Reading List: Cuckservative
Red Eagle, John and Vox Day [Theodore Beale]. Cuckservative.
Kouvola, Finland: Castalia House, 2015. ASIN B018ZHHA52.
Yes, I
have read it. So read me out of the polite genteel “conservative” movement. But
thenI am not a conservative.
Further, I enjoyed it. The authors say things forthrightly
that many people think and maybe express in confidence to their like-minded
friends, but reflexively cringe upon even hearing in public. Even more damning,
I found it enlightening on a number of topics, and I believe that anybody who
reads it dispassionately is likely to find it the same. And finally, I am
reviewing it. I have reviewed (or noted) every
book I have read since January of 2001. Should I exclude this one because it makes some people
uncomfortable? I exist to make people uncomfortable. And so,
onward….
The authors have been
called “racists”, which is rather odd since both are of Native American
ancestry and Vox Day also has Mexican ancestors. Those who believe ancestry
determines all will have to come to terms with the fact that these authors defend the values
which largely English settlers brought to America, and were the foundation of
American culture until it all began to come apart in the 1960s.
In the view of the
authors, as explained in chapter 4, the modern conservative movement in the
U.S. dates from the 1950s. Before that time both the Democrat and Republican
parties contained politicians and espoused policies which were both
conservative and progressive (with the latter word used in the modern sense),
often with regional differences. Starting with the progressive era early in the
20th century and dramatically accelerating during the New Deal, the consensus
in both parties was centre-left liberalism (with “liberal” defined in the
corrupt way it is used in the U.S.): a belief in a strong central government,
social welfare programs, and active intervention in the economy. This view was
largely shared by Democrat and Republican leaders, many of whom came from the
same patrician class in the Northeast. At its outset, the new conservative
movement, with intellectual leaders such as Russell Kirk and advocates like
William F. Buckley, Jr., was outside the mainstream of both parties, but more
closely aligned with the Republicans due to their wariness of big government. (But
note that the Eisenhower administration made no attempt to roll back the New
Deal, and thus effectively ratified it.)
They argue that since the new conservative movement was a
coalition of disparate groups such as libertarians, isolationists,
southern agrarians, as well as ex-Trotskyites and former Communists, it was an
uneasy alliance, and in forging it Buckley and others believed it was essential that the movement be seen as
socially respectable. This led to a pattern of conservatives ostracising those
who they feared might call down the scorn of the mainstream press upon them.
In 1957, a devastating review of Atlas Shrugged by
Whittaker Chambers marked the break with Ayn
Rand's Objectivists,
and in 1962 Buckley denounced the John Birch Society and
read it out of the conservative movement. This established a pattern which
continues to the present day: when an individual or group is seen as
sufficiently radical that they might damage the image of conservatism as
defined by the New York and Washington magazines and think tanks, they are
unceremoniously purged and forced to find a new home in institutions viewed
with disdain by the cultured intelligentsia. As the authors note, this is the
exact opposite of the behaviour of the Left, which fiercely defends its most
radical extremists. Today's Libertarian Party largely
exists because its founders were purged from conservatism in the 1970s.
The search for
respectability and the patient construction of conservative institutions were
successful in aligning the Republican party with the new conservatism. This
first manifested itself in the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Following
his disastrous defeat, conservatives continued their work, culminating in the
election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. But even then, and in the years that followed, including congressional
triumphs in 1994, 2010, and 2014, Republicans continued to behave as a minority
party: acting only to slow the rate of growth of the Left's agenda rather than
roll it back and enact their own. In the words of the authors, they are
“calling for the same thing as the left, but less of it and twenty years
later”.
The authors call these
Republicans “cuckservative” or “cuck” for short. The word is a portmanteau of
“cuckold” and “conservative”. “Cuckold” dates back to a.d. 1250, and means the husband of
an unfaithful wife, or a weak and ineffectual man. Voters who elect these so-called conservatives are
cuckolded by them, as through their fecklessness and willingness to go along
with the Left, they bring into being and support the collectivist agenda which
they were elected to halt and roll back. I find nothing offensive in the
definition of this word, but I don't like how it sounds—in part
because it rhymes with an obscenity which has become an all-purpose word in the
vocabulary of the Left and, increasingly, the young. Using the word induces a
blind rage in some of those to whom it is applied, which may be its principal
merit.
But this book, despite
bearing it as a title, is not about the word: only three pages are devoted to
defining it. The bulk of the text is devoted to what the authors believe are
the central issues facing the U.S. at present and an examination of how those calling themselves
conservatives have ignored, compromised away, or sold out the interests of
their constituents on each of these issues, including immigration and
the consequences of a change in demographics toward those with no experience of
the rule of law, the consequences of mass immigration on workers in domestic
industries, globalisation and the flight of industries toward low-wage
countries, how immigration has caused other societies in history to lose their
countries, and how mainstream Christianity has been subverted by the social
justice agenda and become an ally of the Left at the same time its pews are
emptying in favour of evangelical denominations. There is extensive background
information about the history of immigration in the United States, the bizarre
“Magic Dirt”
theory (that, for example, transplanting a Mexican community across the border
will, simply by changing its location, transform its residents, in time, into
Americans or, conversely, that “blighted neighbourhoods” are so because there's
something about the dirt [or buildings] rather than the behaviour of those who
inhabit them), and the overwhelming and growing scientific evidence for human
biodiversity and the coming crack-up of the “blank slate” dogma. If the Left
continues to tighten its grip upon the academy, we can expect to see research
in this area be attacked as dissent from the party line on climate science is
today.
This is an excellent
book: well written, argued, and documented. For those who have been following
these issues over the years and observed the evolution of the conservative
movement over the decades, there may not be much here that's new, but it's all
tied up into one coherent package. For the less engaged who've just assumed
that by voting for Republicans they were advancing the conservative cause, this
may prove a revelation. If you're looking to find racism, white supremacy,
fascism, authoritarianism, or any of the other epithets hurled against the
dissident right, you won't find them here unless, as the Left does, you define
the citation of well-documented facts as those things. What you will find is two authors who love America
and believe that American policy should put the interests of Americans before
those of others, and that politicians elected by Americans should be expected
to act in their interest. If politicians call themselves “conservatives”, they
should act to conserve what is great about America, not compromise it away in
an attempt to, at best, delay the date their constituents are delivered into
penury and serfdom.
You may have to read
this book being careful nobody looks over your shoulder to see what you're
reading. You may have to never admit you've read it. You may have to hold your
peace when somebody goes on a rant about the “alt-right”. But read it, and
judge for yourself. If you believe the facts cited are wrong, do the research,
refute them with evidence, and publish a response (under a pseudonym, if you
must). But before you reject it based upon what you've heard, read it—it's only
five bucks—and make up your own mind. That's what free citizens do.
As I have come to expect
in publications from Castalia House, the production values are superb. There
are only a few (I found just three) copy editing errors. At present the book is
available only in Kindle and Audible audiobook editions.
