Imran Khan, author of The Misandry Bubble, comes back from his blogging hiatus with a lot of interesting thoughts about a variety of topics. Here is his section on US conservatism.

Source: www.singularity2050.com/gems.html

19) US Conservatism :

a) 'Conservatism' is a bizarre consciousness in the United States, the equivalent of which does not exist in most other countries at anywhere near the same scale. It is not an ideology, but rather the absence of ideology, contrary to what a conservative may claim. Most conservatives do not stand for any absolute standard of free markets, small government, personal responsibility, or 'traditional values'. The conservative merely wants to preserve selective aspects of the recent past, but never the more distant past. Hence, the conservative's view of an ideal society always drifts leftward, and the conservative finds himself advocating for what leftists were advocating a short while ago, while pretending to be doing the opposite.

b) Even more strangely, many staunch conservatives have no awareness of their own perpetual leftward drift. Furthermore, since the rate of change is ever-rising, the time period that they wish to preserve is less and less distant from the present. At this point, many conservatives merely seek to slow down (but never halt, much less reverse) any leftist advances, so are merely left-wing individuals without realizing it. They could not even conserve the definition of 'man', 'woman', and 'marriage', yet do not seem troubled by this retreat. Conservatives have even become increasingly shameless about groveling to 'feminists', yet believe that they oppose 'feminism'.

c) Hence, most conservative protests in the face of leftist advances are highly ritualistic, orchestrated, and always end in a predictable surrender, after which the conservative will actually work to preserve the very leftist gains that they were previously displaying token resistance against. For this reason, conservatism, as a political faction that outright seeks to be on the losing side, is not appealing to people who dislike losing. This, among other things, explains the extreme hatred some 'NeverTrump' conservatives have for President Trump, even if the former are ostensibly 'Republicans'. His 'so much winning' slogan alone goes against the very mission statement of conservatism. This also explains the big 'mystery' about why Asians and Hispanics don't vote Republican (at least, surrender-Republican). Why associate with a group that likes to lose, and is adept at ensuring they are widely hated from all sides?

d) For this reason, the pejorative term 'cuckservative' is startlingly accurate in describing the more surrender-loving, whipped subset of conservatives. Their strategy to brand themselves as virtuous by taking the 'turn the other cheek' philosophy to ridiculous extremes has failed spectacularly, as no one is fooled by their attempt to repackage extreme cowardice and needy approval-seeking as virtue. In fact, I am going to take it further and add the letter 'l' in there to create the new term 'cluckservative', as the element of cowardice has not been flagged enough yet, and they deserve further ridicule amidst the judgement of history.

e) As mentioned above, many cluckservatives actually wish that California would leave the United States (a 'Calexit'). While no man with an iota of self-respect or courage would want a piece of their own country to leave, what is particularly shameful about this is that California was, in fact, a 'red' state until 1988, and drifted leftward due to perpetual cluckservative retreat. Their premise that the removal of California from the US would somehow restore some past paradise in the other 49 deliberately ignores the fact that the same cluckservative retreat is already underway in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Texas, and more. Should they all leave? Cluckservatives, hence, are the Neville Chamberlains of our time.

image from i1.wp.com f) Cluckservatives are the eager anvil to the 'feminist' hammer. The most brutally anti-male and unconstitutional laws have been invented not by feminists, but by cluckservatives, in their mad quest to appear 'chivalrous', under the extraordinarily misguided belief that women will be impressed by this and will finally become attracted to cluckservatives. In reality, women are repelled by this cartoonish parody of 'chivalry'. They have perverted both Christianity and marriage into their ideal of woman-worship which they wrongly describe as 'chivalry'. These cluckservatives also possess an extraordinary hatred for husbands and fathers. Read here, here, and here for more. Again, these same cluckservatives actually claim they are against 'feminism', while they enthusiastically make it even more pernicious, sadistic, and ghastly.

