Saturday, May 21, 2016

Glenn Beck is not a cuckservative

More and more, I'm convinced that Glenn Beck is simply not a cuckservative. A cuckservative, at least based on the impression I got from Vox Day's book, is someone who doesn't have the tenacity to stand up for his principles. He resigns himself to defeat, and lashes out at anyone who would fight or urge him to do likewise. He, for the most part, settles.

Glenn Beck doesn't strike me as a guy who's selling out his principles at all. Instead, he's what's better called 'a cocksucker'. Cocksuckers don't really have any principles to begin with, beyond always trying to claw their way upwards. Cuckservatives put up with a cheating spouse, grudgingly. Cocksuckers will outright pimp their spouses, and themselves if need be.

To see a little of what I mean:
“I understand why conservatives are suspicious of Silicon Valley,” Beck writes. “It can feel a lot like the main stream media. But I’ve told you many times that I feel at home in Silicon Valley. I love the energy.” 
He then argues that Facebook’s employees, while socially liberal, want fewer government regulations: 
These are people who want to innovate and disrupt, they want the government to stop regulating their businesses, they want small business to succeed, they value personal responsibility, etc. Why they are liberal? I don’t know, but in general, they’re not Progressives, at least not the folks I met with today (though I’m sure there were a few).
Oh boy. They're very liberal, but they personally want less regulation applying to them.

No, this doesn't make them some kind of natural ally for the conservative. But it provides a damn fine opportunity for a cocksucker.

16 comments:

Jakeithus said...

"They're very liberal, but they personally want less regulation applying to them."

That's pretty much textbook for anyone with a progressive mindset. Your leftist teacher will try and limit parental choice in education, but will complain if their ability to teach how they want is limited by some regulation. Your typical progressive school administrator will be happy dictating curriculum and limiting local decision making, but will bitch if they get too much political involvement from spelt. Your tech billionaire is happy to see government regulations punish local bakeries or energy companies, but we need to be careful about government involvement with the Internet.

To be a leftist elite requires a certain belief that one is an "expert" and should be telling other people what to do. This doesn't stop them from getting annoyed when other more powerful "experts" whom they disagree with tell them what to do, but they're too short sighted or narcissistic to apply this lesson to other situations.

But yes, cocksucker is as good of an explanation of Beck as you're going to find.

Crude said...

Yeah. So watching these 'conservative thinkers' cooing about how, gosh, they don't know about all this "liberal" stuff they hear but by golly these guys are BILLIONAIRES who want to be able to do what they want, they're natural conservative allies... it's pretty disgusting.

I'd have been impressed if just one of them asked 'So, would someone who opposes gay marriage have trouble getting hired at your company?'

John Doe said...

I know this is random but have you ever considered changing the theme of your blog to something else, or back to the original? It's kind of an eye sore.

Crude said...

Fixing that up is a plan, but I have the color instincts of a blind man. The old theme sucked for anything media-using.

Edgestow said...

Have you seen this? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Crude said...

Other than 'National Review is a joke'?

Let's see...

For one thing, it's telling that 'The Alt Righters' are near the top of Goldberg's list, and how his greatest disappointment is that Team Trump isn't falling over itself to attack and denounce what amount to '4chan/twitter trolls'. There's a certain breed of right-winger that eats this shit up, partly because of a misguided belief that their failures are all due to the trolls, partly because they relish the pats on the head they get from liberals in response. I should know - I used to be part of this group, in my own nobody way. I reject them utterly, as well as their 'reasoning' and their methods.

The False Priests charge only tells half of the story - namely that these are often the same people who the NR sorts routinely chastized as being too purist and needing to compromise on some of their principles for the sake of party unity. Hence Romney, hence McCain, hence Bush, etc. Party unity and GOP-at-all-costs was central, so long as it was everyone else who had to give up their principles. Now that they're the ones who are being expected to compromise, purity is priority.

The Fake Moderates don't really exist. Try naming one.

The Whores complaint really comes across as someone pissed off to find that a whore doesn't regard him as special, and will in fact sleep with whoever can pay.

The 'Closet Nevertrumpers'? He may want to ask himself if maybe those are Trumpers who are lying to him.

