Cuckservatives: Cruz Victory Strikes Huge Blow Against Ethanol Subsidies

Apparently, eliminating ethanol subsidies is an issue of overwhelming importance to the “true conservatives” as defined by National Review, although I must confess that I have once given any thought to the issue:

“Volunteers sat at desks below signs that read, “WHEN MAKING CALLS: Please stay on script! Avoid the temptation to comment on other candidates.” Most of the callers were from out of state, many of them Texans. (Iowa volunteers were more commonly tasked with “walking,” or knocking on doors.) They came here to volunteer, compensated only with a dormitory bed at “Camp Cruz,” where they would retire after twelve-hour days spent reading from sheets that read, “Ethanol Talking Points” and “Day One Script.” …”

A strong, true, heroic, principled limited government conservative like Ted Cruz stood up to ethanol and won in Iowa:

“Third: Cruz’s win suggests (if we may indulge in a moment of optimism) that principled conservatism is perhaps slightly more attractive than some of us had thought, arguably as much for the principle as for the conservatism. Cruz was practically alone in taking a principled stand against the ethanol mandate, a sacramental bovine of some standing in Iowa. A video showing him arguing with a farmer critic over the subject was widely circulated, and it was vintage Cruz: a little peevish at first, and more debater-ish than one might like, but utterly in command of the issue and its details. Cruz argued that getting rid of the mandate while also getting rid of the artificial restrictions on ethanol fuel would give the market a chance to sort out the issue on its own. And Cruz seems to have changed that critic’s mind, at least for the moment. …”

Thomas Sowell, a key figure in the brain trust of conservative economics, writes:

“Senator Cruz’s refusal to pander to the sacred cow of ethanol subsidies in Iowa showed a resolve that is rare in politics, and may account for the Republican establishment’s sudden shift to a more favorable view of wheeler-dealer Trump — someone who can “rise above principle,” as an old-time politician once put it. …”

The Editors of National Review boast in their opening paragraph:

“Ted Cruz didn’t play the expectations game in Iowa. He said he was going to win the caucuses, and he did. What’s more, he did it even while bucking the conventional wisdom that candidates who seek to win Iowa must genuflect toward ethanol subsidies — and earning the hostility of Republican governor Terry Branstad for his refusal. Senator Cruz deserves congratulations for his performance. …”

Just a few days before the election, Rich Lowry penned an entire article on the subject of ethanol subsidies and Cruz’s “act of reckless courage”:

“Ted Cruz has dared to provoke the ire of one of the most ruthless and vengeful political forces on the planet, and it’s not Donald Trump. The Texas senator has crossed the ethanol industry in Iowa, which is a little like getting on the wrong side of the Catholic Church in Vatican City. …

Other Republicans have refused to bow and scrape before the ethanol industry — John McCain wouldn’t do it in 2000, but he didn’t compete in Iowa. Cruz, in contrast, has staked an enormous amount there. His campaign could have been engineered in a lab for Iowa: He is an evangelical who is a hard-liner on immigration and has organized relentlessly on the ground. The only dissonant note is his opposition to the so-called Renewable Fuel Standard that is a government prop for the industry. Cruz’s stand against it is an act of reckless courage.”

Rush Limbaugh was crowing on his radio show this afternoon about the “major, major, major thing that happened last night”:

“RUSH: There’s one other major, major, major thing that happened last night which nobody in the establishment is gonna want to admit to, nor are they going to talk about it, and that is, bye-bye ethanol. Sayonara ethanol. You don’t think so, Snerdley? Okay. Okay, well, yeah, it’s an anomaly for one campaign, but look what happened. You had the governor urging everybody in the state not to vote for Ted Cruz because Cruz wants to end the ethanol subsidy.

What happened? Cruz wins.

