The cuckservative meme is beautifully derisive, connoting a man who is cuckholded by his wife and thus perhaps raising another man’s children. The term, or the more generic ‘cuck’ (which could also apply to White liberals), is quite appropriate for Whites across the mainstream political spectrum who are aiding and abetting the process of White dispossession, whether by legal or illegal immigration. (A poll of 100 House Republican “conservatives” found that only 1 favored decreases in legal immigration, so we can conclude that pretty much the entire mainstream Republican party are cuckservatives.) Donald Trump is indeed a breath of fresh air.

The cuckservative idea implies parasitism, and in fact the word ‘cuckold’ comes from a classic parasite, the cuckoo bird. There’s a terrific video of cuckoo birds eliciting feeding from their cuckolded parents after pushing the eggs of the hosts out of the nest; especially striking are the much smaller warblers feeding their parasites.

Parasites know how to push the buttons of the host. Many animals are basically reflex machines where a particular stimulus automatically results in a preprogrammed response. The cuckoo opens its mouth to be fed and it doubtless looks just like the reed warbler chick’s mouth, so the warbler’s reflex to feed it kicks in. Like your knee joint responding when the doctor hits it with the rubber hammer.

Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?

Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn’t be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a lot of buttons you can push.

Guilt and empathy are emotional buttons triggered by never-ending photos and accounts of suffering non-Whites, such as the ubiquitous photos of migrants going to Europe. For example, The Telegraph reports that a “prominent author” from Iceland wants to raise a Syrian child and is encouraging other Icelanders to take in refugees to oppose the government policy of only a token number:

After the Icelandic government announced last month that it would only accept 50 humanitarian refugees from Syria, Bryndis Bjorgvinsdottir encouraged fellow citizens to speak out in favour of those in need of asylum [the Telegraph link goes to an article on Germany’s aggressive drive to maximize their refugees.] In the space of 24 hours, 10,000 Icelanders – the country’s population is 300,000 – took to Facebook to offer up their homes and urge their government to do more.

In the eyes of a great many, Ms. Bjorgvinsdottir will certainly gain much status with this gesture. We can be sure that others will compete with her by offering to take in whole families (see Anthony Hilton’s “Giving away the farm: Why?“). Status competition by altruism — another important mechanism in White dispossession that ultimately depends on control of the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by elites hostile to the traditional people of the West. The result is that we are “drowning in altruism.” In a society with elites responsive to the interests of its people, such a person would be shunned and prevented from taking in refugees apart, perhaps, from temporary arrangements where they would be repatriated as soon as possible.

Often the pull for empathy is combined with a narrative that somehow this all comes back to uniquely evil Whites responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Of course, these accounts are carefully contextualized to ignore things like morally crusading Whites who uniquely ended slavery after a campaign based on empathy for far-away Africans. Also ignored are the characteristics of Whites and non-Whites that feed into current realities (e.g., IQ differences, the Faustian soul of the West, etc.). I have yet to hear of a movement opposed to slavery that worked by eliciting empathy—apart from those that were so effective in the West and continue to be effective by showing photos of suffering refugees and immigrants; “we need to help them,” never mind the short term and long term costs to our own people.

Pressing the guilt/empathy button doesn’t work in Africa or Asia despite the fact that huge swaths of humanity there (Arabs, Han Chinese, Bantu) have achieved their present territories as the result of the conquests of their ancestors. And slavery persisted in these areas long after it was abolished in the West. And even if these areas were prone to messages of guilt/empathy, you won’t see them there because these societies are not controlled by elites hostile to their traditional peoples and cultures of those areas.

The lack of contextualization and the continual deluge of messages hostile to the White majority are good indications that the button pushing is an exercise in propaganda emanating from a hostile elite, enabled because of their control over the moral, intellectual, and political high ground. It’s not just emotional buttons that are pushed. Some of these memes are much more purely intellectual, although I suppose many of these terms have emotional overtones as well because they are often linked in such a way that that they plug into the guilt mechanism. This means that they are addressed to the higher brain centers which are able to exert substantial control over the rather more primitive (and self-preserving) lower brain centers responsible for such as those related to ethnocentrism. Control of the media and the academic high ground by the left means that Americans are bombarded by messages that enjoin them to inhibit their natural self-preserving tendencies and indeed, to feel guilt for them. These messages have also filtered down to churches and schools, so, unless they tune in to dissident media on the internet, Whites can spend their entire lives without hearing any contrary messages. It’s hard to overcome that.

For example, Tobias Langdon discussed “verbal venom” in the context of parasitism, where messages render their targets comatose and unable to defend themselves. “Race is a social construct” disarms people who believe it because it claims that all peoples are the same, that we can all live together in peace and harmony. In Guillaume Durocher’s recent TOO article, Glenn Greenwald calls illegal immigrants “human beings” — an attempt to subvert obvious and important differences that very much impact the interests of White Americans. Or, if Blacks are doing poorly in school compared to other groups, it couldn’t possibly be significantly due to genetic race differences given that race is simply an arbitrary classification invented to benefit the arbitrary class of people called “Whites.” So the failure of people classified as Black must be because of the evil of this arbitrary group of people.

Another example: in his recent interview with Jared Taylor, Alan Colmes says that the US has always been open to all comers—absurd given the 1924 immigration restriction law, as Taylor points out. But Colmes’ comment reflects the common meme that “America is a nation of immigrants” so often used to silence opposition to immigration. And of course, we also see appeals to Enlightenment values of individual liberty, egalitarianism, democracy, etc., contextualized by the propaganda machine as implying that opposition to immigration, multiculturalism, and Whites becoming a minority violate the most basic ideals of the West.

