Neocohens: If You Want To Destroy The Cuckservative Movement

I’m reading this over at Commentary Magazineand I am like, wow, THIS. IS. ME.

“If you wanted to destroy conservatism – not merely to shatter the Republican Party’s governing coalition, but to break up and discredit the conservative movement itself – how would you go about it? …

Then, you might undermine the central hypothesis at the core of the American experiment itself: that all the peoples of the world can unite, not around tribal affinity or class associations, but around an idea. The idea, that mankind is fit for self-governance, and that it need not look toward a ruling caste of elites to manage national affairs. You might expose the central divisions within conservatism by exacerbating internal disagreements over the execution of American foreign policy objectives. You might pervert an honest and healthy debate about the extent of American power, about its goals, its alliance structures, and about nation building abroad, and you would reveal that a substantial subset of voters on all sides of that issue believe the premise is flawed. You might suggest that the value of Fortress America is not merely the preservation of American security, but of meting out a sort of cosmic justice for those born into poverty, authoritarianism, and savagery abroad. Maybe those poor souls deserve their Hobbesian lot, you’d imply strongly. And the crowds would cheer. …

The curious subset to whom you have appealed would demonstrate their antipathy for basic conservative programs like small government, a private health care system, a reduced tax burden on the most productive sectors of society, frugality, and the moral imperative of bequeathing unto the next generation a manageable debt burden. You would marry class and racial suspicion with a program that promises even more unsustainable benefits, for which children not yet born will pay. …

Finally, you would destroy the conservative movement’s last pillars of unity: its common media. You would pit its intellectual leaders against its most captivating orators. “Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal,” one of conservatism’s beloved communicators might say. You would succeed where the most divisive presidential administration in living memory failed and target the only bastion of true conservative thought on the cable dial. You and your supporters would make allies of those who do not have the conservative movement’s best wishes at heart, while turning your supporters against those who do.”

If you can’t access the article, clean out your cache and refresh. You should also check out this new article on the strength of the budding populist movement which Rothman frets about in the piece above.

About Hunter Wallace 11771 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

21 Comments

  1. Then, you might undermine the central hypothesis at the core of the American experiment itself: that all the peoples of the world can unite, not around tribal affinity or class associations, but around an idea. The idea, that mankind is fit for self-governance, and that it need not look toward a ruling caste of elites to manage national affairs.

    Though it ended up that way, the actual founders of this “experiment” weren’t thinking in those terms, and certainly didn’t agree with this logic, hence the first American immigration law which was explicitly race-based.

      • It’s an essential thesis of the Gettysburg address, and Honest Abe was willing to murder millions to prove his point.

        It was also central to the Declaration and they were also in a mood to kill or be killed over it. It would be inaccurate to say that the Founders were unanimous on racial equality, many did not accept it on empirical grounds, others felt it was a question for another day. But they certainly were wrestling with the question even at that time.

        Given the preeminence of the US militarily and economically, and other signs such as the most far flung and active space program among other technical marvels; it can by no means be called a failure – but it has run its course.

        The fissures in our country are to wide and scarred over to heal. Divided in soul, a division in body is inevitable and necessary.

    • “The idea, that mankind is fit for self-governance”

      I respond:

      Any time you hear liberals, libertarians, neo Conservatives, Judeo X’tians start talking about “mankind”, “the world” – just end the conversation and put up your fists.

      There is no “mankind” there is no “the world” – that’s John Lennon and Yoko Ono spreading the nonsense of “Imagine – and the world will live as one”.

      OK, so the entire world can become as one an move to Central Park West in Manhattan New York City and stay in John Lennon’s posh pad – maybe some Libertarian theory with some Judeo X’tian church denomination can make it all work. No they can’t.

      This #$*$U*@ “THE WORLD” #*($@ was with us since the start of our country in the Masonic Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal”. Yeah Tommy Jefferson, everyone in the entire #*$@ world is equal.

      You’re a slave owner you F(*(())) idiot.

      • It’s doubtful that Jefferson truly considered his black slaves to be genuinely human, or at least not human enough to be able to get in on the egalitarian “promise.”

        It sure worked out that way in the long run, though.

