The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Unnatural Prejudice of Globalists

Posted on | March 20, 2020 | Comments Off on The Unnatural Prejudice of Globalists

Sen. Theodore Bilbo could not be reached for comment.

Ace of Spades has been using the slur “cuck,” which was popularized by the so-called “alt-right” to describe neoconservatives. I have avoided this term because it derives from a type of pornography, appealing to men who fantasize about seeing their wives have sex with other men. These “cuckold” fantasies are perverse — abnormal, unnatural, deviant — and why? Because normal men have a pride of possession in their wives.

Students of anthropology, sociology and psychology can explain why monogamous marriage for life is normative among humans. It is not only a matter of instinct, but rational self-interest, that causes men to desire an exclusive sexual relationship, because otherwise a man might spend his life working to support another man’s children. The word “cuckold” refers to the cuckoo bird, which lays its eggs in other birds’ nests, and the exclusivity of marriage serves the social good by preventing analogous behavior in humans. An adulterous woman might, by her deceit, humiliate her husband by compelling him to support children sired by her lover. This is why promiscuity is more stigmatized in women than in men. The man who “plays the field” is engaged in antisocial behavior — and is condemned as a sinner in Judeo-Christian morality — but the woman who exhibits promiscuous tendencies thereby removes herself from the category of “wife material,” since no intelligent man would trust her to remain loyal within marriage. But I digress . . .

The use of the term “cuck” to describe neoconservatives is a reference to their contempt for national sovereignty, particularly their enthusiasm for an “open borders” immigration policy. The globalist outlook of the neoconservative expresses a prejudice in favor of foreigners, to the detriment of his own people, an attitude that is as unnatural as the perverse fantasies of men who want to watch other men have sex with their wives. The analogy is not perfect, but it does call our attention to the pride of possession that is the root of our sense of patriotism.

It’s like home ownership. People who own their own home will invest their own time and money in the maintenance and improvement their property, because this increases the asset-value of their home. The renter, by contrast, has no such incentive, and anyone who has ever owned or managed rental property can tell you nightmare stories about how slovenly and destructive tenants can be.

An American citizen should have the pride of possession in his country that a homeowner has in his home — or that a husband has in his wife. It is worth mentioning here that the word “husband” is of Germanic origin, meaning home owner (as opposed to a landless peasant). The advocacy of open borders — an immigration free-for-all — is as offensive to a patriot as would be the suggestion that he should let a bunch of strangers barge into his home uninvited and help themselves to whatever they want.

When Ace mocks the #NeverTrump crowd as “cucks,” it is their unnatural (and unpatriotic) enthusiasm for an open-borders immigration policy which makes them deserving of such ridicule. Any conservative might rightly criticize President Trump for his worst tendencies, and certainly it never would have occurred to me to recruit a reality-TV star as a Republican presidential candidate. Nevertheless, on the basic issue of patriotism — particularly in opposition to illegal immigration — Trump is a welcome remedy to a problem that has plagued the Republican Party for the past three decades. Whereas Democrats celebrate the incoming swarm of Third World immigrants as potential future Democrat voters, Republicans have been too much influenced by Chamber of Commerce lobbyists who see in this immigrant horde a supply of cheap labor to be exploited for profit. It has been the habit of neoconservatives to deride as “racist” any opposition to this bipartisan open-borders policy.

A rational concern for one’s own self-interest is not hateful prejudice. An American who doesn’t want to see his country overrun by foreigners — which is what has been happening for 30 years — does not deserve to be smeared as a latter-day Senator Bilbo. It is dishonest to accuse the patriot of “racism” over what is a matter of public policy that directly affects his personal interests, as our immigration policy does. Most of the 62.9 million Americans who voted for Trump have friends and neighbors of various ethnicity with whom they get along just fine, but they suspect (and rightly so, in my opinion) that the total number of Third World immigrants coming to the United States is too large, and that tolerance toward illegal immigrants is particularly ill-advised.

The question of numbers, in regard to immigration, is a matter of public policy, and no matter what you think the proper number of immigrants should be, if you are unwilling to enforce existing immigration law, you effectively endorse unlimited immigration — open borders.

