- 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 then
I 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.
May 2016 