Beyond that - I think Goldberg is deluded, particularly about the importance of National Review. That's a subtler theme of the article, with Goldberg talking about National Review's mission, complete with a royal 'We' when talking about how 'We at NR' didn't endorse Kennedy or Nixon. (For reference, Goldberg was born in 1969, if Wikipedia is right.) The real story Goldberg's trying to sell here isn't 'Why we can never support Trump' or 'Why people who support Trump are bad'. It's something subtler: 'What National Review's editor thinks about Trump is important, damnit.'

It really isn't. Sure, they may say things that piss people off, but if that's the mark of importance, I'm a prominent public intellectual. I'm not, and it's not.

moduspownens said...

Crude,

Would you consider anyone, who is critical or at least cautious when it comes to Trump, a conservative? If not, could you briefly describe the qualifications that make someone a conservative?

Personally, I'm starting to find the alt-right's purge for ideological purity and penchant for calling anyone who dares to criticize Trump a "cuckservative" very tiresome and -- dare I say -- nonconservative.

Crude said...

Would you consider anyone, who is critical or at least cautious when it comes to Trump, a conservative?

Sure. I don't have any problem with a conservative who thinks supporting Trump is a bad idea, per se. I'll disagree with them, but if they simply go 'I think this is a big mistake, I can't get behind him, here are reasons X, Y and Z I can't', I think that's quite compatible with conservatism.

One problem with that is that this is very rarely paired with 'caution'. I have yet to run into someone who simply has misgivings about Trump, and can't support him due to this misgivings, despite their being a self-identified conservative with a reasonable track record. The people who have those problems tend to just be 'lukewarm Trump supporters' by now.

This is especially evident in National Review's case. These aren't in the category of 'not sold on Trump'. They hate Trump, and they -despise- his supporters. 'Let's heap ridicule, hatred and scorn on anyone who likes Trump' was an early tactic, and they spearheaded it.

Personally, I'm starting to find the alt-right's purge for ideological purity and penchant for calling anyone who dares to criticize Trump a "cuckservative" very tiresome and -- dare I say -- nonconservative.

What is 'non-conservative' about calling people cuckservatives?

As for 'ideological purity', I have no idea what you mean. What are they purists about? The closest you'll get is 'The Wall', but that's partly because that's moved beyond policy to the level of symbolism. A good share of Goldberg's column was a complaint that Trump supporters have ditched so many of their principles.

Maybe you mean that they do not take kindly to attacks on Trump or Trump supporters, and if you oppose Trump, they're not going to say 'Well, we can agree to disagree' and cheer you on. There's a 'Give them no quarter!' sense that comes form them, but keep in mind, that sense came after attempts to denigrate, humiliate, defame and marginalize Trump's supporters - not just Trump, I stress, but his supporters - complete with open talk of blacklisting anyone who supported Trump. The fact that some of these people now are shocked - shocked! - that Trump's supporters are bloodthirsty is predictable, but galling.

It reminds me of a movie where one character pulls a gun on the other, and with a sneer, pulls the trigger... only to hear a click. And five seconds before they're getting thrown out of a twentieth floor window, they're pleading 'We can make a deal!'

moduspownens said...

Well, consider me cautious. Trump's vacillation on some things such as transgender bathrooms concerns me a little. He doesn't come off as genuine on social issues, but hey, that's just me. Nobody knows how he and his administration would govern, so that too makes me anxious.

I do know he's a gamble, a force of nature, wildfire set to burn everything down, a heat-seeking missile rocketing straight for the heart of political establishment. After too many Republicans offered no resistance and actually were for same-sex "marriage," failed to use the power of the purse to punish Obama, caved on religious liberty bills, didn't show backbone when it comes to immigration, pissed and continue to piss on their base and given their amount of vitriol in relentless effort to thwart Trump -- meaning they rather dutifully play as foil to be vanquished by the Left, i.e. preside over smoldering ruins than actually "conserve" something -- I'm ok for something new. Let the pieces fall where they may. Misgivings aside, there's no #neverTrump or even a choice to be made for me. It's Trump or bust.

There's nothing wrong or nonconservative about calling a feckless Republican a cuckservative, per se. What I'm put off by is the alt-right's quick trigger with it. What I've observed is that any sort of criticism of them, their methods or ideology from the Right makes that person a "cuck" or "white knight" depending on the circumstances. I don't think the pejoratives always apply. Sure, our ranks need weeding. But it's that lack of civility for our own kind and the willful negligence or measured nuance in judgment that I associate with conservatism to discern whose a weed and who's not that irks me.

