoundly, so when you say "where you find 'whites'", you need to say which whites. To say they have a common culture is at best laughable. Italy borders Germany. Italians are not borderline Germans. Aida is not Fidelio. Goethe is not Aquinas. Berlin is not Rome.

  2. Charity is never political. I might be able to laud the adoption of an Ethiopian (See Acts, Candace's treasurer who was baptized). But it depends on whether it was done with trumpets blaring as the Pharisees did when they practiced their charity.
    Is this a beloved adopted daughter, or a political pawn, even if minimally - to accomplish something other than making good feelz.