Cuckservatives: Donald Trump Isn’t a “True Conservative”

National Review has published a collective editorial and a 21 contributor symposium that slams Donald Trump for not being a “true conservative”:

“Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones. …

Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.”

Trump is a “menace” to American conservatism and would “take the work of generations and trample it underfoot” on the behalf of a crude “free-floating” populism. As Rich Lowry made crystal clear in an editorial at Politico yesterday, the only use that the “mainstream” conservative movement has for populism is when it is “tethered to, and in the service of, an ideology of limited-government constitutionalism.”

The key phrases are “free-floating” and “tethered.” National Review is more than happy to whip up a populist frenzy and mine popular grievances – just browse the Kat Timpf archive – so long as the resentment can be minted into political currency in service of the “ideology of limited-government constitutionalism.” The goal is to exploit popular grievances in order to advance the economic agenda of the donor class. Trump is “a menace to American conservatism,” which is nothing more than a scam, because he isn’t a puppet and is free to deliver the goods “conservative” voters really want.

What, exactly, is the ideology of “limited-government constitutionalism” anyway? It is shorthand for the donor class consensus on low taxes, deregulation, free-trade, campaign finance, busting unions, and gutting social programs like Medicare and Social Security. It means using electoral victories to cut Miley Cyrus’s taxes and make Wall Street hedge fund managers happy, not to do anything for White working class voters. It means getting “big government” off the back of the US Chamber of Commerce.

Where is this concern for “limited-government constitutionalism” over US membership in the WTO? How can you simultaneously support “limited-government constitutionalism” and NATO, NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership? The same people who are allegedly for “limited-government constitutionalism” supported spending trillions of dollars to build democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and giving globalist tribunals control over American trade policy. They are happy to engage in saber-rattling over the borders of Ukraine, Georgia, or China’s activity in the South China Sea. They carry forth about Trump’s offensiveness to the US Constitution which gives the US Congress, not the WTO, the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” They hardly bat an eye when Chris Christie threatens to invade Syria, shoot down Russian planes, and start World War III. They support Marco Rubio who calls Edward Snowden a traitor for exposing the NSA.

For generations, these “true conservatives” and their counterparts abroad have labored to build what President George H.W. Bush called the “New World Order”: an American-led world united under the paradigm of liberal capitalist democracy, governed by globalist institutions, policed by the US military, where capital and labor moves freely across international borders, and annoying regulations and obstacles to trade and investment have been eliminated. This is the vision that was endorsed by Heidi Cruz in the Council on Foreign Relations report “Building a North American Community.”

Among other things, these “true conservatives” at National Review don’t really care about America’s moral decline, political correctness, outrages like abortion and gay marriage, the millions of illegal aliens here, the mosque down the street, the jihadist living next door, racial double standards, the cultural cleansing of the South, etc. That’s why they are constantly counter-signaling online – it has become a running joke on Twitter – about all the rubes, yokels, and rednecks who support the Republican Party and who they find embarrassing. They are forced by necessity to dog-whistle on these issues to turn out their uncouth supporters in elections.

In the United States and Western Europe, the great enemy of the “true conservatives” are populists and nationalists. In France, the “true conservatives” recently joined forces with the socialists in order to stop the National Front from winning in the regional elections there. In the UK, the Tories who are the “true conservatives” imposed gay marriage on that country. In Germany, the “true conservatives” who are led by Angela Merkel have let over a million Third World refugees into the country and prosecute those who speak out against this for the crimes of “racism” and “Islamophobia.”

Sam Francis was right: we need to stop pretending we are “true conservatives” or that we have anything in common with these bow-tied, low-T clowns. We don’t support the “conservative agenda” as articulated by National Review. We are populists and nationalists, which means we are “tethered” to the well-being of our own people and protecting and advancing their interests, not some stupid abstract ideology.

