Beware the Cuck in Wolf's Clothing

Samuel Johnson once said that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". His words have often been misunderstood. Johnson, himself a staunch Tory, was not saying that patriots were scoundrels. Johnson would be the first to defend loyalty to one's country as being a great virtue. What the old Tory meant when he spoke those words was that it was easy for a scoundrel to cloak his selfishness in the flag and make himself look like a good man with a few positive words about his country.

I'd like to make a variation on Johnson's claim: patriotism is the last refuge of the cuckservative.

As bad as things have gotten in the United States in the 21st century, America still has plenty of patriots, most of them coming from Middle America. They're the lower-middle-class types that Kevin Williamson wishes would die away, and they probably live in more rural settings. These are the red-blooded Americans who fight America's wars, and they are not exactly the type to support the advance of leftist ideology and goals inside of America. They still have an instinctual distrust of the globalists in New York, Washington D.C. and San Francisco.

These are increasingly the only people who still have warm feelings for Americana, whether it's the flag or the history of the nation's armed forces. Pew Polls have shown that only about 43% of Democrats are "very proud" to be American. Among America's political elite, whether Republican or Democrat, sincere affection for the country is rare.

Despite the fact that much of America's elite is international and leftist they will often cloak their goals, both foreign and domestic, in patriotic rhetoric to make it appeal to Middle America. Our people need to learn to be wary of leftism and white dispossession coming forth bearing the American flag and praising the Constitution.

There's no better example of this being used in a film than Gran Torino—a film by Clint Eastwood, no less! In the film, an old Korean War vet named Walt is living in a white working class neighbourhood that has been colonized by Asians, blacks and mestizos. Walt is the last white man left, but it's where he has spent his whole life, and he'll be damned if the gooks chase him out!

He's the grouchy old patriotic type, a real man's man, and his character is meant to appeal to the red-blooded Americans we're talking about, and his situation is one that will resonate with them as well. On some instinctual level the gentle ethnic cleansing of the white working class from the American cities they built is a sore point.

With a sympathetic character established, the film shifts into cucking for diversity. Walt becomes the guardian of his Asian neighbours against a local gang. Walt is eventually worn down, and his preconceived notions are challenged, and he eventually becomes friends with his neighbours. Wow. Just wow. Really makes you think, doesn't it?

The film is a paean to the greatness of diversity surrounded in a "patriotic" packaging to make it more palatable to Middle Americans.

This ploy is used in the realm of politics as a well. During the Iraq War, the (((neocons))) used the flag and patriotic rhetoric to rally Middle America to a cause that wasn't theirs. Anyone who didn't support the war was a traitor to the United States. Of course, a patriot is somebody who loves his patrie, his fatherland, so the question has to be asked: what interest did the American fatherland have in sending its sons to fight and die at the behest of (((Trotskyists)))? Why were trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives spent on bringing liberalism to a country across the planet a good investment. How was this war patriotic?

The Iraq War wasn't fought for patriotic reasons. America's foreign policy is not for the benefit of America. It is meant to benefit a foreign nation. Here's an excerpt from one of Hillary Clinton's leaked emails:

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

The email is worth reading in its entirety, (the claim that it's Iran that is undermining stability in the Middle-East is a fantastic joke) but this excerpt gets the point across. Assad must go, no matter what, because it would be good for Israel. This is why the Syrian Army, the force most capable of fighting ISIS and least likely to cooperate with them, is the target of the wrath of the State Department. Defeating the Sunnis in ISIS is less important than defeating the Shia-backed Assad, even though Assad is a secular Ba'athist. Israel is less concerned with radical Islam as it is with stable Arab governments that don't dance to Israel's tune, so whether it's Ghaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, or Saddam in Iraq, radical Islam is the lesser of two evils from Israel's point of view.

The reality is that there is no patriotic reason to go to war with Iran, or to bomb Assad. The cucks are wearing wolf's clothing, pretending to be fierce crusaders fighting for America, but what they are doing is deceiving what's left of American patriotism so that they'll go off to fight for a country that isn't theirs. They preach war overseas at the same time as they support immigration laws that bring Muslims into the country.

It isn't patriotic to condemn an American politician for not clapping hard enough for a foreign leader. It isn't patriotic to condemn a fellow countryman for not supporting a foreign country. It isn't patriotic to fight to protect Wahhabi radicals against secular Ba'athists and Shia Muslims.

Americans need to be shown that the D.C. establishment is never fighting for patriotic reasons, and that the neocon "patriots" are running a racket to defend their coethnics in Israel. The clothing and rhetoric of patriotism is not the same thing as patriotism, and without this awareness the admirable instincts of Middle America are being callously twisted by a people who don't care about them.

The America of today isn't the America of George Washington, or even the America of Teddy Roosevelt. The America of today is the America of Jose, Tyrone, and Soros. It has no love for the Middle Americans that ironically are the only things keeping it afloat. The American Dream is keeping the American nation asleep, and it's time to wake up.

The government at Washington isn't your friend, no matter how much it smiles.

Attitudes among religious groups toward each other range from mutual regard to unrequited positive feelings to mutual coldness. Catholics and evangelicals, the two largest Christian groups measured here, generally view each other warmly. White evangelical Protestants give Catholics an average thermometer rating of 63; Catholics rate evangelicals at 57. Evangelicals also hold very positive views of Jews, with white evangelical Protestants giving Jews an average thermometer rating of 69. Only Jews themselves rate Jews more positively. But that warmth is not mutual: despite evangelicals’ warm feelings toward Jews, Jews tend to give evangelicals a much cooler rating (34 on average).