g) Therefore, don't ever let a cluckservative claim that they stand for 'family values', or that voting Republican is somehow evidence of being against government involvement to further 'feminism'. They have devised and engineered the wholesale replacement of marriage with the child support model, while denying that any such change ever took place. Even radical 'feminists' could not have designed a government artifact so precise and diabolical, as these 'feminists' don't interact with enough families to know how to so efficiently concoct the legislation that removes the father from the home, takes his income under threat of imprisonment, exempt the woman from any obligation to prove it was spent on the children, while still ensuring the father is still seen as evil. It takes a cluckservative to destroy the family.

h) Cluckservatives are the primary perpetuators of the claim that men are weak and lazy if they do not put female-centric goals, however untraditional and unnatural, ahead of their own well-being. Don't be surprised to learn that 'pro-life' cluckservatives are even more misandric, and less willing to hold women accountable, than Democrats. Every supposed principle that a cluckservative claims to uphold, such as matching authority with accountability, creating the right incentives, and the need for contracts to be enforced is jettisoned when the prospect of bashing men arises, and the cluckservative instead adopts the same arguments as a leftist advocating an 80% tax rate.

i) Hence, contrary to what they claim, cluckservatives are strident socialists, as long as one strict condition is met. This condition is that only men be net payers, and only women be net recipients within their socialist vision. Once this gender requirement is fulfilled, cluckservatives are indistinguishable from socialists and communists. Cluckservatives even love debtors prisons and quasi-slavery, under this gender requirement, as made possible by the grossly misnamed 'child support' system they have devised as a Trojan horse to replace marriage. This is very different from the tax on betatude that I favored above. Cluckservatives want to tax the best aspects of masculinity to fund a system devoted to ensuring that single mothers are seen as paragons of virtue rather than welfare queens, and then express puzzlement when masculine generosity starts to become scarce in society. This is how cluckservatives end up harming everyday women too.

j) Cluckservatives are so fanatical about their demands that other men bear the costs of their 'chivalrous' fantasies (so that cluckservatives themselves don't bear any cost) that the Editor of the National Review (the how-to manual of cluckservatism) expects men to voluntarily die in a sinking ship even if all the women are already safe and the men could also escape with safety. Cluckservatives often outdo even 'feminists' in their lust for normalizing male disposability (as long as it is not them, of course). The rush into wars like 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' were also driven partly by this zeal to send young men to die so that cluckservatives could claim that they are 'chivalrous' for sacrificing your son, brother, boyfriend, nephew, etc.

k) It is common to see extreme Dunning-Kruger manifestations among cluckservatives amidst their displays of cartoonish 'chivalry'. For instance, take Jim Geraghty (pronounced 'Gay-ratty', appropriately enough), who married a single mother despite being a well-known public figure (i.e. he voluntarily self-cuckolded), and all but admits that he is threatened with divorce often. Yet he makes a bizarre and nauseating video that insists society considers losers like him to be the epitome of 'sexy masculinity' as he describes it. Another, Bradford Wilcox, insists that forcing government involvement in relationships is the key to becoming a 'real man', and has taken to hectoring A-list male celebrities to enter a government contract with women they have children with, while deliberately omitting extremely important facts amidst his 'advice'. These cluckservatives go to great lengths to assert that they are the most exemplary, masculine men around. Physiognomy is real, and a mere glance at the unmasculine, flaccid, untrustworthy visages of Gay-ratty and Wilcucks might make it difficult to suppress your laughter at the extraordinary Dunning-Kruger delusion on display. A Mount Rushmore of cluckservatism could be sculpted from Play-doh.

l) Cluckservatives whine about Democrat-favoring bias in the media, or being deplatformed by Democrat-biased tech companies, even though they tend to converge to the Democrat political position anyway. In their 20 years of whining, they did not create their own alternative media system of equal power. Whether it is because they don't have the collective expertise, are lazy, or prefer to play the victim is secondary. The reality is, they don't want it to be any other way, as per point c) above. Judge them by their actions (or lack thereof), not their mendacious words.

(cont'd)