Friedrich Hayek first noted that conservatives were not friends of individual freedom, with his essay "Why I Am Not a Conservative," which originally appeared as the 13th and final chapter in his book, "The Constitution of Liberty." Because he got it so right, I link to that essay at multiple times on this page, because it demolishes the argument that conservatism is legitimate.
It's fair to call this post a rant ...I'm tired of the totally illegitimate political philosophy called "conservatism" wasting the time and energy of the world's many idiots and internet trolls, and pushing the entire world closer to totalitarianism as it pretends to be materially different from socialism. Germany's "national socialism" is now called "conservative," because it claimed it was going to "conserve" Germany's "culture" and German genetics("blood"). US "conservatives" rebel against that comparison, largely just because they claim they want to "conserve" American values ...that they, like Germany before them, cannot even define. US "conservatives" weren't idiots, they'd be calling themselves libertarians. ...But libertarians have high IQs, so there are fewer of them. ...Which means they can't form a group large enough to be a winning political party. Donald Trump's fans therefore conclude that they should follow Donald Trump ...and "win" a healthy dose of the idiotic and self-contradictory tyranny he's offering.
("illegal" "alien" who committed no "body of crime" or "corpus delicti")
("illegal" gun owner who committed no "body of crime" or "corpus delicti")
(By the time "conservatives" decide to join libertarians in supporting civil disobedience, this is the situation they're in.)
All of the prior points lead in the direction that conservatism is not itself an internally-consistent, unified philosophy --it's another complex and costly mistake on the time-line of humanity figuring out where it's going. ...But unlike in the millennia prior to computation, humanity doesn't have another 100 years to reinvest in a cycle of entrepreneurial creation and totalitarian destruction, because every government in the world is attempting to build artificial general intelligence (AGI).
Before all the cowardly, gun-control-appeasing, drug-war-loving conSERVILEtives get their panties fully twisted, let me explain something: I'm more hardcore-pro-freedom than you, not less hardcore-pro-freedom than you. I'm not a "conservative" because I'm a libertarian, ..not one of the socialist liberals you falsely claim to dislike (while arguing out of the other side of your mouth that the police who enforce those "statute" laws should be lauded as "heroes"). I not only disagree with the speed at which the socialists are destroying western civilization, I disagree with their entire totalitarian value structure and legal structure. Unlike timid conservatives, libertarians disagree with totalitarianism because we fully understand how states become totalitarian. Libertarians also disagree that we should even allow such modern "neoliberal" socialists to get away with calling themselves liberals, since the original liberals were laissez-faire capitalists ...unlike conservatives. (We don't want to socialists from calling themselves liberals, but we should, and will, always challenge them when they do.)
Again, this is directed to "conservatives": I despise your nanny police state that wants to prevent innocent people from living free. I despise your police, and their red-light cameras and speed cameras that automate injustice. I despise your stupid speed limits, that punish innocent people for driving as if they have a set of testicles. I despise your cowardly capitulation to what socialist totalitarian Al Franken just called "the administrative state." I despise the fact that you championed restrictions on free speech until doing so bit you in the ass, making your side of the argument, "illegal" on college campuses (and, if Al Franken, Jeff Sessions, and Charles Schumer have their way) in the rest of the entire USA. I despise your pathetic, weak attempts to "conserve" the freedom you are to afraid to honestly admit that you lost a long time ago.
The first step toward not being "cuckolded" yourself, is to admit that you saw a used condom in the trash next to your wife's bed, and that you didn't put it there. The first step to solving America's problems is admitting they exist, and correctly diagnosing them.
The term "cuckold" is now a term for a sexual fetish meaning that a husband enjoys being humiliated (often by a member of a race that is seen as being dominant in the scenario) by having someone else (often, but not always, a black man) sexually satisfy his wife. The racial component is commonplace among cuckold fetishists, but it doesn't always exist. Sometimes there's a homosexual component as well, when the husband then gives a blowjob to the man who just fucked his wife, supposedly adding to his humiliation.