About Hunter Wallace 11755 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

48 Comments

  1. This absurd NR screed is the crie de coeur of the Treacherous, Greedy Cuck Class. It’d their death rattle.

    • It may well be their death rattle in this incarnation, Miss Denise, but, if that is so, the greedy treacherous cuck-class will re-organize and take a new form.

      They won’t go away. Just look at Jeb Bush ; he, in spite of how wretched his campaign is rightfully perceived to be, is moving up the polls, and is now 3rd in New Hampshire.

  2. The only way the neocohens have held their power this long is by having big money backing, dog whistling, and gate-keeping anyone from rising above them. Trump easily overcame those obstacles.

    Pat Buchanan was also right that the fruits of their labor are here – right now to see. Their record is horrendous so when they talk about “the work of generations” the people can look around at their home towns, counties and states and know exactly what that “work” produced.

    • Ulfric, I like your analysis, but, I do not think Trump can overcome the shadow globalist government with ease.

      If he threatens them, it is reasonable to think that they will do whatever to rub him out.

        • Yes, M’am. I think that a lot of people have very big expectations of Mr. Trump, and, being as middle-aged as I am, I am wary for them that, if he were elected, their brief pleasure would be followed by some heavy disappointment.

          I once did all the dyeing and finishing for a wonderful Yankee furniture maker. He and I made many many trips to Manhatten and dealt with every kind of architectural and interior design firm – and let me tell you this, Lady : only a few were honourable – the rest either out-n-out thieves or masters of the smoke & mirrors it took to get you cornered where they could skin you in a manner that skirted in between the law.

          Mr. Trump seems to be an honourable man who has a proven track record of being master negotiator – BUT, is he a revolutionary?

  3. What bothers me about Mr. Trump is NOT that he is ‘not a true conservative’, but, that he is hardly conservative, if at all.

    Moreover, I think Mr. Trump has an autocratick personality with little respect for any limits – The Constitution included.

    Further, he has no political track record. Like Ross Perot, he is a fearsome iconoclast prepared to speak the truth, BUT, can he rule?

    That said, I think he is a patriot, a strong and savvy person who does care for the Average Joe, and is prepared to examine the things that are problematick to us.

    Thus, if Ted Cruz does not win the nomination, this Confederate will vote for the Yankee.

    • That’s what we like about Trump.

      Clearly, he’s not a “true conservative,” which means he isn’t ideologically committed to open borders, free-trade, deregulation, the wealthy using campaign contributions to corrupt the political system, tax cuts for the wealthy, busting unions, gutting popular social programs – the economic agenda that has devastated the working class and middle class since the 1970s – nor is he committed to maintaining the US-led international world order and utopian democracy crusades overseas, which embroils us in neverending wars that cost trillions of dollars.

      Every single one of these “true conservatives” who bash Trump kowtow to political correctness. Cruz, for example, issued that absurd proclamation celebrating MLK Day just the other day. Also, if Cruz won, it would have no domino effect on Europe, whereas if Trump won, the other “true conservative” regimes in Europe – Merkel in Germany, Cameron in the UK are two examples – might fall to their nationalist challengers.

      • I understand, Sir – but, to me, it seems like you are giving attributes of the barely conservative to the ‘true conservative’.

        As I see a ‘true conservative’, he values The Constitution, and, in it, it charges the central government with the defence of the people (protecting the borders) and, as well, to levy tariffs on imports, should they be positioned to undermine American industry.

        Clearly the modern Republican Party, which is supposedly ‘conservative’, has workt even harder than the Democrats in abdicating this responsibility.

        Furthermore, a true conservative is the antithesis of the launching of endless foreign wars – but, to the contrary opposes all such adventures.

        To my mind, ‘American-Firsters’, were examples of ‘true conservatives’ ,at least, let us say, in their attitude towards foreign policy.

        So, I suppose this discrepancy in descriptives varies person to person. I can only assume that the semantick is the issue, as you and I agree on most everything in our aspirations for The South, yet, feel a bit differently about these two candidates.

