The Great Neocon-Cuck War of 2019

2,495 words

Conservatives and others on the ostensible Right have been on the retreat for a long time now. This becomes clear in the ways in which conservative elites in the media speak around critical issues rather than frankly about them. Only fear can make them do this – fear of losing livelihoods and careers, fear of ostracism and shame, or perhaps the dread of having to face down a bully all alone. Who knows? In any case, we never seem to get the straight dope from conservatives. They’d rather acquiesce to an enemy ideology – one that contradicts the reality most of us face in our daily lives. Sure, they will pay lip service to their conservative ideals, but if those ideals run counter to surviving in the hypocrisy swamp of today’s political milieu, they will ditch their ideals.

This all came to the fore again recently in a fairly high-profile spat between conservatives at National Review and neocon defector Max Boot and his allies. It started earlier this month, when Boot published an offensive piece of dissembling dreck at the Washington Post entitled “Get a grip, white people. We’re not the victims.” I really don’t know what’s worse about it: its blatant anti-white racism, or its shameless dishonesty. Of course, we’ve come to expect this from Boot – warmongering, anti-white Leftist that he is. Max Boot is a disingenuous, ethnocentric Jew who hates white people – especially the ones who are as ethnocentric as he is. He then pretends to be white in order to convince other whites that they should allow themselves to become minorities in their own countries – to atone for the sins of a tiny fraction of their ancestors, or to strive nobly for equality, social justice, and other Leftist illusions. He has no sympathy when whites complain about discrimination, and ascribes this to “fear they are losing their privileged position to people of color” rather than any legitimate concerns for their group interests.

If you’re not on board with Boot’s suicidal altruism agenda, well, then there’s no bottom to the contempt he’ll have for you. He’ll call you a racist or a White Nationalist and try to ruin your career. Of course, he’ll claim that his heart overflows for the plight of brown people. But this is a lie. This is the same person who called for the bombing of brown people nearly twenty years ago (and still does today), so of course it’s a lie.

The problem is that Boot’s conservative opponents have no idea how to handle him. Judging from the carefully-worded rebuttals coming from National Review, conservatives seem to think that it’s enough to tut-tut his ungentlemanly behavior. What they don’t get is that Boot is not trying to be gentlemanly, and he is not trying to win an argument. He’s trying to rile up murderous hatred for the Right in the real world. To take the typical checkers/chess analogy even further, it’s not like he’s playing chess and National Review is playing checkers. Rather, National Review is playing chess and Boot is boxing – with loaded gloves.

One of National Review’s first responses was John Hirschauer’s article, “Max Boot Fans the Flames of Racial Hatred.” Yes, the article is as trite as its title. Hirschauer complains that Boot’s article does “predictably little to elevate our national discourse at a moment of intense racial polarization.” This, of course, assumes that Boot wants to elevate national discourse in the first place. Hirschauer naturally agrees with Boot’s denunciation of the “detestable program” of white supremacy, as well as his denunciation of “white-grievance politics.” He just wishes the old chap would be a little more consistent with his denunciations. Why pick on one group while granting “other grievance groups a blank check to raid the expansive store of imputed guilt and collective punishment”?

“Surely there is a third way between a full-throated embrace of white identity and a supine adoption of the politics of self-hatred,” Hirschauer pleads. He ends his article with a flourish, noting the splendid irony of how the person who complains about President Trump “stoking the flames of racial hatred” does the same thing himself when he uses “such totalizing racial language.”

Hirschauer doesn’t seem to understand that “stoking the flames of racial hatred” was the very point of Boot’s article to begin with. It’s what he does. It’s what he wants to do. And Boot doesn’t just want to stoke flames, he wants to channel them towards the Right, towards flesh-and-blood Trump supporters, and towards Hirschauer himself if he keeps up with these annoying articles. A nice left hook to the jaw will always refute the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian Defense, after all.

Boot defended himself in a tweet in which he claimed that saying racist things about whites was his way of “denouncing racism.” National Review Online (NRO) editor Rich Lowry then broke out his water pistol and fired back, saying that Boot “wasn’t attacked for denouncing racism; he was attacked for his ‘totalizing racial language’.” Basically, this was Lowry’s polite way of asking Boot to tone down the anti-whitey talk. In another tweet, Lowry reiterated Hirschauer’s “detestable program” comment. And in another, he tried to remove any doubt that he and his writers are anything other than goodwhites by reposting an NRO editorial which – you guessed it – condemns white supremacy.

