We all know too well the words that stab like daggers into the identity of Europeans, on the continent and around the world: “Diversity” . . . “gentrification” . . . “patriarchy . . . “privilege” . . . and the big daddy of them all—“racist.”

Over the past few months, a challenger has appeared, sporting a suit and tie, combover, and an all-welcoming smile in his family photo featuring trans-racial adoptions. We call him “cuckservative.”

This truly radical insult cuts to the bone of the Stupid Party, which has, for decades, abandoned its core constituency of White Americans. Perhaps the original “cuckservative” was Dwight Eisenhower, who, despite disagreeing with forced integration in the South, did just that, and by force of bayonets wielded by the 101st Airborne Division. Today, Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul looks to Eisenhower for “guidance and inspiration,” at least in the realm of foreign policy. Of course, how could he agree with the Little Rock strategy at home when, in the wake of the creation of the Myth of Michael Brown, he calls not for bayonets but for the demilitarization of police?

Over time, Republicans have created an image that we are now giving language to—that of, among other things, prioritizing the preservation of the Constitution above the preservation of the nation. In the long run, neither the Constitution nor the people who created and sustained it will survive unless the historical forces Eisenhower helped unleash are permanently defeated.

It was around the time of the 1950s when the term “racist” gained common parlance. A New York Times article objectively reported in its opening lines,

An impressive show of Federal force cowed racist agitators at Central High School this morning, permitting the integration of nine Negro students without serious disorder.

Impressive, indeed, but not as impressive as this piece of propaganda.

The “racist” slur is close to the opposite of the term “cuckservative,” and yet both have important similarities. Both are words of offense. Calling someone a “racist” means, essentially, that your target is a monster for standing up for his own people. A “cuckservative” is not a monster but a coward and weakling for failing to defend his race and civilization. Often fighting for other groups with gusto, he has taken the easy path, while betraying his extended family. Make no mistake, both conjure up images of death—the racist is murder and the “cuckservative” is suicide.

Both “racist” and “cuckservative” tug at our sense of morality, which has made the two so highly effective. Jonathan Bowden observed in the opening minutes of “The Essence of the Left” podcast with Richard Spencer that the Left has, in its various forms, always portrayed itself as deeply moral. Meanwhile, many on our side have styled themselves as amoral and even immoral. When conservatives acquiesced to the Left’s version of morality and began celebrating its heroes and values, rather than their own, and when some of us in the dissident Right decided to play the part the Left created for us, both groups committed themselves to their own defeat. Embracing “cuckservative” commits ourselves to victory and regaining control of the discourse within our own lands.

That is the power of language. Orwell was a writer who understood the power language has over our thoughts; another was Jewish writer Victor Klemperer. In his LTI—Lingua Tertii Imperii: Notizbuch eines Philologen (“Language of the Third Reich: Notebook of a Philologist”), Klemperer wrote after the Second World War how language was utilized to further National Socialist values and objectives. The strategy has never ceased being practiced; the players merely changed. Today,Arisierung (Aryanization) is replaced by “diversification.”

And we must be players. An important aspect of the public controversy over the popularization of “cuckservative” is that it shows which side is creative and which is stagnant. The Left could not have been more predictable when it responded to the “cuckservative” phenomenon with calls of “racist.” As many have noted, the dreaded R-word is losing its power; Greg Johnson and Hugh MacDonald had a spirited debate over whether we should shame those who call Whites racist or simply react with indifference at the slur. Both reactions will inevitably play out and one may be more appropriate than the others at certain times.

Going forward with the offensive, it is now time for us to think past the word “cuckservative” and create a new word of offense against the liberals who hold power, not just the “cuckservatives” who occasionally hold office. The word that we embrace and that liberals flee from will be one that attacks them at their core, which is its sense that they are the standard-bearers of morality in this world. We must unmask the meek exterior and remove the halo of the devils-in-saints-clothing to reveal the viciousness, ruthlessness, and perversion in the black heart of the Anti-Civilization. We must do all of this, though, through a word or phrase that is both a description and a slur.

To start, we must paint the most accurate type of the anti-White Leftist that we can. His style is crass and ugly. He feels entitled to have his opinions go unquestioned and unchallenged from Man or Nature. He persists in futilely correcting Nature that scoffs at his attempts. Two twin terms stand out in their potential use, though others will certainly be coined in the months and years to come.

James C. Russell, in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, innovates on sociologist Robert Bellah’s terms of “world-rejection” and “world-acceptance” in comparing the folk-centered religiosity of Germanic tribes to the salvation-seeking faith of Christianity:

“World-rejection,” as used herein, is broadened to include not only an “extremely negative evaluation of man and society and the exaltation of another realm of reality as alone true and infinitely valuable,” but also attitudes of general indifference or opposition toward the socio-biological principle of group survival through in-group altruism. World-rejection implies a desire to transcend or substantially transform one’s current earthly existence. . . .

Those who are world-rejecting cannot hide behind their incomplete and shallow understanding of evolution or their love-from-a-distance of the natural world, where its violence and vitality is utterly alien to the urban Bearded Betas who pay it lip service. We who are world-accepting know the importance of the truth of the tribe. We will not reject who we are or the principles Nature has laid down, and we will not reject the duty we have to our ancestors and descendants. We accept the beauty of difference. Most of all, we accept ourselves. We accept Europa.