Of course, messages that encourage people to suppress their natural tendencies are nothing new. I was just reading a book on how the medieval Church encouraged people to strive for sainthood above everything else, including the normal pleasures of parenting and family life. The result was that their accounts of the saints’ mystical life are filled with “familial sentiments”[1]—their natural desires finding expression in another form. For Whites, the analogy is implicit Whiteness where Whites, many of whom have internalized the ideology of White suicide and repress explicit assertions of White interests, nevertheless move away from diversity and associate with other Whites.

Besides top-down control via destructive memes aimed at the higher brain centers, another mechanism is simply conditioning. If a psychologist asked subjects what pops into their mind when they hear the phrase “David Duke,” it would likely be “Ku Klux Klan” despite the fact that he hasn’t been associated with any version of the Klan for decades. So we get headlines in January, 2015 such as “Former KKK Leader David Duke Says He May Run Against Steve Scalise” in the Huffington Post. Constant repetition by a hostile media is a very effective weapon, resulting in people having a reflexive emotional reaction that precludes a rational evaluation of what Duke is saying.

This is effective because “Ku Klux Klan” has achieved status as one of several labels that have reflex connections with supreme evil — “White supremacist,” “Nazi,” “racist,” etc. Pairing anyone or anything with these labels is enough to send fear into the hearts of most Whites. So if you, God forbid, are going to be a Republican, at least have the decency to say good things about Ben Carson, no matter what his positions are.

Another important mechanism for cucking is social identity manipulation, such as saying Jews are White even when it is entirely mainstream in Jewish culture not to identify as part of traditional European Christian culture (see “Ashkenazi Jews are not White“) and to actively seek to dispossess Europeans and their culture. But it is oftentimes extraordinarily effective for Jews to be classified as White and to be seen as White by people with European-Christian ancestry. The vast over-representation of Jews in the Ivy League beyond what their academic credentials would warrant and the corresponding underrepresentation of Europeans are enabled by grouping Jews with non-Jewish students of European descent. Harvard would doubtless argue that separating Jews and those with European-Christian ancestry when they break down admissions by ethnicity would be horrifyingly racist. And yet it corresponds to a very real fault line in terms of attitudes related to race, ethnicity, and the future of White America.

Another example is Hollywood, where conservatives often lament that it is controlled by liberals, and liberals complain that it is controlled by White males:

The LA Times understands how the game is played. Every year around Oscar time they put out editorials and articles bemoaning the “overwhelmingly white male membership of the academy” [i.e., the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences] and that “film, TV diversity doesn’t look like America’s.” Then the next year, they do it all over again because nothing changes. (“Gary Oldman becomes a pariah“)

But of course Hollywood has been a Jewish monopoly for nearly 100 years, and, this has been of critical importance especially since the 1960s when the social controls exerted by culturally conservative, often Christian organizations on the film industry became victims of the counter-cultural revolution (see here). Since the 1960s, the propaganda emanating from Hollywood has been much more in line with Jewish liberal values typical of the mainstream Jewish community but quite different from mainstream White America (here, p. xlvi ff).

Another example from this genre is that media commentators on issues related to Israel are never identified as Jews with a very strong ethnic interest in and commitment to Israel. For example, Charles Krauthammer expounds on a wide variety of issues at FoxNews, but you would never hear mention that his ethnicity or ultra-Zionist connections on Fox influence his views on Israel. Just another talking head White male. Such examples are legion and are a major source of neoconservative influence.

Another important mechanism is social learning theory: it’s natural to look up to celebrities who are fawned over by the elite media. A classic example was all the people, especially women, having dreams where Obama took on superior positions — women having fantasies about sex with him, men feeling inferior and needing to get in shape. Models are far more effective if they have prestige and high status, which fits well with an evolutionary perspective in which seeking high social status is a universal feature of the human mind. So it makes sense that propaganda is much more effective if promoted by elites that are seen as legitimate. So when the New York Times wants to validate its propaganda, it’s very effective to quote a Harvard professor, thus reassuring readers that their opinions are a sign of intelligence and education. It’s no accident that all of the pseudo-scientific, ethnically motivated intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique were propagated from elite academic institutions.

Finally, it goes without saying that material incentives are important: We’ll pay you to forfeit the future of your own children for promises of a great career in the media or politics. Life is good, and going for the gold is made all the easier by buying into the propaganda via the previously discussed mechanisms. As I used to tell my students, it’s always easier to fall in love with a rich man than a poor man. Obviously, disincentives are important also. A major aspect of the power of the anti-White left is the ability to get people fired from their jobs, socially ostracized, etc. This is analogous to another model of cuckoo parasitism: the mafia model in which the parasite retaliates against hosts that reject their eggs.

There are doubtless other psychological mechanisms that come into play in explaining the cucking of America, but these give a good introduction to the general picture. All of these mechanisms stem from the fact that the anti-White revolution is a top-down revolution resulting from control of elite media and educational institutions by hostile elites. America is now an oligarchy, not a democracy; combating this power is daunting to say the least.

Which brings up Donald Trump’s campaign with its populist positions on immigration and trade policy. Trump, uniquely, is positioned to strike a real blow to these entrenched elites because of his celebrity status and the fact that he is not dependent on their financial support. It’s encouraging that despite the deluge of positive messages on immigration emanating from the mainstream media, elite attitudes on immigration still do not resonate with most Americans.

Thankfully, the mechanisms cucking so many Americans are not all-powerful. As the medieval Church found, going against nature isn’t easy.

Originally posted September 3, 2015

[1] David Herlihy, Medieval Households (Cambridge: Harvard, 1985), 115.