Cuckservatives: Tucker Carlson Admits Conservatism, Inc. Is a Scam

In Politico Magazine, Tucker Carlson admits that Conservatism, Inc. is incapable of “conserving” so much as a tray of ice cubes, even after countless billions of dollars have been squandered on this racket for half a century now:

“Not everyone finds it funny. On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there’s never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he’s a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. Idi Amin would get a warmer reception in our dog park. …

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.

Pretty embarrassing. And yet they’re not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents “an existential threat to conservatism.”

Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal.”

BTW, if you haven’t already seen this, it explains a lot:

“Since the modern conservative movement emerged at the dawn of the Cold War, its leaders have had to navigate the tensions between populism and a more intellectual conservatism. Naturally, National Review, as a journal of conservative opinion, sought to defend the movement’s intellectual side. But the editors of National review were also pragmatists. The conservative movement was a very small thing in the 1950s. To wield political influence, it would have to fill its ranks with what National Review publisher Bill Rusher called “the simplistic Right,” a group, he argued, that comprised “the great bulk of our readership, of our support, and of the warm bodies available for us to lead in any desired direction.”

There was, then, from the beginning an uneasy coalition between the populists and ideologues in the conservative movement. The editors at National Review made their peace with populism except under two conditions: when they thought populist hardliners threatened conservatism’s credibility or its electoral prospects. …

Ohio GOP Sen. John Ashbrook made the case that Wallace was no conservative; columnist Frank Meyer went further, denying that anyone could be both a populist and a conservative. After all, he wrote, “populism is the radical opposite of conservatism.” …

The current battle between populists and ideologues has real consequences for both the conservative movement and the Republican Party. If it is to be a party at all, the GOP must at some point govern. But populist stars like Trump and Palin have shown little interest in that. Indeed, their lack of interest in governing is the essence of their appeal.”

National Review has columnists like Kat Timpf on staff whose sole function is to stoke populist outrage which can then be “tethered” (to use Rich Lowry’s terminology) to the advancement of “conservatism’s animating causes of liberty, limited government and the Constitution.” In other words, conservatives have to gin up outrage about various issues they don’t really care about in order get what Bill Rusher once called “the warm bodies available for us to lead in any desired direction.”

The “desired direction” which the “true conservatives” wish to lead us has always been the agenda of Big Business and the wealthy, which is to say, the tax cuts, deregulation, global free-trade, weakening the labor unions, gutting social programs, and foreign wars to maintain the US Empire. They have never cared about issues like the Confederate flag, gay marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, affirmative action, political correctness, and so on, which is why they are always counter-signaling against their gauche voters.

In spite of their cynical rhetorical posturing, “true conservatives” don’t care about “liberty” or “limited government” or the “Constitution” either … the Constitution gives Congress, not the WTO, the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” It gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. It certainly doesn’t authorize the NSA’s systematic invasion of privacy. The “true conservatives” hated Ron Paul when he ran on defending the Constitution in 2008 and 2012.

“Conservatism” isn’t a principled ideology. It effectively means “whatever makes the donors happy.” The donors want open borders, free trade, and foreign wars, which is what “conservatism” has delivered for half a century. They want to be culturally respectable too, which is why causes like traditional marriage are so easily tossed aside, but the top marginal income tax rate is half of what it was in 1980.

“Deriding Trump is an act of class solidarity, visible evidence of refinement and proof that you live nowhere near a Wal-Mart.”

This is so obviously true it ought not need to be stated. The same people who spend all day on Twitter deriding Trump as a “short-fingered vulgarian” had no problem with W.’s act which was fine so long as they got the tax cuts, open borders, and foreign wars:

About Hunter Wallace 12390 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Sir, After the debate Fox pollster, Frank Luntz, had a control group. They, almost to a won, thought Rubio had won the debate and had decided to vote for him.

    I wish I was not so old, because, when I saw them hands raise up, I immediately smellt a rat, asking myself the question : who wants Rubio to be the candidate?

    The Republican establishment, whispered a little voice in me.

    Then I askt : why do they want him to win?

    Because polls show he can win, a little voice whispered; and, despite the Florida Senator’s often charismatick rhetorick, his record show that he would carry on business as usual.

    For all their efforts, the pundits, they have not changed my posture. I have listened and I have read.

    I will vote for Cruz, but, if Trump is the nominee, I will vote for him.

    If neither of the two are the nominee, I will vote for Hillary Clinton, because she will do the most for southern Secession…

    Such is the political life of a Southerner Nationalist, wading in the waters of the Federal election waters…

      • I didn’t watch. I watched an excellent movie, about the {{{ French Revolution }}} called “The Black Book”.

        • A wise choice, M’am, because the debate was not illuminating.

          The next couple of weeks will show : is Mr. Trump inevitable, as he seems to be, or will something else weird happen?

      • I think you’re right, Sir. It does NOT look good for Cruz in Iowa, right now, and, thus, the entire nomination fight.

        The debate hurt Cruz on one level, because Megen Kelly exposed his one great weakness – the shift he made on immigration that he won’t acknowledge.

