Defining cuckservative

By one popular definition a cuckservative is “conservative” who supports white replacement. (Gradual white replacement, of course, though I am not seeing anything that guarantees that the process will remain gradual.)

Based on cuckold, one who raises another man’s son as his own, which is in turn based on cuckoo, which plants its eggs in the nests of others.

One could also apply it, and sometimes does apply it, to a conservative with no enemies to the left and no friends to the right, who thus conspires to the eradication of conservatism and its ever leftwards movement, which strictly speaking is inconsistent with the first definition. One implies physical and biological elimination, one implies mere memetic elimination.

However, the one is in practice pretty much equivalent to the other since leftist memes are in practice race replacement memes, as exemplified in Baltimore. Maybe in future there will be conflict between these two definitions.

The broader definition of cuckservative, however, communicates the neoreactionary concept of innerparty/outerparty, shows how the republican party does the left’s work for it. Though race gives the word its bitter power, the broader definition cuts reality at the joints, showing the relationship between inner and outer party.

Observe that Trump is beyond the pale and supposedly a joke for pointing at the costs of unlimited illegal immigration. Meanwhile Israel has the world’s toughest policy on illegal immigration, and Australia a close second. Both have no problem reducing illegal immigration to zero. But the Australian policy is “controversial”, and like most popular but “controversial” policies, may well be furtively changed. Note that the Austalian policy is somehow highly “controversial”, even though voters support the policy overwhelmingly. Something is unpopular and illegal. So the government puts a stop to it. This is “controversial”.

But it is too late to halt illegal immigration in America. Australia could halt illegal immigration because still mostly white. To halt illegal immigration in America, have to end democracy first.

But at least, if we use words that cut reality at the joints, we can see our doom upon us.

90 Responses to “Defining cuckservative”

  1. Alan J. Perrick says:

    It’s a neologism that seems to hit home as many pundits, who were previously called “R.I.N.O.”s and similar are now being called this especially “naughty” word.

    Mostly, I call them “respectable conservatives” as opposed to anyone acting on honour. Respectability means that one does what one does to gain the approval of others, not because he is bound by conscience and duty.

    A.J.P.

    • Kudzu Bob says:

      “RINO” doesn’t work well as an insult because it brings to mind actual rhinos, which are of course powerful, scary beasts that demand respect.

      The Duck at Jokeocracy tried to get everybody on the AltRight to use “conservakin,” which is okay, I guess, but how many people understand the “otherkin” reference?

      But “cuckservative,” ah, now that works on more than one level, like the thrust of an assassin’s poison-tipped rapier.

      • Kudzu Bob says:

        Clarification: Those on the AltRight understand the “okerkin” reference, but normal folks, including many people of above-average intelligence, might not get it. That limits the term’s appeal.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Somebody once said that sex sells. Apparently it does, and that might be another reason why the word is so sticky.

        Hey, I see that italics is working again. Brilliant!

  2. peppermint says:

    The time is quickly ending when it was possible for an intelligent person to remain confused for decades about the nature of life.

    The christcucks at Daily Caller understand that the word cuckservative, in particular the cuck part, undermines their position. But Lothrop Stoddard also has this effeminate quirk where he refers to subhuman garbage as if it’s children, as if coffee grounds and banana peels can be turned into humans other than by being composted and used as fertilizer for human food.

    Did something happen in 1820 to suppress the understanding that cucks are cucks?

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cuck%2Ccuckold%2Ccuckoo&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3

    If so, why? Was it christcucks advocating for bastards to be treated like legitimate children?

  3. peppermint says:

    The word cuck is spreading, and while Richard Stallman advocates for free software on the grounds that it’s more communistic and helps brown people, he started free software because he wanted to control his own hardware and not to pay for the privilege of fixing bugs. Now there’s a subreddit for Linux users to call other Linux users who want to pay for software cucks: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_cucks/

    • cazalla says:

      Can confirm “cuck faggot” and “faggot cuck” is the latest meme insult for team fortress 2 players for past few months.Coincidentally, I play this game using Steam on nigbuntu.

