I’m fairly confident that no one associated with the Alt-Right spends more time watching them – reading their websites, following their Twitter circle jerk – than I do:

“It would also be a disaster for conservatism to become associated with white identity politics. American conservatism, unlike traditional European conservatism, is liberty-loving because we are defending the revolutionary ideals of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism holds that the individual is sovereign and that he or she should be judged on his own merits, not according to his tribe, his class or faith. Identity politics is hemlock to this vision. I’ll say it again, conservatism is about more than classical liberalism, but a conservatism that doesn’t conserve classical liberalism isn’t worth conserving. I’ll say it again, conservatism is about more than classical liberalism, but a conservatism that doesn’t conserve classical liberalism isn’t worth conserving. …”

According to the cucks, we’re the champions of “white identity politics.” That’s their way of acknowledging that we identify with a peculiar ethnic group and its culture. We see ourselves as champions of our nation. We are a hard-nosed group of people who believe in our interests. We’re proud to be White – something so uncouth, so racist that they could never bring themselves to say it in public if their lives depended on it. We’re motivated by a sense of honor – this is all about the duty we owe to our ancestors and descendants.

In contrast, a cuck is a status seeking ideologue. Whereas I identify as a White Southerner, they identify with “Freedom” or “Equality” or “Human Rights” or the “Constitution.” They see the world in terms of their abstract principles. We see the world through the concrete interests of our people. They’re the champions of a failed Enlightenment ideology. They are proud of, say, “American exceptionalism.” It’s all that plus an insatiable yearning to be seen as “respectable” – “one of the good ones” – by leftists who despise them.

We want to “conserve” our people – for example, I get up every morning motivated by the future welfare of my descendants, which I think about every single day. They want to “conserve” liberal abstractions. We’re unphased when we are called mean names because we haven’t lost our self respect. We’re not embarrassed to pursue our interests. They are mortified because they are secretly guilty and ashamed of their heritage. They don’t give much thought to the world they are leaving behind.

Philosophically, a cuck is a classical liberal who has an unqualified, childlike reverence for “freedom” or “liberty.” In contrast, the Alt-Right would agree with this passage from George Fitzhugh’s Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters:

“Further study, too, of Western European Society, which has been engaged in continual revolution for twenty years, has satisfied us that Free Society every where begets isms, and that isms soon beget bloody revolutions. Until our trip to the North, we did not justly appreciate the passage which we are about to quote from Mr. Carlyle’s “Latter-Day Pamphlets.” Now it seems to us as if Boston, New Haven, or Western New York, had set for the picture: “To rectify the relation that exists between two men, is there no method, then, but that of ending it? The old relation has become unsuitable, obsolete, perhaps unjust; and the remedy is, abolish it; let there henceforth be no relation at all. From the ‘sacrament of marriage’ downwards, human beings used to be manifoldly related one to another, and each to all; and there was no relation among human beings, just or unjust, that had not its grievances and its difficulties, its necessities on both sides to bear and forbear. But henceforth, be it known, we have changed all that by favor of Heaven; the ‘voluntary principle’ has come up, which will itself do the business for us; and now let a new sacrament, that of Divorce, which we call emancipation, and spout of on our platforms, be universally the order of the day! Have men considered whither all this is tending, and what it certainly enough betokens? Cut every human relation that has any where grown uneasy sheer asunder; reduce whatsoever was compulsory to voluntary, whatsoever was permanent among us to the condition of the nomadic; in other words, LOOSEN BY ASSIDUOUS WEDGES, in every joint, the whole fabrice of social existence, stone from stone, till at last, all lie now quite loose enough, it can, as we already see in most countries, be overset by sudden outburst of revolutionary rage; and lying as mere mountains of anarchic rubbish, solicit you to sing Fraternity, &c. over it, and rejoice in the now remarkable era of human progress we have arrived at.” Now we plant ourselves on this passage from Carlyle. We say that, as far as it goes, ’tis a faithful picture of the isms of the North. But the restraints of Law and Public Opinion are less at the North than in Europe. The isms on each side the Atlantic are equally busy with “assiduous wedges,” in “loosening in every joint the whole fabric of social existence;” but whilst they dare invoke Anarchy in Europe, they dare not inaugurate New York Free Love, and Oneida Incest, and Mormon Polygamy. The moral, religious, and social heresies of the North, are more monstrous than those of Europe. The pupil has surpassed the master, unaided by the stimulants of poverty, hunger and nakedness, which urge the master forward.”

In the words of Thomas Carlyle, “Have men considered whither all this is tending, and what it certainly enough betokens?”

Fastforward to 2016: what George Fitzhugh and Thomas Carlyle denounced in their day as Radicalism, which now flies under the banner of Conservatism at National Review, is being reassessed and challenged from the Right. It’s being challenged because every negative thing thinkers like Fitzhugh and Carlyle said about it has come true. They were PROPHETIC in their analysis of it.

I mean … here you have two men who saw clearly the nature of the MONSTER that is classical liberalism as far back as the 1850s. They saw the -isms and -phobias of the 20th and 21st century coming generations ago. They saw how reducing every human relationship to “freedom” and “equality” – what they called the “assiduous wedges” – would undermine and unravel the social fabric into an atomized mess. They predicted the sudden outbursts of revolutionary rage which would shatter the weakened social fabric and lead to leftist victories in the culture wars.

In their day, they saw “woman’s rights-ism” and “Free Love” coming down the liberal pipeline, and Radicalism/Conservatism being powerless to defeat it. In our own times, the sudden outbursts of revolutionary rage have been transgenderism – the notion that your biological sex is purely voluntary – and the Black Lives Matter movement.

In the words of Robert Lewis Dabney in 1897:

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”

“There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.” Our Constitution! Is Dabney talking about Ben Shapiro’s latest columns?

The Constitution, which enshrined classical liberalism as the foundation of the American order, has been utterly useless in resisting each new leftist innovation, and through the 14th Amendment has been a facilitator of social revolution.

A culture that is based on freedom, equality, and rights is going to be a weak culture. Such a weak culture, which is an attack on authority, hierarchy and order, will be unable to resist the pressure of organized leftist mobs. Because it is so vulnerable to hijacking by wealthy interests (see our Jewish problem), it will inexorably lead to a leftist dystopia, which is what we have everywhere classical liberalism has ever been tried.

Their response will be: “that’s dark.” Ours will be: “it’s true.”

Note: Yes, Shapiro and Goldberg are hiding behind it for their own self-interested reasons. It’s their camoflauge.