Charles Johnson has described himself as a “radical” and “revolutionary,” who is going to “enthusiastically burn down the entire political establishment for fun.” (Johnson’s Twitter account was suspended (unjustly, in my opinion), but I presume that he has been quoted accurately.) Johnson is the author of the inflammatory screed Why Coolidge Matters: Leadership Lessons from America’s Most Underrated President. How the Establishment survived the publication of that one is anyone’s guess.
His recent article in Takimag ostensibly promotes the #cuckservative meme . . . which is good . . . but it is mainly devoted to talking about his awesome exploits breaking news stories.
#Cuckservative is, put simply, important: it has gotten under the skin of our enemies and has become a harbinger for something beyond conservatism. Thus, it is important that we get it right—and not allow the meme to be turned into just another synonym for “liberal,” which is basically what Johnson is doing in his article.
According to Johnson,
“Cuckservative” isn’t about race but about how much power you allow the word “racist” to have over you.
Let’s stop the tape there.
Yes, yes, a “racist” is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal . . . but haven’t we moved past that?
I defined the “cucks” this way for the Washington Post:
It is the cuckold who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, loses control of his future. This is an apt psychological portrait of white “conservatives,” whose only identity is comprised of vague, abstract “values,” and who are participating in the displacement of European Americans — their own children.
Jared Taylor recently wrote,
American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.
In other words, the #cuckservative meme doesn’t make any sense without race. It’s all about race. But according to Johnson . . .
It’s about the fake, phony conservatives who enjoy watching the real fighters on the right get sodomized while they gleefully gawk. They crave respectability over power and the limelight over influence. Seldom paid for their performances on Fox News or MSNBC, they repeat conventional wisdom after getting gussied up—but you can’t polish a soul.
In his mind, the problem is those pampered elites at National Review, who don’t support Johnson’s fearlessly inaccurate attacks on liberal journalists.
What we’re left with is the familiar mock battle, which we’ve been rehearsing for the past 50 years, between “true conservatives” and “the Eastern establishment.” (In other words, Johnson’s #cuckservative is a meme that Robert Stacy McCain could love.)
Again, what’s powerful about #cuckservative is that it is call for a racially conscious politics—and not the kind of shot-gun spray muckraking that Johnson specializes in. David Frum was right when he observed that there is an emptiness at the heart of this kind of “conservatism,” which was pioneered by the late Andrew Breitbart, Johnson’s model:
[Breitbart] waged a culture war minus the “culture,” as a pure struggle between personalities.
That said, in Johnson’s wrong-headedness, he inadvertently raises an interesting question:
I’ve had more than a few brushes with the cuckservatives of my day, from National Review’s Jonah Goldberg to Commentary’s John Podhoretz.
No doubt, many grinned with glee to see bête noirs like Goldberg and Podhoretz tarred with the cuck slur. But these men are both neocons. And so it’s worth asking—Are neocons cuckservatives?
My answer is no. To the contrary, the neocons excelled at cucking conservatives.
Neoconservatism is a fascinating movement that is worth studying, not only by those interested in Jewish intellectual history but by those who seek to learn from a successful strategy of “entryism.”
The neocon soul, it seems, is torn between three poles: first, Israel and Jewish nationalism; second, global democratic messianism; and finally a kind of American nationalism, which was honed during the Cold War. We can see this in the schizoid mentality of neocons and their conservative allies during the George W. Bush years. They wanted to blow up Muslims in order to protect Israel . . . but then convert their flaming corpses to democracy and the free market . . . and also tell the faggots at the UN to take a hike.
One of my favorite post-9/11 articles from a Gentile zealot of the neocons’ cause was written by Ann Coulter:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.
Whatever tension and ambivalence there might be in the neocon mentality, neocons were successful at 1) fighting for the future of their people; 2) manipulating Gentiles into fighting for the future of the neocons’ people—even to the point of fighting wars that were detrimental to the interests of Gentiles. The neocons accomplished the latter by controlling institutions, like the Republican Party and “conservative movement,” and, to a degree not fully appreciated, appealing to messianic and Christian instincts within American Whites.
In this way, cuckservatives are mostly White Gentiles of the Baby Boom generation. They are the former allies/cucks of the neocons. They are the residue of the Bush administration . . . that’s still hanging around.
If we are to move forward, the cucks must go. Thus, they should be attacked. But it is extremely important that we attack them in the right way.
Allowing #cuckservative to be commandeered by conservatives would be a disaster.