  4. Kudzu Bob says:

    The NRxers at Xenosystems have come out against the use of the term “Cuckservative.”

    What an astonishing miscalculation.

    • jim says:

      They are scared of nazis, scared of the racial, and obscene, content of the term. Hey, all the better for being both racial and non racial.

      • k says:

        I assumed it was just because it was declasse. But of course, NRx had from the beginning a tradition of bombastic vulgarity

        • jim says:

          But of course, NRx had from the beginning a tradition of bombastic vulgarity

          We are going to rectify names to cut reality at the joints. Given that names have been muddied and poisoned by Victorian reticence and euphemism, need vulgarity for rectification of names, need rectification of names for clarity of thought and expression.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”, I agree and have something to add on this necessary nomenclature,

            Back when I read Mr Charlton’s blog regularly I saw an interesting comment that read:

            “If you want to stir women to revolution or revulsion at the current situation, tell them that in this day-and-age that men have been so corrupted that no man will truly love a woman properly.

            If you want to do the same for men, tell them that they are heavily subsidising other men’s children.”

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            confucius say, A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

    • peppermint says:

      here’s Theden on Nick Land’s horrorism – http://theden.tv/2015/02/17/apocalyptic-fantasies/

      Nick Land appears to be, as a namefag, trying to be enough of a clown to be ignored and forgotten. Anarchopapist left, and Moldbug fell silent shortly after deciding to become a namefag; the only namefag of note in the new alt right is Andrew Anglin.

    • gay says:

      That’s because they are cuckservatives

    • Erebus says:

      I don’t believe that it is.

      The thing we need to ask ourselves about this “Cuckservative” trolling is: To what end? Do we expect the populace to “see the light”, vote out the cucks, and vote in more sensible and honest representatives? Do we expect these insults to influence those representatives already in office? Do we expect it to change anything at all with respect to the policies of the permanent civil service? Do we expect it to awaken and enlighten the populace at large?

      …If this sort of thing is what one expects to achieve, then one is engaging in nothing other than lowbrow democratic politicking. This must seem like reasonable behavior to those who still believe in democracy, but to those who distrust it — and indeed positively loathe it — it is a waste of time and energy. (It is also, to some extent, ignoble. As George Bernard Shaw, coincidentally a co-founder of the London School of Economics, once said: “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”)

      • peppermint says:

        The point is that it is no longer possible to be honestly confused about the nature of life. Adopting a nigger used to be a show of moral superiority that would be rewarded with social status. That’s where you should ask the question, to what end?

        Now it’s recognized that getting cucked makes you a cuck.

        I really liked the 1986 Transformers movie, except for the final scene, in which the new Autobot leader and everyone starts chanting ’till all are one’. In the ’60s, we were going to evolve into beings of pure energy by being morally superior.

        Today, everyone knows that DNA exists and cucks who seek temporary advantage by selling out their bloodline deserve neither.

        • Erebus says:

          But isn’t this obvious? Isn’t it plain as day that those who support miscegenation and mass-immigration are not, and never have been, on our side?

          So what are we hoping to achieve with this “cuckservative” meme? We’re not going to convert the cucks — nor should we even try. (A trip to the gallows is all that they deserve.) I hope we’re not trying to appeal to the populace at-large, as most of them are frankly unworthy of the effort. (And always will be, hence populism should always and everywhere be disdained.) What then? I can only see it becoming a catchphrase used by the alt-right, with no greater significance — like the rhetoric the left uses, “black bodies” and so forth, but held up to a mirror and reversed…

          • Kudzu Bob says:

            To complain that using “cuckservative” will not convert those firmly in the enemy camp is pure silliness. The term’s purpose is to plant a seed in the minds of the uncommitted. Some who might have been ever-so-slightly leaning toward the anti-White side now will be less inclined to do so, while those who are ever-so-slightly inclined toward our side will be more inclined to do so.

          • Erebus says:

            I’m not complaining.

            But here’s what I don’t quite understand: Are rational arguments somehow insufficient? Is appealing to the lowest common denominator with lazy rhetoric the best way to plant that seed, as you put it?
            This sort of thing just strikes me as being… well… demotic, so I don’t like it.