  2. Neocohenism is catchy and more PC than Kikeservative and Cuckservative, but what term would capture the subversive streak of undermining and perverting the Conservative movement to an open-borders, pro-Israel policy ? ‘Kosher Conservatism’ or ‘Kosher Faux Conservatism’

  3. The idea, that mankind is fit for self-governance, and that it need not look toward a ruling caste of elites to manage national affairs.

    No, there is no (((ruling caste of elites))) in America, no sir.

  4. Sir, today saw the passing of a patriot : LaVoy Finicum, he killed by the Yankee government, for his beliefs that our lands belong to us, and not to an unconstitutional and tyrannical government.

    My prayers go out to his family, and my deepest thanks to him, for showing me that there are still men yearning to breathe free in this land.

    • I saw it last night.

      I was debating earlier whether to say anything about it. I wonder … if it was someone like us on the receiving end of federal fire power, would these patriot types be rallying to our side?

      • I would say yes. Almost all of the patriot types I have met are race realists, many supported Randy Weaver. There are a few that subscribe to paint job theory but they are mostly yankees or from west of the rockies and have had zero real world experience with negroes to open their eyes. Those few that are vocal are taking a beating online in the patriot blogs and forums from those who can see, and those who are waking up.

      • Sir,
        I think the answer to that is in the magnitude. If an incident involving Southern Nationalists were minute of magnitude, then, just like all other ‘odd out shooting episodes’, it would be handled by the nation as just another blip on the news screen.

        If, on the other hand, it were larger – involving scores, perhaps hundreds of people, and on a scenario that could readily be graspt by the average mind as vividly unjust oppression, then just as plenty rallied to the Bundy Ranch, last year, others would rally to our side.

        I think timing is key, too, Sir. Patriots who act out of steps with a general community sense, or do something reprehensible, in the name of justice, like McVeigh, are going to cause much more harm than good – not just to the political direction of the South – but, morally.

        Lastly, I think that showing solidarity for all those who are trying to keep the Bolshevik nightmare from consuming this country, is important.

        Picking apart a person’s motives for his patriotism is not helpful, but, to appreciate that there still are people with enough ethical wherewithal to think and act in a manner wholly in accord with our forefathers.

        At the rate this country is devolving, Finicum is the tip of the iceberg – A John Brown for the ‘right’.

        That is my view. Do you think along similar lines?

      • One more thing, Sir – the Yankee government is all about force. They are ready for it, from every direction.

        What they are much less prepared to deal with is peaceful non-cooperation and focused, yet unarmed, activism.

        The motion of the spirit is much harder to regulate than the motion of the body.

        • The current US gov. and security establishment is very, very heavily composed of Southern Christian white men.

          • Yes, – sadly you are probably right that they were born in The South. That they think of themselves as truly Southern, or Christian, for that matter, only The Lord knows. Certainly I do not.

            Thank you for your thoughts.

  5. Self government is only possible for a few people, yes I do believe that. Elite leadership is essential for society, the trouble is that our elites are debauched. We are at that unlucky point in the cycle of history when a new elite will have to wrest power from the old in order to restore virtue. It’s never pain free to do that.

  6. “You might suggest that the value of Fortress America is not merely the preservation of American security, but of meting out a sort of cosmic justice for those born into poverty, authoritarianism, and savagery abroad. Maybe those poor souls deserve their Hobbesian lot, you’d imply strongly. And the crowds would cheer.”

    It has nothing to do with whether they deserve or do not deserve their lot. We simply prize our own people over foreign peoples and do not feel compelled to rectify their situation. Best of luck to them, but their problems should not become our problems.

  7. “Then, you might undermine the central hypothesis at the core of the American experiment itself: that all the peoples of the world can unite, not around tribal affinity or class associations, but around an idea.” – the hill conservatism chooses to die on: mohammed’s unlimited right to come here, as expressed nowhere in the constitution.

    “but of meting out a sort of cosmic justice for those born into poverty, authoritarianism, and savagery abroad. Maybe those poor souls deserve their Hobbesian lot, you’d imply strongly.” – instead we apparently deserve it.

    “You would marry class and racial suspicion with a program that promises even more unsustainable benefits” – If we absolutely must spend the money, let us spend it on us and not the foreigners.

    “The idea, that mankind is fit for self-governance, and that it need not look toward a ruling caste of elites to manage national affairs.” – says mr high priest.

Comments are closed.