Much has been said about the "Cuckservatism" phenomenon, about whether it is simply a slur word or not, or whether it is a backdoor way of reintroducing racial and tribal narratives that White people are simply not allowed to use outside of the alternative right. There are various points of view and a number of valid lines of argument, but it is the essence of "Cuckservatism" that I want to look at here.

A parsimonious definition of "Cuckservatism" would see it as an objective re-framing of American Conservatism to view it as a set of values – stemming from Northern European roots – that have been hijacked or distorted to serve globalist business interests, the State of Israel, Hispanics, and even Blacks.

While this is a precise enough definition, it doesn’t quite get at the essence of the phenomenon. At its core "Cuckservatism" can be seen as a range of individual and even group empowering values that lack a clear subject. This lack of a subject is the key to understanding the phenomenon and also the reason why it has been likened to cuckoldry, which is the sexual de-subjectification – or re-subjectification – of the active male principle.

Conservative values are basically empowering (i.e. male) because they derive from traditional White culture and include things like honesty, personal responsibility, the Protestant work ethic, a strong need for moral worth and validation, and martial heroism. While this cluster of values can have negative aspects, in general they benefit whichever individuals or groups adopt them.

The neverending labours of Sisyphus
the White middle class

But the problem comes when Conservatives exist within a political system in which their values are no longer dominant (i.e. no longer in an alpha male position), and where they coexist with other value systems, like Liberalism and hyper-capitalism. In such a case, Conservatism tends to fall into an unhealthy symbiosis in which its group, with its superior self-sufficiency and lower dysfunction rates, is parasitically exploited (i.e. cuckolded).

American Conservatism is particularly susceptible to this because its fatal flaw is that it has never had an explicit subject that correlates with its European origins. This lack of a subject is the effect of its history in an America that de-emphasized ethnicity and had little need to positively emphasize race due to the enormous chasm that existed between Whites and Blacks (i.e. racial asymmetry).

For previous generations, an implicit subject (despite its intrinsic feminine qualities) was sufficient – and even beneficial – to facilitate the easy inclusion of additional ethnicities from Northern and even Southern Europe. But, over the years, American Conservatism gradually dropped even its implicit sense of a subject as it moved towards a model of explicit propositional values, which, in theory, anyone or any group could subscribe to. In addition to de-subjectivication of White values, this switch to explicit propositional values can also be read as the facilitation of external ethnic masculinity.

This is the origin of American Conservatism's "cuckedness": it sought to promote White values (masculinity) in a multiracial context (competing masculinities), in which those White values had been displaced from their position of dominance (alpha malesness), without explicitly re-defining them as White and focusing on White interests through a White subject (i.e. re-assertive masculinity). In short, American Conservatism was unable to institute effective "sexual jealousy" – hence cuckoldry.

Cuck Capitalism

But while American Conservatism’s eschewal of an explicitly White subject had its roots in historical conditions, there is also a more general economic dimension that means that "Cuckservatism" is not limited to America, but can also afflict other developed Western nations – for example Britain – although here Conservatism is bolstered to a certain degree by remnants of an identitarian class system as well as aspects of regionalism.

The absence of a White subject in Conservatism is also a manifestation of late-period capitalism. In its earlier incarnation, Capitalism benefitted from nationalism. The rise of the nation state provided a legal and political framework that favoured early forms of Capitalism, as well as a clear dominant "masculine" subject. But, as Capitalism increasingly became an international phenomenon in the 20th century, it increasingly came into conflict with nationalism, developing its inherently rootless and abstract character. This made it increasingly incompatible with organic human communities – or even semi-organic human communities like the modern nation state.

The essence of unmediated Capitalism is the dispersal of capital to those areas that maximize its return. But there is a very deep paradox here: "return" implies a fixed subject to which outlays and profits can return, while the processes of capital maximization serve to undermine any fixed subject, except for those demographics adapted to maintaining their identities under the most dissolute economic conditions, i.e. the Jews and some other merchant communities, like the Parsees and the Hakka.

The alienation of Western
social and intellectual capital.

While Karl Marx saw capitalism as a system that "alienated" the labour of workers – that is, removed it from the control of those providing it, thus preventing them from being autonomous ("masculine") beings – more correctly, modern capitalism alienates the social and intellectual capital of the entrepreneurial, highly productive, and wealth-creating ethnic groups and societies that create it, in the form of technology transfer, externalized investment, and individualized profits. Such outward investment invariably seeks to open up its home market to foreign economic invasion through consumerism to maximize profits. This is exactly the pattern followed in the past by the formerly dominant UK economy and presently by the American economy.

In its unmediated form, Capitalism represents a diffusion and dissolution of its economic subject in exactly the same way that American Conservatism does with regard to its political subject. The process of sharing our technology and investing in the future economic dominance of our rivals can accurately be termed “Cuck Capitalism.”

Both Capitalism and American Conservatism are not just rootless abstractions that mysteriously came into existence. They are rooted in specific racial and historical anthropologies. But both also have a strong tendency to betray their true subject, combining a process of diffuse empowerment paired with a defocusing on their subjects.

In the case of American Conservatism, this means that it is susceptible to parasitism, with Conservative Whites working hard to pay into a commons that has nothing in common with them. In the case of Capitalism, the disembodied thirst for profit leads to disinvestment in the creator societies and economic hollowing out, as well as undermining of the social values that underpin these creative high-productivity societies.

This too represents a form of parasitism, as a coalition of globalized banking and formerly low-tech, impoverished societies with weaker creativity – such as Japan and the BRICs – come to dominate the global economy created by Western man.

Technology transfer: the Choshu Five.

The "Cuckservatism" that we now see exposed in America is essentially a synergy between these two forces. Just as the most naturally productive and innovative societies have destroyed – or are destroying – themselves through a process of technology diffusion, external financial investment, and outsourcing, so something similar can be seen with American Conservatism, which seeks to implant its values and outsource its identity to external groups, such as Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians.

Both political "Cuckservatism" and "Cuck Capitalism" are driven by the same urge to universalize and deny the identity and the rootedness of their respective phenomena.

But while they deny their anthropology, their anthropology does not entirely deny them. Hispanics and Africans can never become defined by the conservative habits of North Europeans, and while cheap, unproductive labour may drive out highly-paid productive labour for a time, the inherent high productivity and innovation of Europeans is not going to disappear as long as they remain on the Earth. What is essential to our survival, however, is adopting a strong identitarian outlook that restores the European subject to the fruits of the European mind, whether that be the habit clusters of American Conservatives or the productivity and innovation of the Industrial and subsequent Revolutions.

No comments:

Post a Comment