            • jim says:

              Rectification of names is rational argument. Or rather it provides the tools that make rational argument possible.

              Since 1820, progressives have been corrupting names to make rational thought impossible. “Cuckservative” in the broader sense is neoreactionary ideology packaged in a single word.

              To understand the meaning and usage, you have to look at the world through our eyes.

          • peppermint says:

            once we statistically awaken enough of the silent majority with our memes, then we can go marching through the square, chanting one solution, reconstitution, what’s our action, neoreaction, with our best alpha male swagger, then climb on top of something we’re not supposed to and drape a flag with the coat of arms of donald trump.

            White chicks love protesters who do mildly illegal stuff. We can all find our better halves and start good healthy families.

            • jim says:

              The reaction is not going to awaken the silent majority. The silent majority will remain silent, though faintly relieved, when someone who knows what he is doing takes over. They have remained silent through race replacement, through the expulsion from the inner cities. What could possibly awaken them?

          • Kudzu Bob says:

            But here’s what I don’t quite understand: Are rational arguments somehow insufficient? Is appealing to the lowest common denominator with lazy rhetoric the best way to plant that seed, as you put it?

            Even smart people typically don’t come to their political beliefs for wholly rational reasons.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Erebus says:

            But here’s what I don’t quite understand: Are rational arguments somehow insufficient?

            Beta cucks aren’t worthy of power. Was William The Conquerer a wimpy beta cuck who used “rational arguments” (read: “wimpy arguments”) to defeat his enemies in Britain, or did he instead, just broke his enemies’ skulls?

          • Erebus says:

            @Kudzu Bob:
            I’ll gladly concede that point. But I have a hard time supporting outreach programs — and, moreover, am not convinced that the political opinions of the people matter very much.

            @R7_Rocket:
            So a made-for-twitter internet meme is somehow analogous to William the Conqueror breaking the skulls of his enemies?

          • R7_Rocket says:

            So a made-for-twitter internet meme is somehow analogous to William the Conqueror breaking the skulls of his enemies?

            Me-thinks you were probably shoved into a locker in your teenage years.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Me-thinks you were probably shoved into a locker in your teenage years.”

            That is called projection on your part.

          • Erebus says:

            @R7_Rocket:
            You start with the worst non sequitur I’ve seen in years…

            (“William the Conqueror bashed in the skulls of his enemies and attained his goals, therefore we should ______ to attain our goals.” The correct answer for the blank is not “troll our political opponents on Twitter”. Set your sights a bit higher than that, man!)

            …And now you’re just resorting to ad hominem. It’s uncalled-for and only serves to make you look childish and pitiable.

            Political engagement is corrosive. As long as “Democracy” is the system, and as long as the Cathedral exists, one should not involve oneself in politics, demagoguery, and similar wastes of time. The cucks you hate are merely a symptom of this failed system; by engaging them (or “the people”) in the hopes of achieving a positive change, you’re tacitly legitimizing the system itself. This is at best useless and at worst actively harmful — for one’s nobility of soul, if nothing else.

          • Rick Johnsmeyer says:

            “Nobility of soul”? Yeah; good luck applying that to modern American politics. Ridicule works. Remaining staid and civil and starch-collared while your enemies sack the society around you isn’t a response to anything; it’s a retreat into fantasy.

            “Cuckservatism” is a useful concept packed into a powerful insult, and it ought to be deployed widely.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Isn’t it plain as day that those who support miscegenation…”

            Do not people have the liberty to decide for themselves whom they marry and procreate with?

            “(A trip to the gallows is all that they deserve.)”

            So which mask will you wear, Mao or Stalin, when trying to accomplish this monumental task of murdering millions of men, women, and children?

            “(And always will be, hence populism should always and everywhere be disdained.)”

            And totalitarian monarchy should be embraced???

          • Erebus says:

            @Rick Johnsmeyer:
            You’ve grasped my point perfectly. I want absolutely nothing to do with modern American politics. That rotten system is headed for collapse and there’s nothing we can do to save it. We should therefore work to attain a certain nobility of spirit, keep the flames of culture and truth burning, be charitable to our communities, be good to our families, exercise body and mind, become wealthy… in other words, we should prepare ourselves, and we should become worthy.