        At this point, I can see nothing, but the unpredictability of
        this year, standing in the way of Mr. Trump gaining the nomination.

      • I watched Trump’s live event, which was more entertaining than the debate despite some dead air time. I saw the debate on my DVR later and fast forwarded through much of it becuase it was just so boring. Cruz was truly awful without Trump as a foil. The best performance of the night was Rand Paul.

        The best part of the whole night for me was watching Fox News and, by extension, Conservatism Inc. falling on their swords. They’re dying and they don’t even know it.

      • Mr. Lyonet – I sincerely doubt Miss Hillary will be elected. Her campaign is quite weak, for someone receiving the entire Democrat party establishment apparatus support.

        But, okay : let’s say she does win.

        I can only tell you what I told someone dear to me, when they pondered if we ought move, in the event of a furtherance of a socialist-globalist dominion of the Yankee government … ‘I am not leaving my country, North Carolina. I will continue to everything legally and ethically possible to encourage my fellows Tarheels to wake up to the fact that there is nothing but endless usurpation, disenfranchisement, diminishment, and oppression in any union with those who are not we, and to support any and all Americans who believe in constitutionalism, state’s rights and or secession.

        In any case, I will live out my days where The Lord has blesst me to be : amidst the endless Carolina pine and cedar forests, in the midst of those who believe in traditional Conservative, Southron & God-fearing Christian ways.

        Would you not wish to do the same? : to live and die amidst your kith & kin?

  2. After we build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, Can we build a Concentration Camp and have Israel pay for it ?

  3. “On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there’s never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he’s a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. ”

    Beltway Cucks.


    Trump, 2016
    GOD wills it.

  4. Sam Francis, not long before his death, figured that between the time he went to Washington and then, that various conservative outfits raised a half a billion dollars just to peddle quixotic Constitutional amendments. And that’s just one small slice of the greater grift.

  5. Hey if they want Idi Amin, they have it already! Stupid cuckers, politics aren’t for retards. Now that Lincoln’s Party have fired their voters for supporting Trump, Lincoln’s legacy Party can finally be what I always wanted it to be. An irrelevant joke party whose candidates have about as much chance as Lyndon LaRouche or the Whatshisname Libertarians, or the ever obscure Owl-Loving greenies.
    Maybe they’ll blame Global Warming for why Ricky Ricardo Rubio lost all 50 states and Puerto Rico? How did he lose Puerto Rico? Cause he ain’t Puerto Rican , retards. He ain’t Mexican either. Neither is Motel Six Boosh.
    Reagan was an outlier. He was friends with John Wayne and really loved America. If not for Alzheimer’s and being old, he might have seen Alexander Haig and George Herbert Walker Joyner-Kersey Boosh selling America down the river.
    I’m an old cowhand from the Rio Grande, that fella Boosh, he ain’t no man. He’s not a superintelligent alien. He’s the scum that hates Sarah Palin.
    We gotta leave the Bush League and get back to Greatness. You won’t get there by voting, and secession didn’t work the last time. You Southern boys have got to realize there ain’t no Yankees here anymore. Diversity sent the Yankees to New York City, and that ain’t even America. Its Israel’s gateway to Hell.

  6. Also remember that, thanks to everyone getting interested in Sam Francis’s 20 year old essay, From Household to Nation, that Sam himself thought 25 years ago that Conservatism Inc had turned into a money hustling scam.

  7. As far as George W. Bush is concerned, the cowboy act went out the window as soon as he left office. The ranch in Crawford was sold months after he stepped down and ranching has not been part of his life since then. Bush’s ranch was his own personal Potemkin Village.

    His act was a concious imitation, an omage of sorts, of Reagan’s ranch in the foothills over Santa Barbara CA. The difference is that Reagan really loved his ranch and enjoyed his time there, it was always more than a prop for him (though he had no issues with using it as a prop as well).

  8. I think I understand why Neo-Cons have a hard-on for Evangelicals. Evanjelly-beans(or Geli-beans) are such slavish dogs that roll over before their Jewish masters.

    Evangelicals ought to be called We-Ban-Testicles.

  9. —-“Conservatism” isn’t a principled ideology. It effectively means “whatever makes the donors happy.”—-


  10. The donors want open borders, free trade, and foreign wars, which is what “conservatism” has delivered for half a century.

    Yeah, but it was Leftists Truman and LBJ who set the precedent for undeclared wars (Korea and Vietnam). The Democrats are pushing for open borders in order to have a voter base of government dependents. Liberal Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA and most favored trading status to the Chinese. Seems a but disingenuous to blame everything on cuckservatives.

    • I agree.

      I blame conservatives for offering only token resistance and in some cases colluding with the lefties whom I loathe and are explicitly anti-white.

  11. Neocohns are adept at Conserving one thing: Jewish power. Time to overthrow ZOG – in fact, long past time . . .

  12. The GOP’s establishment has never been Conservative, Populist, or White Nationalist. It’s always been the party of Lincoln, Big Business, and Social Liberalism. The people should support fresh candidates who share our values. WPWW !

Comments are closed.