In cuckold porn, the term commonly describes wimpy white guys that want to watch their wives get fucked, especially in a way that displays dominance or aggression, by black men. The wimpy white husband is labeled the "cuckold" and is said to "have been cuckolded" by the black man, when the term is used as a verb. Typically, the white wives are seen as "finally enjoying themselves" after not having been able to enjoy themselves with the sexually inferior white men they are with. Because sexuality is rather diverse, there are, of course, counter-examples to the prior example (ie: white guys dominating a black or other white man's wife and giving her the satisfaction her husband could not). Prior to commonplace internet pornography, the term "cuckold" did not usually describe a husband watching men have sex with his wife, but instead, simply referred to any cheated-on husband (as Milo Yiannopolous stated, Shakespeare used the term). I could flesh it out more than that, but you get the basic idea: it's about someone allowing an external culture into their household to satisfy their wife (live up to their basic responsibilities) often since they're unable to do so, ...and even enjoying it.
The term is descended from the Latin term for "cuckoo" due to the cuckoo's parasitic life-cycle process of replacing other birds' eggs with its own in host birds' nests, and having those host birds raise its young in place of their own murdered young. (This is important, etymologically, to why the bastardization of the term "cuckold" into "cuckservative" is seen as a good political insult. Western civilization is seen as unnecessarily capitulating to radical Islam, and failing socialist states that lack the level of freedom of speech seen in the USA, such as Germany and Canada.)
So, the term "cuckold" is all about giving up something of value to a hostile, parasitic invader that doesn't value you, seeks to dominate you, and offers you nothing but humiliation in return. By extending this term from the sexual fetish use of the term, and applying it to cultural and racial collectives, the term carries political implications for white men, and western civilization: What Paris and Sweden have allowed to happen to "their women"(by allowing them to be raped by Islamic immigrants) they are allowing to happen to "their culture"(by conflating aggressive advances that can nonetheless be declined with "rape," while ignoring actual rape by Islamic immigrants, and refusing to even prosecute it, lest that law enforcement or political body be decried as "Islamophobic").
This origin of the term, unfortunately, implies no clear political philosophy: just a set of popular political positions that view western civilization as "superior" ...without clearly defining why they are superior.
The controversial, inconsistent, "libertarian conservative," Milo Yiannopoulos, recently defended use of the term on Joe Rogan's podcast, referencing his 2015 mainstream popularization of the term to the entire "Alt-Right," in the essay "‘Cuckservative’ Is a Gloriously Effective Insult That Should Not Be Slurred, Demonised, or Ridiculed". Nonetheless, he gets a lot of things right, especially when he quotes Mike Cernovich on the use of the term "cuckservative" in the prior link:
Yiannopoulos has been exploiting the sheeplike conSERVILEtive majority's tendency to vote along major party lines in his 2016-2017 "Dangerous Faggot" speaking tour. In that tour, he's often stated his support for Trump because he believes that mainstream theocratic republicans are a different and worse breed than Trump supporters (how this might translate into a more libertarian policy is unclear, since politicians have a tendency to deliver on their bad promises, and renege on their good "promises"). Milo's opposition to the drug war also places him in conflict with Trump and the police, but he claims that he believes the laws should be changed, sometimes disavowing civil disobedience, and sometimes not. In the prior-mentioned Joe Rogan podcast, he says "If you want to be libertarian today, you pretty much have to be conservative." So, he tends to cater to a mainstream that's less well-informed than he is, to win passive support for "controversial speech." When he interviewed John McAfee, he stated that it was a shame that John had no chance of winning the presidency, because he "actually agreed more with his views" than anyone else's.)