            @Corvinus:
            Monarchy and aristocracy are the most stable forms of government. They are also the ones which come most naturally to man. Democracy, prior to the execrable American experiment, was only tested in a couple of instances: In Athens, where it lasted a very short time, and where the demos became quite famous, in later eras, for having made extremely stupid decisions; also in late Medieval and Renaissance Italian city-states and guilds, where a limited form of democracy was sometimes instituted, but where it tended to break down into an oligarchy or mixed system of government over time. Future historians will see that the same exact things have already happened in the USA, at some point in our past. (Probably starting with FDR, but possibly far earlier.)

            I would even posit that Athens was not a democracy at all, but a timocracy, as only the wealthy yeomanry (warrior-farmers, see also the German Wehrbauer,) were afforded the vote, and as these people always constituted less, often far less, than 20% of the population.

            All wise men, throughout the ages and virtually without exception, from Plato’s time to Schopenhauer’s, have been critical of democracy and in favor of aristocratic rule. Are they wrong, and is the cult of democracy right? The answer is plain: No. Democracy is an inherently flawed system.

            As for miscegnation: People can marry whomever they like. (Note: My definition of marriage does not allow for homosexual “marriage,” nor for other deviant perversions.) The unsubtle and heavy-handed promotion of mixed-race couples in the media is, however, extremely distasteful. And the fact that our society is being overrun by third-worlders is, likewise, extremely distasteful.

            …But politicking isn’t going to fix that. The men of the alt-right are manufacturing battles for themselves, so that they can distract their minds from the fact that the system itself is broken beyond hope of repair.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Monarchy and aristocracy are the most stable forms of government.”

            Democracy, communism, monarchy, ALL have their flaws. Besides, countries are not stable because they have a monarchy, monarchies survive if countries are stable. They survive because there have not been the internal pressures to abolish them, or they have successfully adapted to those pressures in order to survive. These forms of government are NO different than today’s representative democracies–the monarch has to cope with cliques of relatives and outside pressures. Now, by dethroning the monarch, the entire administration is changed. Furthermore, as a general rule, old traditions and policies are maintained by successive royal generations, usually at the expense of the people.

            “They are also the ones which come most naturally to man.”

            You mean men succumbing to their treacherous nature? Absolutely.

            “All wise men, throughout the ages and virtually without exception, from Plato’s time to Schopenhauer’s, have been critical of democracy and in favor of aristocratic rule.”

            Are you an aristocrat? Is Jim? Is Mark Citadel? Do I have to bow down to you and kow tow to your whims? Warts and all, representative democracy has its roots firmly entrenched in dozens of nation-states. That form of government is NOT going anywhere.

            “The men of the alt-right are manufacturing battles for themselves, so that they can distract their minds from the fact that the system itself is broken beyond hope of repair.”

            The sweet smell of fatalism. Perhaps the intellectual elite here ought to actually put their measures into practice rather than put them down on paper. Or, YOU could actually do something about it locally.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Corvinus REALLY REALLY REALLY wants two things it seems:

            1) He wants us to say we’re aristocrats

            2) He wants someone to get shot

            Odd concerns for a troll.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “That’s projection on your part”

          Says the guy who finds goat fucking normal and sex with women repellent.

          • Corvinus says:

            Mr. Liar, I specifically stated I oppose “goat fucking”, “mother fucking”, and “sex outside of marriage”.

            http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-death-of-christianity/#comments

          • Red says:

            > According to God, abstinence is His policy when it comes to sex before marriage.

            I hear this a lot from cuckservitives. Problem is I can’t find any reference to it being god’s policy in the bible. The bible seems to be all about getting the kids married as soon possible and not letting them burn with passion in a state of abstinence for 10-15 years like modern cuckservitives seem to prefer.

            I have hard time taking cuckservitives like you seriously when it comes to sex when you allow divorced women in your churches and don’t protect your daughters from becoming whores.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Problem is I can’t find any reference to it being god’s policy in the bible.”