Yeah, National Review and Jonah Goldberg especially of late suck. I only read it because for Victor Davis Hanson and David French is devoted to lambasting SJWs.

GoldRush Apple said...

Leftists are still leftists even if they're earning six figures (or maybe they're millionaires, maybe even billionaires), either on Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Broadway or Hollywood.

Crude said...

I say that Trump is a gamble myself, but the gamble is a legislative one. Culturally, he's less of a gamble, and more of a proven force. I've said before - what Trump has already accomplished culturally is the sort of thing I've been waiting for for ages. I would rather lose with Trump than win with Bush. Trump's value is that high, and my biggest worry is how do we follow his act. Because we have to.

As for the criticism, maybe. Then again I see a lot of invalid criticisms. A good share of people's problems with the alt right comes down to their offensiveness and unwillingness to shun or cast out their own. That's not a very good line to use on a group who, collectively, has been shunned and cast out. They're an eclectic mix too.

I'd go so far as to say that the real problem may be on the non-alt-right conservatives' side. Ask yourself this: are the self-identified conservatives who are NOT 'alt right' even asking themselves 'What am I going to have to change about my attitude to better accommodate the alt right?' I think most of them are not. The question is not only failing to cross their minds, it seems absurd and scary to them. Ridiculous. Are they seriously expected to fail to condemn or, God forbid, -defend- alt right figures?

Well... yes.

moduspownens said...

Yes, I can see that offensiveness is necessary for the alt-right. The mainstream right and American society is so infected with political correctness that, say Trump's moratorium on Muslim immigration is considered taboo, unspeakable, racist, un-American and somehow comparable to WW2 Japanese internment. This poison can only be extricated by burning it out. Sure. And it's true to many mainstream conservatives go out of their way to engage with and make an effort to understand the alt-right.

But would you consider there any extreme elements in the alt-right that aren't true conservatism? For instance, do they put too much stock in race and genetics in their politics? I'm willing to concede that this could very well be a gross oversimplification or misunderstanding of their position, and please correct me if it is. But at times, the alt-right seems to be peddling a white identity politics of their own when the whole idea is to rid ourselves of identity politics full stop -- or at least neuter it -- from our national discourse and deliberation.

The anti-progressivism anti-social justice schtick is appealing. The white nationalism -- if indeed that's what they're about -- not so much.

Crude said...

And it's true to many mainstream conservatives go out of their way to engage with and make an effort to understand the alt-right.

Who are these guys? Where are they hiding? From where I sit, it seems like most 'mainstream conservatives' absolutely don't do that. The ones who even recognize these groups largely do so by attacking and denouncing them. I'm saying what they have to do, not what they are doing.

Re: race and genetics, I think the alt right's stance on such things is muddy. The number of people who are 'white nationalists' among the alt right is exceedingly few - it's just not an issue for most. However, I think what they do - and which is regarded as utterly beyond the pale - is refuse to treat such people as a big deal or a terrible threat that needs constant condemnation, along with their being rooted out and destroyed. Their collective attitude seems to largely be 'We don't give a fuck about racists, and we're not interested in imposing purity tests on our supporters.' And that seems to be what gets treated as the big sin - it's not that the alt right is some kind of white nationalist movement, but that they aren't frantically hunting down white nationalists, and they see no reason to. And why should they? Let me know when the left purges itself of its crazier blacks and hispanics and anti-white elements. For that matter, let me know when being pro-Israel-uber-alles, as an American, is beyond the pale. I reject unilateral culture war disarmament.

Now, I'm talking about full-blown white nationalists there. When it comes to race and genetics topics, it depends on what you're talking about. Is it racist to suggest that there's a genetic component to, say, the on-average lower IQ scores of whites against asians? If so, then it turns out asking some fair questions is racist, and that being racist is no longer a bad thing across the board. This line of questioning freaks some people out, to the point where they insist that IQ tests are completely meaningless, racial differences come down entirely and exclusively to environment, and even that there's no such thing as a 'race' - it's a fiction, just like (I suppose) sex is. No, I won't get behind that reasoning. Even putting hands on hips and saying that I'm standing in defiance of biologists and sociologists means nothing to me, because I don't consider them the final authorities about much of anything.