Everybody else came out for the ethanol subsidy, including Trump, which, that was another puzzling thing to me given what Trump is trying to do positioning himself. And look at what ended up happening. I mean, this is huge. This is not people in Washington defeating ethanol; this is Iowans in a record Republican turnout choosing a guy who made a singular, major point out of ending the ethanol subsidy. In terms of conservatism, this is the kind of thing the establishment won’t go anywhere near. Reducing government, as you get cutting down subsidies, crony capitalism, whatever you want to call this, crony socialism, nobody would touch it.

Cruz was the only one that had the guts to touch it, and he wins. It is huge, I think. Because what it is, is instructive. It means you can go after these things and not only survive it and live another day, you can win. You can win attacking Big Government socialism. You can win if you do it the right way, if you do it in the way Cruz did, that is explains how this is actually going to expand freedom and economic opportunity and lower prices. Coupled with all this nonsense about global warming. Did you see the latest poll on global warming? …”

I’m not going to waste anymore of your time on the subject of ethanol subsidies.

From the perspective of a populist and nationalist, it is an issue of trivial importance that affects the livelihood of 73,000 people in a key swing state. The “conservative,” however, is someone who can get quite riled up about this stuff. Like their support for job destroying free-trade agreements, eliminating the Renewable Fuel Standard is a matter of ideological fidelity to the abstract principles of neo-liberal economics. It is a “boondoggle” that makes the price a gasoline a few cents more expensive.

Who cares that the White working class is rapidly sinking to the status of degraded proletariat in a Third World country? The first “Hispanic president” will “Take Our Country Back” by opposing renewable fuels!

About Hunter Wallace 12381 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. I read that 52,000 families in Iowa are dependent or benefit from Ethanol subsidies.

    Wouldn’t it be funny if it was ended due to Cruz?

    Well, that ‘s what they get for using corn oil instead of olive oil in their anointing services. God does not approve.

      • Big Corn is Big Agriculture, which is also Big Business. And Big Agriculture is highly dependent on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Big Oil, on the other hand, hires a lot of highly skilled unionized labor. Therefore, this is a battle between illegal immigrants and highly skilled White labor. Which side does one choose? (I will enjoy watching Hunter talk himself into circles on this one)

    • Never thought of that, Sam. A good point. Maybe crude oil would be the best anointing – after all, this is Republican politicks…

  2. Just went to YouTube to watch the video cited in the second of the passages quoted in your post, Mr. W. I mean the video in which Cruz explains to a farmer his opposition to the ethanol subsidy. The opposition is based, of course, on Cruz’s desire for a “level playing field,” economically speaking.

    After watching the video, which runs about eight minutes, I posted, below it, the following …

    “How much would our military spending be reduced if we weren’t protecting the oil industry in the Middle East and elsewhere? Is that not a subsidy, Ted? Is that the ‘level playing field’ you love so much? How much does that farmer you’re talking to pay in military taxes to support the petroleum companies that are competing with him? How many of his neighbors, kin, or fellow Iowans have been maimed or killed in wars we’ve fought, and continue to fight, to keep the Middle East safe for the petroleum companies with whom you want him to compete on a ‘level playing field’? You pious nothing, Cruz. Go eff yourself.”

    PS The video is at

    • They don’t really need the oil in the Mideast. However, certain countries they want to control, do need it. Think Germany, France, Italy and Japan. The only leverage they have against Western Europe and Japan, is the oil weapon
      That’s why they’re upset over Nord Stream I & II gas pipelines and Chinese oil and gas developments in the Spratley Islands. It’s also why they want a death grip on every single, last barrel of oil, and cubic foot of gas. If Europe and Japan can get their fuel from a source not controlled by Washington and London, it’s over for the globalists. Energy independence equals political independence.

      • Well, Mr. Owen – it would seem that BRICS is auguring the end of the petro dollar scam.

        I suspect you are right in your conclusion.

      • Even if that’s true in its every particular, James—even if America herself uses not a single drop of Middle Eastern oil—our military action bears heavily on the petroleum market. That was the point I was making with respect to Cruz’s remarks about the ethanol subsidy.

