By now everybody knows (or at least should know) that a cuckold is a historical term for a man whose wife has sex with other men. In modern pornography, it’s typically a white man whose white wife has sex with a black man.
In the political world, “cuck” has come to describe someone that supports something against their interest. The word “cuckservative” derives from a combination of cuckold and conservative. The conservative movement has three separate strategies for growing their base. The first is to not mention any identity politics and just preach the message. This is the method that was typically used by conservatives through the 2012 election. After they lost the 2012 election, lots of them had determined that they need to start preaching identity politics.
The second is to be a cuckservative. That’s where you try to appeal to the identity politics of non-whites, by blaming income inequality, prison sentencing, and a number of other things on institutional racism; and by advocating for bringing in people from third world countries with the hopes that those who are already here will support you. The third is the white identitarian who tries to rally up the white majority and get them to get out to vote. Though not an overt identitarian, Donald Trump has been the best exemplification of this strategy – and its a method that has worked well for him, seeing as how he won the Republican nomination.
1. You think that open borders will advance the cause of liberty.
This is probably the most common example of cuckery in the libertarian movement. Opening up the borders is a policy that’s advocated by most of the elites, as well as the republican and democrat establishment. When those people who have dedicated so much time and money towards controlling every part our lives are advocating for a specific policy, it would be a good idea to assume that they have ulterior motives when it comes to opening up the borders.
It’s true that in a 100 percent free market society, there wouldn’t be state run borders. The fact of the matter however, is that we don’t live in a free market society. The borders now are essentially magnets for welfare, food stamps, free education, and anti-discrimination law beneficiaries that wouldn’t exist in a free market society. A massive wall on the U.S.-Mexico border would be closer to a free market society than these magnetic borders we have now.
The primary reason for these magnetic borders has to do with the desire by liberals to change the demographics of the county so that they’ll win elections easier and will be able to implement their socialist policies with more ease. White Americans tend to oppose ‘big government’ and socialist plans, so replacing them with people who love them seems like a great strategy for leftists- especially considering that the majority of immigrants vote Democrat.
The Republican establishment, on the other hand, supports open borders because they enjoy devaluing labor in some sectors of the economy. Lots of donors will not give money to people who support shutting down the borders because they profit too much from cheap labor. If Mexicans or whatever group of people crossing the border were doing it so they could vote for candidates who would lower taxes and free up the markets, then it would make sense for libertarians to support bringing them in.
Inevitably, during the course of this conversation, there will be that cuck that takes a break from raising his wife’s son to say, “Well you support state violence, a police state bluh hurr durr… it’s a violation of muh nap to have a border… our taxes are stolen from us to fund this statist program” or something along those lines. Taxation is an evil thing, but taxes are going to exist whether or not the border is opened or closed. You will be taxed at much higher rates once the demographics shift and leftists win every election. Just who do you think is going to pay for these new immigrants’ welfare, food stamps, education, etc.?
Now with regards to the police or border patrol, everyone should know that the more private, non-state crime that exists in an area the more police are demanded by the public. In the three whitest states of the union: New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine – there exists the lowest crime rates. That means less of a demand for police. If you go to some neighborhoods in the U.S. that are majority Black or Hispanic, you are extremely more likely to be a victim of a crime. That causes the people who live near those neighborhoods to want more and more police to keep them safe. When cops who are in white states don’t get shot at by private criminals, they don’t go around whining about the second amendment because they don’t view guns as a threat. Lots of cops in Black or Hispanic cities see guns as a problem, and go around advocating for more gun control because they are constantly privy to violence.
My last point in reference to open borders is that it’s basically a foreign invasion. Now the cuck will say “an invasion requires an army.” No it doesn’t. If the people being invaded don’t resist the invasion, an army is not necessary to continue the invasion. This isn’t so bad in the U.S. right now, but it is in Europe with millions of Muslim invaders being brought into countries on behest of traitorous politicians. I also think it’s ironic how the same cuckertarians on my timeline that talk about how we need to open the borders will mention Christopher Columbus and the other white invaders murdering the Indians every Columbus Day, even though that’s a perfect example of what happens to people when they don’t secure their borders.
2. You think that white privilege exists and that blacks are harmed by the government more than whites.
Basic logic dictates that if someone benefits from something, they will support it – and if someone is harmed by something, they will oppose it. Let’s say that the government determined that everyone born in the first six months of the year had to pay $1,000 every year into a special fund that was then divided evenly among everyone who was born in the last six months. If a poll was conducted, people born in the first six months of the year would hate the policy much more than the people born in the last six months. Obviously, there would be some people born in the first six months who made a lot of money and thought of it as some type of social justice program and approved of it, and people born in the last six months who viewed it as wrong.