Anyway, for those topics you'd need to be more specific.

moduspownens said...

I meant that it's true that most of the mainstream right DOESN'T engage with or try to understand the alt-right. My intent is the exact opposite of what I wrote.

I find your second paragraph confusing in that you find the alt-right's indifference to white nationalistic elements within it "beyond the pale." Yet, you go on to defend it, citing the Left's lack of purging of its own extreme factions.

Could you elaborate on "unilateral culture war disarmament"? What does that mean?

As for more specific: Well, there seems to be a common sentiment for the alt-right about making the US a pure white nation and retaining a purely white identity. This is justified on there being genetic differences between races and their IQs -- which, as strictly a matter of empirical investigation is fine. But for the alt-right, apparently, race is basically indicative of culture. Only races with high IQs are capable of producing high culture. Therefore, we should not let Africans immigrate because they tend to be violent and stupid that's justified on some presupposition of genetic determinism. Are you arguing that positions like these are fringe within the alt-right? It's an eclectic group, but as I understand it, there seems to be a theme of white supremacy that would drive their policies if they were ever in a position to implement them. Are you saying this doesn't define the movement; rather it's anti-establishment and maverick views?

Crude said...

I find your second paragraph confusing in that you find the alt-right's indifference to white nationalistic elements within it "beyond the pale." Yet, you go on to defend it, citing the Left's lack of purging of its own extreme factions.

No, I think that the alt right's attitude towards them is what's considered beyond the pale by mainstream conservatives.

Could you elaborate on "unilateral culture war disarmament"? What does that mean?

Where the right wing mainstream furiously polices itself and attacks any perceived extremist or politically distasteful groups, even while the left ignores or even embraces its own extremists and distasteful people.

Well, there seems to be a common sentiment for the alt-right about making the US a pure white nation and retaining a purely white identity.

Okay. You say common sentiment, but where is this? Where are you seeing it? Because I'm fairly mired in alt right website reading, and this never comes up. Not at Breitbart. Not at Vox Day. Not at Takimag. Even on 4chan it's rare, and comes across as a meme-y gimmick at best.

Now, they do say other things about race. 'Race realism' comes up often, but the guy who believes in racial IQ differences is not interchangeable with some guy fantasizing about some 'pure white nation'. Vox Day won't shut up about his indian ancestry OR race realism.

Are you arguing that positions like these are fringe within the alt-right? It's an eclectic group, but as I understand it, there seems to be a theme of white supremacy that would drive their policies if they were ever in a position to implement them. Are you saying this doesn't define the movement; rather it's anti-establishment and maverick views?

Yeah, I'm saying that 'white supremacy', certainly as you describe it, is fringe in the alt right. Maybe the issue here is you're looking to mainstream conservatives / leftists commenting on the alt right, and they will interpret absolutely everything as 'this is all about white supremacy!!!' But that's a complete load, which is why they rely so heavily on 'interpreting' what the alt right 'really means'.

But I'm ready to be corrected. Hit me with the white supremacists among the alt right. Give me links. But if all you can give me is, say... National Review writers talking ominously about the white nationalists which make up the bulk of the Alt Right, but whose evidence amounts to 'I know unnamed alt right people, trust me, this is what they're all about', I won't be impressed.

Crude said...

To put this in proper relief.

This isn't something that will cause much of a fuss among mainstream conservatives. Government official of prominence complains that there's too many damn white guys in the national security team? They'll go 'tsk tsk' if they say anything at all. They won't demand her resignation. This is A-OK. Because the left doesn't bother policing its extremists.

Meanwhile, Ben Shapiro believes that 'racists' - and remember, he views pretty much the entirety of the alt right as racists - should be rooted out, identified, and then fired from their jobs. Whatever their jobs may be. Rice's brand of racism, however? They can roll with that at federal levels.

The Mainstream Right doesn't see a problem with this state of affairs. Indeed, they wear their willingness to frantically purge people as a badge of honor, a sign of how thoughtful and moral they are, and absolutely not as a sign that they're a pack of pathetic cucks. Also, saying 'cuck' is evidence you're a white nationalist - prepare to be purged.