In 2015, two events occurred which would become symbolic of the nationalist-globalist dialectic. Those two events were the ‘Syrian’ ‘Refugee’ Crisis, and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. The former represented the interconnectivity of peoples, as Syrian migrants from Eritrea were able to find themselves–with NGO aid–in places like Germany and Sweden. The Trump campaign represented the response of the common man against the elites, which had been growing throughout the West. Lines were drawn across the West.

American nationalism was partly a reaction of the host population discovering they were no longer going to be a majority according to demographic trends. Lambasted in the mainstream media as ‘retrograde’ and ‘divisive’, the nationalism in America was viewed by the establishment ‘right’ with scorn. This would prompt any thinking man of the Right to question the criticizing of the American nationalism of Donald Trump. Was not the Right about God and Country? And what exactly has come to represent the American ‘right’? Are we only interested in the revolutionary force of capitalism? Why does it seem these men of the ‘right’ are more keen on making Mexicans Americans? These questions posed by the thinking person of any rightward inclination were answered in this book, Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America.

So what is a cuckservative? He is the sellout, Fox News appearing,  liberty-loving, fervent Israel supporting, flag waving, betrayer to his own nation. Generally, he confuses state and nation, the former a political organization and the latter a people. The cuck fundamentally believes anyone can become an American, so long as he ‘shares our values’. Economic cuckservatives believe free-trade is categorically good, because cheaper goods are better than expensive ones. He will not hesitate for a minute to tell you how the constitution works, or what the god-like founders intended. In short, the cuckservative shares almost exclusively the liberal presuppositions. Examples of cuckservatives include Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck and David French–all of whose egos were shattered in 2015 when Donald Trump began his presidential campaign. Both the leftist and cuckservative political agendas are based on falsehoods.

The first falsehood of the cuckservatives is believing the ‘Myth of the Melting Pot’; which is the idea that America is a mixture of various peoples being ‘melted’ together. This idea has been stated by many across the political spectrum, but has gone from being a false descriptive claim, to a false normative claim. The origins of the claim originate from a play entitled The Melting Pot, written by Israel Zangwill, a Russian-Jew, living in Britain in 1908. This man had zero firsthand understanding of America, but wrote of how Russians, Jews, Italians, Irish and Polish were to mix with one another after they came here. Founders such as Franklin and Washington did not at all intend on inviting in ‘new’ immigrants from Southern Europe, let alone Eastern Africa. The second falsehood assumed by cuckservatives is the ‘Magic Dirt Theory’, which claims that one becomes an American as soon as he or she sets foot on American soil. This is demonstrably false, because when the new immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe came to America, they did not have any understanding or appreciation for English common law, nor did they desire to understand it. The third falsehood of the cuck is the idea of the ‘blank slate’, which roughly means that man can be molded into anything by his environment. This absurdity would mean a man with an IQ of 64 would be able to become a nuclear physicist if only he studied hard enough.

Though science and history has rendered their paradigm untrue, the cuckservatives–like their supposed rival liberals, still believe these fables. Why this is has much to do with the foundations of American conservatism, which though inspired by English conservatism, is not the same. Russell Kirk, the godfather of American conservatism, layed out six principles for his ‘ideology’ in his 1953 book, The Conservative Mind. (p.75) These principles have both been unsuccessful in application, and have been scarcely applied. My interpretation of the text leads me to believe this is because: a.) the nature of conservatism is defensive–or as the authors claim, “…submissive and passive-aggressive in their relation to the left” (p.76), and b.) it does not form a coherent ideology, as, say, Marxism. The beginnings of conservatism were also rooted in the Cold War, and with the creation of National Review, headed by William F. Buckley Jr. For all intents and purposes, Buckley was ‘approved opposition’, and under his intellectual guidance, conservatism saw fifty years of failure as the US moved further to the left. Central to the failure of the ‘right’ was in barring entry to those who were deemed radical, such as the John Birch Society and the Paleoconservatives of the 1980s and 90s.

When I initially read this book in 2015, my intuitions about the conservative movement were reassured. Though I’d like to say I was never at cuck status, being a Millenial, I was unaware of how truly important demographics are to the stability of a society. I assumed all those civic nationalist propositions. Since reading books such as this, I have come away with greater knowledge but more pessimistic.