The point is that if black people were harmed by the state more than whites, blacks would be the ones against the state. It’s no secret that libertarians are almost all white. The primary reason for that is because blacks benefit from the existence of the state and whites don’t. Blacks benefit from a number of programs such as affirmative action, anti-discrimination hiring, admission and loaning laws etc.. Affirmative action is pretty obvious in the sense that it prioritizes blacks over whites.
Everyone who has ever worked a job in the food, retail, or warehouse environment and has had black co-workers will tell you that they almost always do a shitty job and would have been fired sooner if they were white – but businesses are afraid of lawsuits. With the loaning issues, ask any drug dealer if they ever front money to blacks. Every single one will say no, because they’re smart enough to know that, on average, blacks are much more likely to not honor their debts than whites. Any ”reputable” lending institutions that have to comply with federal lending regulations know that blacks are more likely to default on their loans as well. Blacks love these anti-discrimination laws that allow them to continue getting hired at jobs where they can do a bad job and avoid being fired out of a fear of a lawsuit – or that allow them to continue taking out loans they can default on.
Blacks disproportionately use the government to take care of their children, and themselves by collecting food stamps, welfare, Medicaid etc. Plus they go to government run schools. Most white people go to said schools as well, but they pay property taxes for them, while blacks living on welfare do not. Cuckertarians will inevitably say that blacks go to prison more than whites, but they will never wrap their heads around the fact that they commit vastly more crimes. I realize most libertarians who say that white privilege exists don’t actually believe it, but just the fact that they talk about it is bad enough.
3. You ALWAYS mention Nazi Germany as an example of government tyranny.
Everyone knows that there are more references to Nazi Germany than any other example of government tyranny. You hear about in non-stop in government run education facilities, and it’s in plenty of movies. There are other bad things that happened in WW2 besides the holocaust, such as the U.S. and Britain’s bombing of Dresden, the Russian soldiers raping German women as they “liberated” them from Nazi control, the Japanese eating POWs, the rape of Nanking, and all of the messed up human experiments they did on the Chinese.
There are also other instances where governments massacred more people, including Stalin stealing most of the grain from Ukraine and then exporting it to foreign countries which caused millions to starve. He also killed millions of other people trying to maintain control. Then you have people like Mao who killed around 70 million trying to implement communism in China. Plus the Cambodians who killed one million educated people and the Turks who massacred the Armenians in WW1. The reason that these atrocities don’t get talked about as much they should is because they don’t fit the narrative of evil white men oppressing the poor, historically victimized jews.
4. You think that MLK was a freedom fighter.
This one is pretty self explanatory. Martin Luther King Jr., a socialist with communist sympathies, advocated for forced integration and hated private property rights. Opposing private property is about the most anti-freedom policy one can support.
5. You have guilt about slavery in the U.S..
Nobody should have guilt about something that they didn’t personally partake in. If you personally keep black slaves for whatever reason, then you should feel guilty about it. No one should feel bad about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago. None of my ancestors had any part in slavery in the U.S.. Many black people do have ancestors who were white slave owners. Why do they not feel bad about the actions of their ancestors?
I think that being a direct descendent of someone is more serious than sharing the same skin color with them. If everyone felt bad about sharing skin colors with bad people, every single human in the world would feel guilty every second of every day. It’s completely absurd.
6. You don’t think that Muslims are a threat to your freedom.
There has been a lot of anti-islamic propaganda in the U.S. media lately, pushed by government officials, so I can sort of understand why people think muslims are not a threat to freedom. If you look at every country with a muslim majority however, they have very little liberty. Large majority’s of Muslims believe Sharia is the revealed word of God and should be implemented on earth. These aren’t even “radical” Muslims who you see like ISIS members. If you have a conversation with your average Muslim they’ll say they support it.
By the time that Muslims become a majority in a geographic area, they will implement Sharia Law or some variation of it. They can easily become the majority in most of Europe by just outbreeding the native populations within the next 30 or so years. In addition to that, while they commit more crimes, it causes the public to demand more cops, more taxes to fund their prisons, and women are unable to leave their homes late at night out of fear of being raped. That’s not even mentioning the restrictions on privacy that always occur after one of them commits a terrorist attack.