            Think about it for a moment. God would have no moral problem for single men…to have sex…with any woman…outside of marriage…by any means necessary? You are drunk with progressive stupidity.

            “Problem is I can’t find any reference to it being god’s policy in the bible.”

            Here is it again–The Bible undeniably condemns adultery and sexual immorality, which includes sex outside of marriage, regardless of gender. Corinthians 7:2–“But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” Paul specifies MARRIAGE is the “cure” for sexual immorality, and absolutely called men into question for attempting to “take advantage of unowned women wandering loose”. Once married, men and women are able to fulfill their passions in a moral way. According to God, abstinence is His policy when it comes to sex before marriage.

            ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matthew 19:4-5; quoting from Genesis 1:27, 2:24). Here, Scripture clearly states that sex is for marriage and marriage is for sex. Exclusively.

            “I have hard time taking cuckservitives…”

            A term that observably has no meaning.

            “like you seriously when it comes to sex when you allow divorced women in your churches…”

            or divorced men.

            “and don’t protect your daughters from becoming whores.”

            So, what are YOU doing about it? Do you agree with the methods employed by the Roissy’s and the Roosh’s of the world to enable men to do anything or everything to corrupt women? I thought men were inherently more moral than women. What gives?

            • jim says:

              Check the Old Testament on rape. Sexual misconduct is entirely treated as a violation of man’s property rights. If no property rights violation, no foul.

              No rule against having sex with a woman, consent or not. There is a rule against having her and dumping her, and a rule against her dumping you after you have had her. You have sex with her, you bought her.

              So if I have sex with a woman, and after a while she is not around any more, not my fault, unless I sent her away.

            • jim says:

              “I have hard time taking cuckservitives…”

              A term that observably has no meaning.

              Yet in this post I gave two definitions, both of them based on widespread common usage.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Don’t worry Red – he’s got a reference to a list that specifically intentionally doesn’t include “no sex with unmarried women” – in fact it specifically says

            “19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.”

            Note the missing part there “do not approach your wife” – nope, not there.

            In fact, if you read with any comprehension the list absolutely excludes his reading of it –

            “Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

            “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

            “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.”

            Three specific prohibitions on having relations with specific types of married women and there isn’t even a blanket prohibition on having sex with married women.

            Corvinus, of course, thinks that sex with unmarried women is so disgusting that it doesn’t even need to be specifically prohibited.

            On the other hand this is in the list:

            “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.”

            So, child sacrifice – had to specify that one.

            “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.”

            Yep, no goat fucking also.

            No mention in the list of “no sex with unmarried women”. Corvinus finds goat fucking so much more normal that he figures there has to be a specific rule against that but, nah, no rule necessary for “no sex with unmarried women”.

          • Corvinus says:

            “There is a rule against having her and dumping her, and a rule against her dumping you after you have had her. You have sex with her, you bought her.”

            By your own metrics, Roissy is immoral–he has bedded several women as a single man, but refused to marry them, yet you champion his causes. Hypocrite.**

            “both of them based on widespread common usage.”

            Among a small subset of the population.

            “No mention in the list of “no sex with unmarried women”. Corvinus finds goat fucking so much more normal…”

            It’s amazing how butt-hurt you really are. As I stated before, I oppose “goat fucking, mother fucking” and “sex outside of marriage”. Jim also opposes “sex outside of marriage”**.

            “once we statistically awaken enough of the silent majority with our memes, then we can go marching through the square, chanting one solution, reconstitution, what’s our action, neoreaction, with our best alpha male swagger, then climb on top of something we’re not supposed to and drape a flag with the coat of arms of donald trump.”

            I just spit up my morning coffee with this line. Are you truly that duped?

            • jim says:

              “There is a rule against having her and dumping her, and a rule against her dumping you after you have had her. You have sex with her, you bought her.”