Wow. I’ve been accused by white supremacists of being a “self-loathing white” who is “stoking the flames of race hatred” by denouncing racism. But did not expect to be so attacked in @NRO. A sad indication of what’s happened to mainstream conservatism. https://t.co/Xuwz9GiExX

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) August 12, 2019

Wow. This is a complete distortion from @MaxBoot He wasn’t attacked for denouncing racism; he was attacked for his “totalizing racial language.” This tweet is a sad indication of what’s happened to the hysterical post-conservative mainstream https://t.co/uFsOn38mTk

— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) August 13, 2019

I’m sorry to see @MaxBoot denounce as white supremacist an article that refers to “white supremacists and their detestable program”https://t.co/pk9wflNg5y

— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) August 13, 2019

Well, Boot was not going to let this recalcitrance stand. He rolled up his sleeves and responded with, “National Review’s ugly attack on me reflects the Trumpification of conservatism.” In it, he accused Hirschauer of using “white supremacist language,” and then linked the Never Trumper magazine to the far Right over its stance on immigration. In particular, he brought up an NRO article by Dan McLaughlin called “Why We Panic About Immigration” which studiously avoids having a racial angle (or a pro-white one, at any rate), and then claimed that this marks “a return to the roots of a magazine that defended Jim Crow in the 1950s (and even the early 1960s) and South Africa’s Apartheid regime until its dissolution in 1994.”

This, of course, is ripe nonsense, and about an hour later, Hirschauer responded with “Max Boot’s Tired White Supremacy Smear.” In it, he once again denounces white supremacists and White Nationalists as “evil people with repugnant ideologies” and categorically denies being a racist himself. He even went so far as to call white supremacy a sin against God. So, basically, in typical cuck fashion, Hirschauer puts his most powerful weapons on the shelf when dealing with this deceitful villain.

His only tack, then, was to show how Max Boot is not being as mean to other races as he is to whites. “This collectivization and mass imputation of guilt would not withstand scrutiny if it were applied to any other group, nor should it,” he writes. Does Hirschauer really believe that Boot doesn’t already know this? Does he really think that this kind of anodyne argumentation is going to change anything? He concludes with a neat little ad hominem: that men like Max Boot have a “penchant for smearing their opponents as racial bigots.”

The next day, NRO’s Charles Cooke weighed in in typical NRO fashion: He offered a point-by-point rebuttal of Boot’s article, debate club style, and then labeled Boot a liar and a hack. And to Cooke’s credit, he did it pretty well:

Boot’s approach over the last couple of days has not only been at odds with both honesty and honor, it has been at odds with the reputation he had developed as a serious and rigorous thinker. Such as it is, Boot’s newfound modus operandi works as follows: First, he scans entirely innocuous pieces for sentences that he can willfully misconstrue; second, he presents those misconstrued sentences as evidence of a deeper flaw with a person or outlet or institution; and, finally, he submits the conclusions he has drawn as confirmation of why he, Max Boot, convert to truth and light, is on the Right Side of History. Because Twitter is an echo chamber and the Post is one-tracked, he does this safe in the knowledge that those whom his mendacity incites to outrage will never read the primary sources he is corrupting . . .

During all of this, there was a free-for-all on Twitter with Boot and his allies piling on NRO, and the NRO people firing back. It was quite entertaining. The Ace of Spades has an excellent roundup.

This dispute indicates a growing rift in the Never Trump crowd. Seven years ago, every single one of these people would have called themselves conservatives and locked arms on the way to the polling station to vote for Mitt Romney. But in the Trump era, this rift is separating the cucks from the neocons. The neocons were always more warlike, more self-serving, and more Jewish. On the other hand, the cucks were always idealistic, more naïve, and more goyish. Both groups mouth the appropriate pieties about race and colorblindness, but only the cucks mean it. For the cucks, being anti-racist means being literally anti-racist. For the neocons, however, being anti-racist means being anti-white. This is why Boot feels perfectly exonerated when he points to one instance of a white verbally abusing a black at a South African restaurant and the ensuing boycott it caused as an example of the unjustified resentment whites feel towards non-whites. Of course, he completely ignores how whites are targeted for rape and murder in South Africa, and how their black-run government is changing their own constitution to take their land and property from them.