7. You’re concerned about diversifying the liberty movement.
Everyone knows that the liberty movement is basically all white. Many cuckertarians think that libertarianism needs to be diversified. Libertarianism is a failing political movement. As of now, there are no Libertarian Party members in Congress. The only one in any state legislature is John Moore who is in Nevada’s General Assembly. In the 2012 presidential election, Gary Johnson had a great résumé being a former governor and his goal was to get five percent of the vote in the general election.
He couldn’t even get to five percent in a single state, and got less than one percent of the popular vote nationwide. Republicans and Democrats always try to get 50+ percent of the vote in every state. If there was ever an election where one party failed to get 50 percent in any state and got less than 10 percent in the general election, the party would basically fold over. Despite failure after failure, nothing has really changed in the Libertarian Party however.
Now, there is more to libertarianism than the party. There are two libertarian leaning people in Congress right now, out of 435 – and one in the senate, out of 100. The one in the senate (Rand Paul) failed at becoming the Republican nominee because he decided to cuck himself to social justice causes and the federal government is continuing to grow.
Right now, Bernie Sanders, who is the biggest pro-government candidate in decades, almost became the Democratic Party nominee. If nominated, I believe he would have won in the general election. Worrying about libertarianism not being more diverse should be the least of our concerns. Focusing on growing the philosophy should be more important than diversifying it. Would you rather have 100 million white libertarians and zero non-white libertarians, or 10 million white and five million non-white libertarians?
8. You’re more concerned with Western “rape culture” than you are with Islamic gang rapes.
This one is pretty self explanatory if you know what rape culture means. Rape is one of the most un-libertarian things you can do, arguably the worst besides murder, so all libertarians should oppose it. This means that the culture that promotes rape is bad too, right? Not exactly if you are a cuckertarian. Rape culture has a wide definition, but it’s basically feminists whining about how western societies think that women should be responsible for their own safety.
Telling women how to avoid being raped instead of telling men not to rape is supposed to be an example of Western rape culture. You simply can’t reason with a predator. Trying to teach a rapist to not rape will work as well as trying to teach a wolf not to eat a deer. If you want to avoid being a victim, you can do stuff to avoid it – like carrying a weapon, learning self defense training, avoiding going in certain neighborhoods, not drinking too much etc. Saying that giving advice to women is promoting rape culture is ridiculous.
According to the people who push this rape culture nonsense, it extends beyond actual rape to the way women are portrayed in TV and magazines. Now if you notice, lots of the same people who cry about women being given advice to avoid being victims or complain about how women are being portrayed in the media, don’t seem to care about the massive Islamic gang rapes of non-Muslim, mostly blonde haired European women. In fact, the rape capital of the west is now Sweden, which is one of the European countries that has most embraced Muslim immigration. There, a two percent male Muslim population commits 77 percent of the rapes.
9. You think (or at least publically state) that all men are created equal.
I realize that very few people who state this actually believe it – though it still gets passed around. This is a very dangerous view to hold, because all men have evolved with different abilities. Some are smarter, some are dumber, some can build muscle easily, others can’t, some are tall, some are short, some have a high time preference, others have a low time preference. Different abilities based off a number of factors will cause some people to fail and others to succeed.
Now if you don’t believe in evolution and think that all people have equal abilities, when some fail and others succeed it would naturally cause you to believe that one is screwing the other person over in some way. This then causes people to advocate for state policy to fix these inequalities with invasive measures.
10. You say that you can’t be a libertarian if you support Trump.
You’ll hear this one a lot. Ignore the fact that Walter Block, one of the most influential libertarian academics, Stefan Molyneux, leading libertarian philosopher, and Alex Jones, the most popular libertarian out there have all endorsed the guy. Among everyone who ran for president from the start, Donald Trump was by far the least interventionist candidate, and was one of three that called for auditing the federal reserve. He has some issues with his economic policies, but compared to Hillary the choice should be simple one would think – but not for the cuckertarian.
Trump is also the only one running on a platform to fix the demographic crisis in America with millions of Muslims and Mexicans coming across the border. If whites ever become a minority in the U.S., you can kiss any chance in getting a relative libertarian society goodbye. Getting a libertarian society through voting won’t work in this election, so we should do whatever we can to stop an even worse crisis from occurring in the future. I don’t really have a problem with libertarians not supporting Trump and choosing to engage in other actions, just don’t say that we aren’t libertarians for supporting Trump.