              By your own metrics, Roissy is immoral–he has bedded several women as a single man, but refused to marry them, yet you champion his causes. Hypocrite.**

              While I have never been very successful with women, I have had Roissy’s experience of losing a hot girl because girlfriend shows up in the morning and finds me in bed with the hot girl. Then instead of agreeing to a threesome, the hot girl wants me to kick out the girlfriend, and when the girlfriend takes for granted that she is entitled to stick around, hot girl leaves. If she leaves because I will not mistreat regular girlfriend, she is the one in the wrong.

              When there are a few powerful men, and women are powerless, those men do not stick the hot chicks in a brothel and share them. Instead they divvy the chicks up amongst themselves. When women have all the sexual power, they stick themselves in a brothel and force the most attractive men to share them. They are always switching men trying to move up in his list of girls and get better treatment than his other girls. They wobble unpredictably between being number two on a hot man’s list, to being number seven on a really hot man’s list, and then back again to being number two on another hot man’s list, never realizing that they are never going to make it to number one unless they demonstrate virtue, fidelity, and obedience.

          • Corvinus says:

            “…never realizing that they are never going to make it to number one unless they demonstrate virtue, fidelity, and obedience.”

            Exactly the traits God commands Christian men and women, single or married. So your long-winded story was yet another diversion.

            • jim says:

              “…never realizing that they are never going to make it to number one unless they demonstrate virtue, fidelity, and obedience.”

              Exactly the traits God commands Christian men and women, single or married. So your long-winded story was yet another diversion.

              God’s concept of fidelity, as expressed in the old testament, allows a man to be faithful to several women at once, but not the converse.

              Of course, as B would point out, it is not easy, because each of them plays games to get you to behave badly to the other. And because Abraham could not keep the peace in his own household …

          • B says:

            I’ve been staying out of this one-as a Jew I have nothing to contribute to Christians debating about what the Torah says.

            But Jim mentioned me and I have a minute to kill.

            Steve, you might notice that the relevant passages do not explicitly forbid a father from having sex with his daughter. But they prohibit a grandfather from having sex with his granddaughter. Being a Jew, I know that the Torah is using the latter to tell us that the former is also prohibited, but I have no idea what the Christian exegesis is. In any case, that something is not explicitly forbidden doesn’t mean it’s not forbidden. One of the prophets writes that G-d will not punish unfaithful women whose husbands are also unfaithful to them.

            As for polygamy, the Torah permits polygamy and forbids polyandry. This is true. A wife is sanctified to her husband at marriage, not he to her, and she can’t be sanctified to another man simultaneously.

            At the same time, a man is absolutely, explicitly forbidden to reduce the food, shelter and sex he provides for one wife in favor of another. And if the wife had it written into the ketubah (the legal document of marriage) that the husband commits to not taking a second wife, he can’t take one. And the opinion is expressed in the Talmud that if the first wife, when the husband decides to take a second, doesn’t want it, she can claim her ketubah amount and get a divorce from him.

          • Corvinus says:

            “God’s concept of fidelity, as expressed in the old testament, allows a man to be faithful to several women at once, but not the converse.”

            Within the context of MARRIAGE. Are you always this obtuse?

            • jim says:

              In the old testament, marriage is just a man promising to stick with his women, and his women obligated to stick with their man. There is nothing magical about the ritual. The magic is in the promises.

          • Corvinus says:

            “In the old testament, marriage is just a man promising to stick with his women, and his women obligated to stick with their man. There is nothing magical about the ritual. The magic is in the promises.”

            And single men/women who have sex outside of that promise are committing sin in God’s eyes. You’re getting on the right track, even though it is taking you a long time to admit that you have been skirting the issue. God is watching you carefully.

            Again, if Roissy fucked your daughter, and refused to marry her, what would you do? He broke that promise, right?

      • jim says:

        Rectification of names. I keep repeating this. Respond to it. Rectification of names makes rational thought possible. It is the opposite of what progressives have been doing for two hundred years to silence rational thought.

        • Erebus says:

          That’s the only argument that makes sense. But it seems to me that this new portmanteau is, first and foremost, now being used as a political tool — as something to bludgeon the GOP with, something to “plant a seed in the minds of the uncommitted”. I believe very seriously in non-participation — I don’t believe that what passes for democracy is in any way legitimate, I make no appeal to any political party, nor to the demos, nor do I want to tacitly legitimize the institution of democracy by any word or deed — so this new meme doesn’t appeal to me.