    • “The level playing field” is a complete and utter joke when you consider the policies of most other countries e.g. China. These “principles” are what has destroyed US industry. It’s what Trump is on about when he talks about negotiation. These career politicians negotiate everything away on principle or for the benefit of the cheap labour lobby.
      Over production of grains, corn is good, they allow for crop failure. Ethanol subsidies help farmers by giving them a second market for substandard crops and keep food prices down during crop failure.
      Cruz’s wife works for goldman sachs, who want a global government. She penned a report “creating a north American community’ that was essentially about abolishing the US by integration of Canada, USA and Mexico.
      Cruz will do a Merkel if the situation arose.

    • If Trump does not win in New Hampshire, then his campaign has more serious problems than do the pollsters.

      I expect Trump to win handily there, and for Cruz to finish 3rd of 4th behind Rubio and Christie.

      The next battle Trump will have his handful with Cruz is in South Carolina.

      If Trump beats Cruz there, Cruz will go on, but, it would not be to any avail.

      Do you feel this way, or a bit different, M’am?

      • If Trump wins in NH – it’s a good thing. You are correct in your assessment of winning and losing in NH and SC.
        SC has the Evangelitard Goyim population, a well as Tribal SC. Cruz is Goldman Sach’s boychick, just like Shrillary is their shiksa, so Cruz has a very good chance of winning SC.

        • Thank you for your thoughts, Miss Denise.

          Your analysis of the white electorate in the Sandpiper state is very shrewd.

          If this election were just Trump & Cruz, M’am, I think it would divide along the lines of ‘rural’ states for Cruz and ‘Urban’ for Trump; but, with Marco Rubio on the rise, it is very unpredictable.

          I know you won’t like Senator Rubio, but, you may appreciate him just yet, as he will be siphoning off support from Ted Cruz and very little from Trump.

          I wish a very nice day to you, up there in the tundra. Here it is rising to 70 degrees, though, we are ‘xpectin’ a little rain, later on.

  3. By the by – “Free German University” – nein. Students get HAND PICKED to attend university. It’s NOT “free education” for the masses. It’s far less egalitarian than anything in America.

    • Speaking of Germany and Europe, what do you think about the implosion happening within the EU? Inspiring, isn’t it?

      Estimates are that at the current rate the EU has about 3-4 months before total meltdown. Fuck some quibbling about ethanol. Europe full of pissed off White people is like a gift from the gods.

        • Until for the results NH and SC, we cannot come to a conclusion. This is definitely a setback for Trump, who is supposedly on a roll.

          • Iowa may have been a necessary moment of chastening for Trump. He’s got some rough-around-the-edges personality flaws that need addressing in order for him to overcome the sort of crap everyone from all sides will be throwing at him.

  4. Either the good folk of Iowa are willing to bankrupt themselves to make a pointless gesture, or this is another indicator that these elections are badly rigged.

    Methinks we’re not voting ourselves out of this mess.

  5. Iowans, apologies to the Iowans who voted for Trump, really are sheltered fools.

    What was it: Abortion? FFS do you think that Trump doesn’t want more beautiful white babies?

    Was it Guns? Trump will probably end up distributing an Armalite to every white household.

    God? Look at Cruz, he’s got no conscience.

    Gay sex? You voted 1 in 4 for a fag like Rubio.

      • Yes, vote GOP for “conservative” supreme court judges. The “conservative” court upheld abortion on demand and Obamacare.

    • I had 2 neighbors at one time who were involved in local Republican party politics in New York State (but its the same everywhere). Both wound up being prosecuted for graft schemes involving town insurance and school supplies. Practically the entire local Republican party got prosecuted. One guy stole the quarters out of the public copying machines in town hall. One guy extorted from garbage companies to use the town dump.

      Anyone naive enough to believe that something like the Iowa caucus isn’t full of corruption, scheming, graft, pay-outs – well. Its set up for it. Make it hard to vote so few people vote and the party regular organization (Iowa GOP has 2 such organizations, one is called “Evangelicals”) can get paid off by “the donors.”