The simple equation: diversity plus proximity equals war. This was enough to shake away the aforementioned assumptions I once held. The economic realities that free-trade is not a categorical good, or that immigrants take twenty percent of US jobs from Americans (p.146) is enough to make one question all the ‘Americanist’ assumptions previously held. It calls into question the founders, the constitution, republicanism, democracy and capitalism. I haven’t anything to critique in this book—not especially the Churchianity chapter, which displays how truly pathetic the institution of the Americanized church has become. Save a growing economy, not even the God Emperor Trump can save America, and I believe it was ‘baked into the cake’ so to speak. From this book, any cuck can learn a lot–though it is up to the reader to align himself with the truth, despite the consequences.

Lessons Learned

1. Diversity+Proximity=War. The only possible exception to this that I can see is in the Eastern Roman Empire, where there was a view across borders that one was a ‘Roman’ before being a Syrian, Spaniard or Cappadocian. According to Lars Brownworth in Lost to the West, immigration had been a source of power for the empire, as some emperors were from conquered lands such as Africa. The difference that Brownworth does not mention is that offensive Roman campaigns to conquer territory brought something to new lands, whereas the Barbarians were taking from the Romans. The difference is between building and destroying at a fundamental level.
2. The market works for the nation, not the other way around. Continually we hear ‘x policy is good for the economy’, without ever questioning such an ambiguous statement. Undoubtedly, the Right is going to have to move more ‘left’ on the economy, especially with the advancement in automation. No longer can we think of capitalism as being contrasted with socialism, but the system which precedes it.  
3. We Christians cannot use the categories of our oppressors. Social justice, anti-racism, anti-sexism, and xenophilia were not the principles of Jesus Christ. Christ was not a subversive, but a superversive. Churchianity is allowing the world into the Church, when the Church should be spread into the world. I think the idea of separating Church and State, though completely hopeless in America, should be abandoned in countries with a particular majority religious population. We see the logical outcome of abandoning the spiritual; we attempt to make ourselves God.
4. Do not disavow. I can’t say this for all cases, but the ‘right’ is so very good for stabbing each other in the back, because one rightist said something deemed bad by the left. The speech monitoring will result in the destruction of any progress the Right can make. Debates are great, but the infighting destroys political movements before they can even get off the ground. The left does not do this and the ‘right’ does, which is part of the reason the former has success and the latter does not.

One can see how mainstream right wing groups have started to internalize these points. The recent spree of online bannings have laid bare the left’s institutional and structural power, and that disavowing means nothing. Tucker Carlson is a one man force pulling the nominal right to the left economically as automation changes. Few but the biggest cucks still support infinity immigration due to what it does to our social fabric. This book is three years old, and there must be next steps to take.

Questions for the Real Right Wing

1. Who, in your opinion, is an American?
2. Being that European-derived peoples’ birth rates are so low, are we headed toward extinction like the Natives, or can we turn it around?
3. Some favor VoxDay’s idea of omni-nationalism? Is omni-nationalism to some degree balkanization? Consider Kosovo and Serbia, or Spain splitting up between Catalans, Spanish and Basques etc. Could this omni-nationalism weaken the West?
4. Are we’re headed toward such economic inequality as to be unsustainable or discivic? Have we already reached this point? What will the distribution of wealth look like as Boomers die?
5. What is your current opinion of capitalism? Is it time for the Right to abandon it? Could the Right and Left unite on the economy?
6. Is conservatism inherently Anglo-Saxon?
7. Which was the worse ‘economist’, Ricardo or Marx?
8. Beyond complaining about the word games of the left’s media or education complex, how do we take those institutions apart or recast them?

This book is three years old. It still is useful for curious normies aware that something is very broken with the approved, television friendly right wing. This book helps sell the controlled opposition meme. The draw of mocking cucks is lesser as we approach 2019. These fools reveal themselves to be so weak as to now be annoying and worthy of contempt, not mockery. The challenge is to figure out what comes next and how to assemble a coherent package of ideas, policies and action be sold to a broader audience.