        Concerning your notion of ‘a would-be domino affect’ a Trump election would bring about, it’s a very interesting point, over which I have given no consideration.

        Certainly you are more expert at these matters, and, for that reason, I defer to you in this.

        Thank you for your interesting thoughts.

        • Dear fellow Confederate, Canada is north of Manhattan.

          Seriously, Cruz is owned just like the rest of them, minus the Donald. We’ve fallen for this “true conservative” rhetoric for decades (it really is only rhetoric) and look where it’s gotten us. Take conservative hero Reagan. First amnesty bill, MLK holiday, etc.

          We’re fed up with Conservatism Inc. and intend to literally obliterate it, that it may be replaced by REAL opposition.

        • In the United States, the term “conservative” means neo-liberal in economics and Wilsonian in foreign policy. It is highly misleading because the term implies the exact opposite of its substance.

          • My Lord, if that is the case, I am, and, indeed, have been way off base. What non-Confederate conventional term do we have for someone such as myself, who values Constitutional restraints on central government and States’s Rights?

          • I see. No, I forgot all about that because those were pre-internet days and I was much less well informed.

            In those days, Sir, I rooted for Pat Buchanan and had to settle for whatever crumbs we would get on his campaign from Chris Matthews’s ‘Hardball’ on MSNBC…

            So then, I am left to assume that ‘The National Review’ is merely a press outlet for the international oligarchy which has robbed this country blind, in recent decades.

  4. ‘would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP’ that the GOP Establishment ignores in a daily basis.

  5. We have to crush the bankers and close down the Federal reserve. It’d be real easy to do. All you have to do is get more and more of your goods and services from White people. Barter your services and goods for theirs. These fake money clowns can choke on their debts. Without White people using their worthless monopoly money these bankers will go belly up broke quick.
    Little Jebbie and his Motel Six family will have to clean toilets and mop floors without their rich donors at the fake monopoly money bank.

  6. Come the Revolution, these commenters will be rounded up…. And, well, y’all know the rest. Traitors to a nation deserve no mercy.
    It’s merely applying the Jewish Bolshevik playbook to the truly guilty….

    God is not mocked. And neither is the Trump Train. “Take the work of generations (of Jewish Bolshies) and trample it underfoot (You shall bruise his head) in behalf of… Populism….”
    What? You cucks don’t believe in the “Will of the People is as the will of God”?

    Are you even Americans, or merely shabbas goyim for the Jews, all of you?

    Trump is the man chosen by Destiny. You cannot stop him.
    Do not touch the Lord’s annointed.

    He is seeking to restore that most precious gift once envied by all who were not Americans- freedom from OUTSIDE controls.

    “For if the Son of God shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” Cf. John 8:36

    Trump is doing the WILL OF GOD.

  7. NRO just got booted from co-hosting the next debate. We are winning. Yes it’s going to be a long hard slog to remove the fangs of these vampyres from our throats – but we are WINNING. FORWARD!

    • Keep sharing the gospel with every one you meet, M’am. If an information war is what this is, then let us win it that way.

  8. William F. Buckley was never a true conservative in the first place. National Review has always been a shill for the military-industrial imperialists of America’s “Deep State.” From Eisenhower’s CIA director Allen Dulles all the way through to Obama’s “national security” hawks Susan Rice and Victoria Nuland it has been neocon foreign policy all the way down.

  9. National Review cucks lie about what Trump said in speech to Iowans to discredit him. Trump was speaking about what (they) pollsters have said about his supporters.

    ‘Donald Trump suggested Saturday his supporters will vote for him regardless of what he says or does. Speaking at a campaign rally in Sioux City, Iowa, Trump highlighted polls showing “68 or 69 percent” of his fans have committed to his candidacy. “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” Trump told the crowd. “It’s like, incredible.?”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430230/trump-i-could-stand-middle-5th-ave-and-shoot-somebody-and-not-support

Comments are closed.