Here’s David Cole describing one of the more disgusting anti-white aspects of black-run South Africa:

As South African whites become increasingly disenfranchised, they’re learning to exploit their skin color in order to survive. In 2013, the BBC reported that as many as 400,000 South African whites now live in below-the-poverty-line squatter camps, the worst of which are in and around Pretoria. Faced with no future and few prospects, some of these white families are making money by loaning out their children to pedophilia sites, which are allowed to exist by a black-run government that has no interest in protecting white kids. My on-the-ground South African source, who’s fighting a losing battle to expose the exploitation of children in her country (and who wishes to remain anonymous due to concerns about government reprisals), told me about a vile site called FightingKids.com (no, I’m not linking to it). The site allows wealthy pedophiles from around the world to order custom videos of poverty-stricken white children (boys and girls, but mainly boys) boxing and wrestling half-naked. The pervs can choose which children they want to pit against each other (and how little they should wear), and they can decide if they want the kids to fight for real, or “play-fight” in a sexualized fantasy setting. The site, based in Bronkhorstspruit (outside Pretoria), brags that the money the pedos pay goes to help these impoverished white kids buy “clothes and bikes.”

So maybe there’s more to white resentment than just “losing their privileged position to people of color.” Maybe Max Boot is not being up front with how he really feels about white people.

Of course, the cucks are right when they say Max Boot is a liar, a hypocrite, and completely without principles. But none of that matters. In this chess/boxing hybrid they’re playing, the cucks just don’t realize that Boot is playing for keeps. Charles Cooke and Rich Lowry can break out their queens and force checkmate all they want; that’s not going to save them when they get punched in the face. That’s not going to stop CNN from broadcasting Boot’s phony grievances to a national audience. One cannot survive long in mainstream America with the albatross of racism or White Nationalism around one’s neck. By throwing that albatross around like a horseshoe, Max Boot is attempting to ring the necks of those people who do not share his hatred for white people, regardless of whether they oppose Donald Trump. Further, his hysterical posturing and mad accusations only foment anti-white hatred in society at large, so that when the antifa comes to your doorstep threatening to stab you in the heart tomorrow, they will be complaining about the same thing Max Boot is complaining about today.

.@MaxBoot responds to the National Review article attacking him, saying “it’s incredibly shocking and offensive to me.”

“Sadly, I think it’s a reflection of how even mainstream conservative publications are being Trumpified and are going down the same road [of] Fox News.” pic.twitter.com/ZRdWUbR9QW

— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) August 14, 2019

If conservatives want to really beat Max Boot, they will have to quit retreating and stop talking around issues. They will have to put down the chess pieces and use Boot’s weapons against him. They will have to view ‘White Nationalist,’ ‘white supremacist,’ and similar W words as racial slurs, and then stick the J word back into Boot’s face until he shuts up. Max Boot is a Jewish supremacist – or at the very least, a non-white supremacist. He’s playing a power game for the sake of his Jewish tribe: serving the interests of black and brown people for the sake of the diaspora, and bombing the crap out of them for the sake of the Israelis.

When Cooke describes Boot as a “narcissistic, dishonest, calculating, manipulative writer,” that should have sounded familiar both to him and to us. He’s using words that have been used to describe Jews for centuries now. This behavior he finds in Boot can be found in Jews everywhere, across the expanse of geography and time. Of course, this does not have to mean that all Jews are this way; they, of course, aren’t. But why should Cooke, Hirschauer, Lowry, and folks like them show this kind of respect for Jews when a Jew like Boot shows zero respect for white people?

This is why we call them cucks and soyboys. They refuse to fight. They’d rather keep their high-profile jobs and their good name in society than stand up for what they say they believe in. They’re concerned about winning and losing arguments, while their enemies like Max Boot are concerned with nothing less than life and death.

And one day soon, I’m afraid, it will come down to that.

Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.