          If it’s just about the rectification of names, we shouldn’t stop here. There are a few thousand more corrections that need to be made, starting with “liberal” and “democracy.” Where’s Ambrose Bierce when you need him, eh? (Speaking of which, his definition for “negro” is exactly relevant to the topic at hand.)

  5. Dystopia Max says:

    The word ‘cuck’ gets overused by those who remember how decent people used to live, love, and marry, but it doesn’t really have staying power due to most people not having used it in everyday conversation. There are no great recorded speeches in the national consciousness that used that word forcefully and descriptively, and it does not roll off the tongue in face-to-face conversation the way the one beginning with ‘F’ does.

    Duck should know, he did a whole “Return of Cucks” sub-Twitter project against Return of Kings, whose effectiveness was mostly a few laughs on his side but no lasting impact either way.

    Nobody with a sub-130 IQ knows enough about cuckoos, pronunciation, popular internet deviance or marital shame to speak the word properly and impactfully. Call that cuck the pitiful fucking faggot that he is, or make a joke about Lumburgh from Office Space, which people actually will remember and actually will give them the proper short form for the psychology of the GOP masters.

    • jim says:

      We don’t care about the sub 130s

    • Kudzu Bob says:

      Words with hard K sounds are inherently funny. Any professional comedian will tell you this.

    • Corvinus says:

      “We don’t care about the sub 130s”

      But “white is as white does”. Aren’t you betraying your brethren with that remark?

      • jim says:

        Stupids are not my brethren. That is the difference between us and Nazis. We are elitists, they are demotists.

        • Corvinus says:

          No, Jim, the Nazis were elitists just like yourself. Leave it to you to contort definitions to suit your narrative.

          Now, what happens to elitists, especially those consumed with power? They get destroyed.

  6. Mark Citadel says:

    Nrx should take ownership of the Cuckservative attack. Steal it from the dumbass neo-nazis and use it to forward a more rightist agenda. It would take two days to co-opt it and claim it was invented here.

    • jim says:

      Already done. If memetic cuckolding, then the term contains Nrx theory, and already being widely used in a manner that does not specifically invoke race replacement, hence memetic cuckolding, ideological replacement of conservatives. The nature of language means we own it already.

      It is an epithet. Will be used in a non racial manner. If used in a non racial manner, implies Nrx theory of memetic selection, and Nrx theory of inner and outer party.

    • Corvinus says:

      Great, more philosophic posturing. How about putting forth your ideas in a physical rather than a metaphysical manner. Just once, for shits and giggles, try it out now, rather than waiting for that magical, futuristic event known as “the reboot”.

  7. scientism says:

    I agree. “Cuckservative” captures a core NRx idea in a word. Furthermore, I doubt most people (including those being targeted) immediately associate it with pornography or race, but they understand the concept based on the ordinary usage of the word and in a sense close to the innerparty/outerparty distinction. It points to the role of the conservative relative to the Leftist (who’s getting the action). Moreover, the response of conservatives who have been targeted by this meme has been to employ Leftist inanities in their defence, which just makes the meme stick more. As I put it on Twitter: “Calling out a cuckservative is putting them in a Chinese finger trap. They try to cuck to escape, but that only makes the meme tighten.”

    • R7_Rocket says:

      As I put it on Twitter: “Calling out a cuckservative is putting them in a Chinese finger trap. They try to cuck to escape, but that only makes the meme tighten.”

      +1

    • jim says:

      Although originally created by white nationalists to refer to race replacement, the shape of the word gives no hint of that. Instead the shape of the word implies the neoreactionary theory, that conservatives are ideologically owned by leftists, the outer party to the left wing inner party, and the white nationalist ends up using it in a neoreactionary fashion.

  8. Zach says:

    Obviously Jeb Bush.

  9. Just sayin' says:

    Cuckservative isn’t a stormfront meme, it’s a /pol meme.