Another Joe Rogan podcast excerpt specifically on the term "cuck" yielded this comment in the user section, by the user "SpywareEverywhere":
As you can see, this term was easily extended to politics: it's a pejorative, when used against someone who views themselves as strong and dominant, because it's used to describe a man who enjoys being submissive. So, if your criticism of someone's politics is that they are so cowardly that they compromise or capitulate when it's not necessary (ie: "I for one, welcome our new insect overlords."), it sould seem that the "cuckservative" pejorative is the perfect thing to use.
Often shortened to "Cuck," "cuckservative" is a concise, derisive term. A seemingly perfect pejorative. ...But there's a problem with it.
The term is used to mock a political designation that is, itself, illegitimate. As Friedrich Hayek noted in his famous essay, "Why I Am Not a Conservative," "conservatism" is a term used to define a political "holding position" that is not based on any inherent sort of logical value structure, beyond "keep the 'status quo' that we have right now, because I like it." "Conservatism" attempts to "conserve" the existing political establishment: even the parts of it that are illegitimate. Why "conserve" the illegitimate parts? ...Because conservatives are simply too stupid to determine what is legitimate, and what is illegitimate. They believe that "judeo christian values"(theocracy) created western civilization, not "limits on (theocratic) government power." They often conflate the two, claiming to believe in strong limits on government power, while supporting policies that make limiting government power impossible. Like I said, they're stupid.
Sure, in comparison to barbarous totalitarian shit-holes like Saudi Arabia (9/10 totalitarian) and North Korea(10/10 totalitarian), the USA is a wonderful place. ...But is our government worth "conserving" in its current, degraded, socialist-leaning form? Is it the pinnacle of the laissez-faire capitalism that so-called "conservatives" claim to desire? Of course not! The "social conservative" portion of "conservatism" is pure bigotry, written into law. Even "fiscal conservatism" is not legitimate because there is no more limited government, laissez-faire capitalism to "conserve" ...it must be restored.
...And are conservatives the right people to restore individual freedom to the USA? ...Of course not! So what does conservatism get wrong? It doesn't strive toward consistent property rights, it assumes that, because the USA has more property rights than other places that "all existing policies and laws are legitimate." It assumes that police must "enforce every law" simply because it exists. (Ironically, because the Framers of the Constitution knew that laws could be corrupted, they built random jury trial into the Constitution, in order to limit the power of the law by jury nullification of law, which is context-based. They also gave judges the ability to acquit "sua sponte" but not to expand punishments.)
As Hayek noted, conservatives wish to mindlessly "apply every law" because they lack the intelligence to "separate the wheat from the chaff" or to "judge the laws individually, based on those laws' merits(and demerits)".
It's a sign of political stupidity(the unwitting tendency toward self-destruction) to lack rational, logical, clearly-defined political goals. ...But this perfectly describes both modern "liberals" and "conservatives" ..both of whom accept the existing police state as legitimate, simply because they do not know how this country(the USA) and this civilization(what MEP Daniel Hannan calls the common law Anglosphere) obtained its high standard of living. This gives them no comprehension of the recent failures that have eliminated so much of our birthright of freedom, and no knowledge of how to correct them. For this reason, you're as likely to be called a "cuck" for being a strong defender of western civilization and of individual freedom, as for mindlessly advocating capitulation to Islamic theocracy.
When Donald Trump was running for office in 2015, the term "Cuckservative" was popularized to poke fun of people who called themselves "conservatives" who were so "insufficiently conservative"(wimpy or ineffectual in their defense of "conservatism") that their participation in the Republican primaries was an asset to the Democrats and other destroyers of western civilization, such as radical islamists. Sadly, intellectual honesty and philosophical consistency are not usually a part of this criticism, especially because of their toxic loyalty to the grossly inconsistent US Republican Party (which, itself, deserves to be labeled as "cuckservative" by any rational standards inherent in the term).
