Conservatives should reject those on both extremes of the spectrum. We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, “All are one, in Christ Jesus.” Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.

- David French, National Review Online

Spare us the Middle Eastern fairy tales. There are some of us out here who don’t buy into that nonsense, either. But that doesn’t mean that the entire conservative movement communes at our table, or has to. No one with half a brain cares who you adopt or what your stand on abortion might be. We care about the future of this country and right now its signal peril is unrestricted, open-borders immigration. Go ahead and call us knuckle-draggers, nativists, ethnocentrists, and racists. It no longer matters how the National Review defines conservatives. The world has swept past you.

Guilt by association has been the most potent weapon NR has used against its ideological enemies – i.e., REAL conservatives. Someone chimes in with an odious tweet to some NR offal and so all who question the Book of Buckley are primitives at best, Nazis at worst. But who wrote such libel? A real jerkwater fascist out there in Jeeterville, or someone who wants to create impression our ranks are filled with NR-hating Klansmen? I believe that’s called a ‘false flag’ operation in intelligence circles. It’s highly effective strategy to impress the easily suckered.

But the lowbrows are waking up, shaking off the slumber of six decades. And that’s terrifying, isn’t it? Your potency to intimidate by scattershot accusation and false equivalency is gone. Nothing sums that up more than Trump’s domination in early polling. Regardless how long his surge lasts, this much is clear: His supporters don’t give a damn what establishment “conservatives” think or say, who they laud or condemn. Trump’s most attractive attribute is his utter lack of timidity, his refusal to back down in the face of weasely slander.

You’re distressed at being “smeared?” Join the club. For years, we’ve been defined as a “race-obsessed far-right crowd.” We’re “unapologetically white-nationalists”; we, after all, “hate interracial adoption and other ‘race-mixing’ practices”. For us, immigration input mostly is frothing at the mouth over Frito-Bandido caricatures jumping the border and marrying our daughters. We’re sexually unendowed, envious, and can’t dance a lick. We marry our cousins in trailer camps and think “Howdy Doody” is still on the air.

In short, we’re accustomed to being smeared. It no longer affects us. We know it comes from classless frauds. So we ignore it. You need to toughen your hide and do the same. Man up. Stop being a cuckservative. Then there will be no more need for the term.

But it won’t disappear simply because of National Review caterwauling. You no longer have the juice for that.

~ O ~

This originally was a comment on the NR article in question; it posted Sunday, Oct. 20, but was removed

  • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

    Friendly chocolate bear at play: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db5_1418177214


    Your June 29th column mentioned Lynn Langton of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and her stating that “A similar percentage of whites experienced violence from blacks as blacks experienced from whites,” as though that fact established parity between black and white behavior. It does just the opposite, of course. If there are six times as many whites as blacks, then “similar percentages” of each would include six times as many whites as blacks. That would mean black-on-white attacks were six times as frequent as white-on-black. Does this woman not even realize what she has conceded?

  • http://sanfernandocurt.com/ SanFernandoCurt

    Most will read her comment and assume the violence is about the same.
    That’s how our inconvenient truths are bent and muddied by double talk.