    So, incidentally a white nationalist meme, but primarily an internet edgelord meme. (Not a NRX meme because edgelords can’t associate with something as tame and discredited as NRX)

    As such, it is safe to assume that the term was never exclusively racial, but always referred to the tendency of the GOP to “cuck” for the left on virtually everything except tax cuts and war for Israel.

    Standing astride history yelling “I’m not homophobic” being an obvious, non racial example.

    The great thing about the cuck meme is that it hits each individual in their weak spot, wherever their inner cuck is.

    People over at Xenosystems don’t like it and see it as a race-meme because… that place is a vile nest of race-cucks, species-cucks and worst of all, christcucks.

    But it’s not like the GOP is only worthless on race. It’s worthless on everything. Not an opposition party, just the outer party.

  10. Crow T. Robot says:

    Don’t pay too much attention to Corvinus. He usually trolls Unz.com about how Australian Abos practiced the good kind of cannibalism and other darkie apologetics.

  11. […] roundup on #cuckervative. The “dispute” as it were makes TNR. Jim takes a stab at Defining cuckservative. And Dante comments on THE UNBEARABLE FAGGOTRY OF ERICK […]

  12. Hidden Author says:

    You guys take your newly-minted word cuckservative and run with it into a degenerate, immature dick-measuring contest. Truly you are natural aristocrats who know how society should be governed in all things, especially matters sexual. Given your obsession with cock and hatred of women who do not conform to your will, are you guys sure that you are not closeted, repressed little homos?

    • jim says:

      You cannot deny that there is something unmanly about cringing before one’s enemies in shame, while selling out one’s supporters. Which the sexual and reproductive implications of the word capture perfectly.

      Recall “the knights who say ni” Cuckservatives cringe before the knights who say “racist”. Calling them cucks aptly captures their humiliating lack of masculinity.

      • Hidden Author says:

        And the GOP with all its power, power that far outweighs yours, must defer to fringe bloggers…or else they will punish the GOP by taunting it? Great strategy, bro!

        • jim says:

          The GOP is absolutely impotent and powerless.

          No one expects the GOP to do anything but serve the left, but it is good to be able to laugh when it does so.

          To claim the GOP has power is to deny that it is the outer party, while the word “cuckservative” implies that it is the outer party, thus impotent and continually humiliated and degraded.

          • Hidden Author says:

            And yet George W. Bush still had more power than Jim Donald even though your words are largely true. What does that say about your standing to taunt ANYONE?

            No one has cuckolded me, whether metaphorically or literally.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Are you white? Supposedly you care because the GOP is being cuckolded not just itself but also has the white people it represents get a cuckolding.

        • peppermint says:

          the GOP has seats in Congress. Power means the ability to direct all the young people in the country to go to college and learn that Whites are evil, the ability to direct anyone who employs more than a handful of people to hire a quota of niggers and women to serve as informants, and the ability to secure a pardon for a “dual citizen” who gave classified information to his actual country.

          The GOP are cucks since at least the ’90s when Newt Gingrich promised to end affirmative action, then decided that affirmative action was in line with his principles of cucktianity (that somehow permitted him to put away three wives).

  13. […] Henceforth, as my repentance, I will hew to the law according to Jim, Chief Inquisitor of the Neoreaction: […]

  14. Jean Valjean says:

    Race is a side issue. If the world were 100% white the left would still be trying to replace the useful fraction of whites with the lowest IQ, highest time preference coherent group of whites they could find. Similarly, leftists would not allow East Asian STEM graduates to replace whites and have happily lumped such people in with whites without justifying or commenting on it at all in their recent bid to destroy the tech industry.

    The left’s programme is to promote uselessness over usefulness, criminality over peaceability, vulgarity over conscientiousness. They do not actually care about the race of who possesses those traits, they just notice that the former traits are more common among blacks and browns and the latter among yellows and whites. Immigration only lets them speed up a processes they are successfully driving within the white and Asian races on an intergeneration timescale anyway, via policies that promote dysgenic.reproduction.

    Defeating immigration is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of victory.

  15. Sam Hyde says:

    Politic have degenerated into a 4Chan thread where people scream “Muh dick is bigger than yours at their adversaries. Kill me

Leave a Reply