      What I think happened this time is that Rubio’s neocon backers bought off some GOP regulars. Why did he get just enough votes to have more than the highest total ever in GOP caucuses pre 2016? We all read how they keep track of how many votes they need in individual caucuses throughout the state. It was supposed to be a great triumph. People in the heartland just fell in love with Marco Rubio all of a sudden. Or, take it as they were all motivated to get out and stop Trump. Some of the TV people were peddling that line straight from Neocon Central.

      No, it has nothing to do with abortion. Or “Two Corinthians.” That baloney is like the magicians assistant in fishnet stockings, a distraction for the news media to yap about.

  6. Someone here explain to me, if putting corn in your gas tank is such a good idea why does it have to be mandated by the government?

    • Maybe it would be a good idea, Jeff, if the government weren’t spending God knows how much each year on our military effort that props up the petroleum industry in the Middle East.

      • By the term ‘prop up’ I assume you mean ‘destabilize’. The Middle East doesn’t need any of Uncle Sam’s intervention.

        • By “prop up,” I mean the money’s being spent—necessarily or not—with the intention of propping up the petroleum industry there.

          • The money being spent there is destabilizing established regimes and not propping up the petroleum industry there.

          • I think you know, Jeff, that I’m as inclined as you are to tout the free market; but in this particular exchange of ours, you’re being disingenuous, I think. I doubt you really think that, for instance, our naval presence in the Persian Gulf does nothing whatsoever to ensure order in the petroleum industry; but even if you’re right that our military there is not propping up the oil industry, it is, as I’ve said, INTENDED to prop it up—or, at the very least, is widely UNDERSTOOD, by Americans, to be intended to prop it up.

          • I’m not touting the free market. I’m stating an objective fact. Relatively speaking, I don’t think costs to park some aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf is nearly as expensive as the wars and interventions. Furthermore, lets look at the results of Uncle Sam’s interventions

            1. 1980-1988 Iraq/Iran War (bankrolled Saddam Hussein)
            2. Iraq War I
            3. Iraq War II
            4. Libya
            5. Egypt

            Overall, the Federal government has had a negative impact to the oil industry in the Middle East. How much oil doe the petroleum industry extract from ISIS controlled oil fields? Ted Cruz would make matters much worse with a war against Iran.

          • Glib diction like “park some aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf” merely confirms, Jeff, that you’re being disingenuous. Whatever might be the overall impact of American military activity on the Middle Eastern oil industry, military activity of ours in the Middle East and elsewhere is certainly understood—as I’ll say for the final time—to be intended to protect the oil industry. By that, in the present context, I mean that I would be very surprised to learn that that is not the understanding of Ted Cruz himself. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there will arise another video recording, in which Ted Cruz, while speaking with an Iowa farmer, will say, “Not only has our military activity in the Middle East had a negative overall impact on the oil industry; it’s never been intended to protect the oil industry.” That’ll be a keeper.

            If you’ll offer a reply to the present comment, well, then, that will be the final word in this particular exchange of ours. If I were to say anything more, I’d only be repeating myself.

          • I think you understand what I mean when I say concerning parking aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.

            I have a hard time discerning the intent of US actions as it relates to the oil industry. Certainly, the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh qualifies as propping up the US oil industry. Maybe Iraq War I. But beyond that nothing seems to be done specific to their interests. Destabilizing Iraq doesn’t serve the oil industry’s interest. The same can be said of US interventions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. A war with Iran I don’t believe serves their interests. This policy of Middle East regime change definitely serves the interests of Israel. With Muslim countries destabilized, there is no Arab/Persian powers that pose a threat to Israel.

  7. You are so brilliant Hunter, really. Another great piece, Your work ought to be read by audiences the size of these useless oafs @National Review, etc.

  8. Iowa voted for Cruz because of Jesus and the cucks take that as them wanting ethanol stopped. Is it any wonder that the populists are rising?