Many in the Republican Party now oppose non-Islamic immigration(Mexican immigration) to the same extent it opposes Islamic jihad. Many in the Republican Party, including the president, Donald Trump, now attempt to enforce, and even expand the anti-property-rights "drug war" that has jailed over 2 million technically innocent Americans. (To which stupid serviles are certain to bleat, "They're not innocent, they broke the law!" ...thus proving that they lack any intellectual capacity to judge (a)the merits of western civilization (b) the content of the Bill of Rights (c) the legitimacy of the law (d) the Historical trend of civil disobedience to increase capitalism and property rights. Instead, they servilely embrace, by default and without knowledge, the exact opposite of American ideals, "the Nuremberg Defense." The Nuremberg Defense("I was just a soldier, following orders.") was found illegitimate, and the Nazis who used it were all either sentenced to death or prison for war crimes.
Although the idiot Trumpkins champion the police, they claim they don't want to live in the police state the leftists have created. So, either they are willing to pick up guns and defend their lives and property from the police("Don't Tread On Me") or they are going to be servile to police in any conflict, even one in which their rights, life, and liberty are totally violated. (Because both History and examples in the present day have shown that the police are willing to follow any order they are given. Here are some examples of police following unjust orders that ruin innocent lives, and attack innocent people with violence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Trump organizationally and monetarily made short work of Rand Paul in 2015 because Rand Paul didn't know how to speak boldly, and for that, we lost the only pro-freedom major-party candidate in the race, until John McAfee briefly re-entered the race as a Libertarian, too late to win it (and with a team that didn't know how to win it). McAfee said he was no longer of the Cyber Party when he realized(partly due to talking with me) how much it would cost to put a "new political party" on the ballot in 50 States. The only reason these two excellent candidates were eliminated so early in the race was that the unconstitutional ballot access laws in the USA require a lot of money to comply with, since over 1,000,000 signatures need to be collected to place anyone on the ballot as a minor party or "independent" (likely too late for them to win the election, since those deadlines are later and they'd have needed to be campaigning long before the deadlines), and it's on the order of 300,000 if you want to run as a major party --in which case the petitioning needs to be done in the middle of winter, which makes it much harder.
Most "conservatives" and "liberals" have no idea that these ballot access obstacles even exist. They mindlessly assume that "things are as they are" for a good and valid reason.
This is the key difference between a "Cuckservative" and a "conSERVILEtive" ...the cuckservative is anyone who opposes Trump. The "conSERVILEtive" is someone who opposes the values America was founded on, at a deep and philosophical level, including those who are Trump supporters who "want to win" even if they only "win" totalitarianism.
In short, "conSERVILEtive" insults someone for believing that nanny state dick-heads and their pathetic, anti-American stormtroopers have a right to attack and murder them (and steal their property) for the non-crime of recreational drug use, gambling, prostitution, prohibited gun possession, safely speeding, etc., simply because the idiots in the legislature made a law that enables that type of sociopathic behavior.
Such people may be relatively physically brave, but they are so intellectually cowardly that they literally cannot defend any of their ideas without resorting to mindless fallacies, ...especially sarcasm, and outrage.
The term "servile" arose as a pejorative on libertarian message boards, and from Vin Suprynowicz's libertarian column in the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Now that Milo (and many others) are calling themselves libertarians, it's time to show them that serviles are not wanted in the libertarian movement, and, if they wish to call themselves part of the solution, they'll need to check their servility at the door. (And no, this is not a call to exclude them. That accomplishes nothing. It's a call to attack their wretched ideas with logic and reason, even while we champion their good ideas.)
Politics follows culture. Milo often calls himself "a libertarian conservative." Gavin McInnes calls himself "a libertarian conservative." If even those two commentators called themselves libertarians and pointed out how they were not "conSERVILEtives," libertarians would win more elections. Let's help them eliminate the servile portion of their philosophy by learning the basics of what it means to refuse to serve the totalitarian state.
We own the moral and intellectual high ground. Let's act like it, and let no idea without legs of its own ...fall.