Permit me to remind readers of something you may have forgotten: As soon as President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, all the pundits immediately assumed that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee in 2008. One result was an avalanche of anti-Hillary books from right-wing authors, and every “political strategist” in the Republican Party began thinking of 2008 in terms of how to beat Hillary.

What went wrong? Blame Tim Russert.

The veteran host of NBC’s Meet the Press was the moderator of an Oct. 30, 2007, debate in Philadelphia where this exchange took place:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, N.H., editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?
MRS. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.
We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.
I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform. …

After an exchange between Mr. Russert and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Mrs. Clinton jumped in:

MRS. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed . . .
MR. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said, yes, you thought it made sense to do it.
MRS. CLINTON: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving?
MR. DODD: Well, that’s a legitimate issue. But driver’s license goes too far, in my view.
MRS. CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification if somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker . . .
MR. DODD: There’s ways of dealing with that.
MRS. CLINTON: Well, but . . .
MR. DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.
MRS. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses ? one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is an ordinary driver’s license and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road.
MR. DODD: That’s a bureaucratic nightmare.
MRS. CLINTON: So it’s not the full privilege.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, N.H., paper it made a lot of sense. . . . Do you support his plan?
MRS. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.
Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.

Until that debate, Hillary had a commanding position in the polls, but from that point onward, her numbers began an irreversible decline, from which she never could recover. Her go-to reply to Russert’s question was “comprehensive immigration reform,” which everyone who had paid attention to the recent congressional debate understood to be a synonym for amnesty. In asking about then-New York Gov. Elliott Spitzer’s proposal to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, Russert said nothing whatsoever about any national “reform” plan and, after Hillary gave her initial answer, she seemed to realize that she had left herself exposed to criticism on this issue, which is why she interrupted after Russert’s exchange with Chris Dodd. She was trying to weasel her way out of taking a direct stance for or against Spitzer’s proposal, and to blame the failure of “reform” on the Bush administration. I remember watching that debate live as it happened and thinking: “Holy crap, good-bye Iowa.”

“All politics is local,” as they say, and most people have no idea what a huge issue illegal immigration is in Iowa. For the past 20 or 30 years, meat-processing plants have been bringing in workers from Mexico and Central America to work in the pork, chicken and beef plants (which are located in Iowa because that’s where corn to feed livestock can be most cheaply obtained). Some communities have been completely overwhelmed by the influx of Hispanic workers. Small towns in rural Iowa where there had been no significant amount of immigration in the past century suddenly found their local schools inundated by the children of these newcomers, and this caused problems unrelated to any racial prejudice. Overnight, teachers were expected to deal with kids who spoke little English, and whose parents spoke no English at all.

It is very easy for the wealthy elite to shrug their shoulders at the plight of people in rural Iowa — “deplorables,” as Hillary would later dub them — who find their communities transformed by immigration. And the way Hillary answered Russert’s question, by speaking of “undocumented workers” and trying to shift the blame to the Bush administration, showed her elitist disdain for the people of Iowa.

When Ace of Spades mocks #NeverTrump as a bunch of “cucks,” what he is saying is that these Republicans (or ex-Republicans) are as guilty as Hillary of an elitist contempt for ordinary Americans. Patriotism is fundamentally about loyalty, and loyalty must be reciprocal to be rational. The patriot is loyal to his country because he believes that his country deserves loyalty. Yet if his sentiment is not reciprocated — if the leadership caste of the country consistently acts to the detriment of its loyal citizens — then patriotism is foolish. Why should a man send his son to serve in the Army if the nation’s leaders never share that patriotic burden, and especially if those leaders show a perverse tendency to prefer the interests foreigners over the interests of American citizens?

Is it unfair to imply that Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, Charlie Sykes, et al., enjoy watching their wives having sex with other men? Perhaps, but the analogy implied by the “cuck” insult is entirely accurate. Their lack of proper patriotism — their hostility to the hopes, dreams and interests of ordinary Americans — is perverse, deviant, abnormal and unnatural. They are indefensible, and should be ashamed of themselves.



Comments are closed.