    Rush Limbaugh – this guy adapts moment by moment to how the wind is blowing. “Principles” my ass.

    When Trump wins NH hell be back to reading Francis.

      • Cautious optimism is a better policy than over confident presumption. Trump is either the real deal or simply put there to deliberately build us up and then to deliberately let us down, i.e., demoralize us further into accepting the fact that the NWO boys can’t be beat. I hope I’m wrong about the latter. Time will tell in the near future.

        • I don’t think they can mess with Trump in NH. South Carolina is where they’re most likely to play with the votes. Expect a huge pool boy ‘surge’ there.

        • Yes, we shall see.
          I just can’t believe the polls in Iowa were so far off from the results.
          Lots of underhanded stuff must have occurred.
          I saw videos of the caucus process, counting of votes etc.
          Dumbest process ever. Made for fraud.

          • The polls weren’t all that far off. Santorum languished in 3rd place in polling quite close to the caucus date in 2012 but came away with the win (by %, not in terms of delegates, for which Iowa used a separate procedure).

        • After New Hampshire, we will know if the polls are way off.

          With reference to Sanders in particular. He’s the real story of the early campaign season, an even more remote outsider than Trump. I don’t find his policies at all appealing in and of themselves, but what an earthquake they portend!

      • I agree with you, Denise, re the not counting chickens before they’re hatched; but still, I thought Ulfric’s point about Limbaugh was good. Change the first word of Ulfric’s last sentence to “if,” from “when,” to see the strength of what he said.

  9. Oh, do not nail me to a cross of ethanol subsidies! Will Cruz refuse to pander to Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, Global “Free Trade” agreements, The Israel Lobby and unlimited 3rd world immigration? We all know the answer.
    No one gives a damn about ethanol subsidies other than cucks grabbing at straws to support this Canadian.

  10. Does anyone here ever give any thought to ethanol subsidies? Is that the hill you would die on? The price of gas can be a bitch sometimes, but it wildly gyrates because oil is sold on the open market.

    • Never. I can’t understand how that would even be a major issue to anyone except for the tiny fraction of people who make their living from that area. We could probably list 50 things that are more important and much more of an issue to be focusing on.

    • I like putting 100% gasoline in my car. Very few stores sell it. Hardly any sell it in high octane.

      The price of ethanol is less than gasoline (per gallon) but real gasoline gets better mileage and is better for your car.

      Ethanol subsidies benefit a relatively small but vocal (and therefore powerful) interest group. I don’t think Iowa is key to winning the White House. Of the the three states in the corn belt (Indiana, Iowa, Illinois) Indiana and Illinois are reliably Republican and Democratic, respectively. And Illinois Democratic leanings is largely based on Chicago, which has no dog in the hunt as it relates to the corn industry.

    • Lol, all this fresh off their victory over the Export-Import Bank. Heady times for Conservatism Inc. The Republic will be “restored” in no time flat at this rate.

    • I think that pro-smallholder policies are in general a good thing, if their execution sometimes leaves something to be desired.

  11. On caucus night, the TV people were saying Trump would go after Rubio on immigration but he’s not doing that. He’s going after Cruz on dishonesty. Ever strategic, Trump has his sights on taking out Cruz and then it’ll be a 2 man race against Gang of 8. A la Eric Cantor vs Dave Brat.

    The neocons put money into Iowa to win it for Rubio, probably buying off the local GOP pols in some of the higher population areas. What that meant was that Kasich, Christie and Bush got almost no votes. They put all their eggs in Rubio thinking that getting him over 40,000 votes was going to win it or at least get more than Trump. The speech Rubio gave was written as a first place winner speech.

    Now, all they’ve got is Rubio. The other establishment types are very diminished and Cruz can’t win a blue or purple state.

    • Because I don’t understand these electoral calculations, YHW, I find your analysis very interesting, an eye-opener, as one says. It makes me realize just how interesting the New Hampshire vote, including this week’s lead-up to it, will be.

Comments are closed.