Apologia pro vita sua

A concerned reader has written to say that my last post left him with the worrying impression that I might be a boomer cuck who is incapable of repaying the conjugal debt, and, what is worse, a pompous peddler of “frog quotes.”  As Émile Zola might have written,

J’accuse!

Needless to say, this sort of searching critique forces a man to undertake an unsparing examination of his conscience, his birth certificate, his voting record, and his children, all the while keeping an open mind to the possibility that he is guilty as charged.

After two days of painful soul searching—augmented, I might add, by a painful toothache—I have concluded that my accuser is mistaken, and that each charge is substantially incorrect.

It is true that I am chronologically of the generation known as “boomer,” but I am not really a boomer in spirit.  If you were to join Mr. Peabody and travel to 1975 in the Wayback Machine (gratuitous Boomer allusion), you would find stripling Smith not dissimilar to the other hairy louts shambling off the stage at his high school commencement.  Utter immunity to the Zeitgeist is for freaks.  But we were all of us late boomers—an important distinction—who were launched into a world that our predecessors had in many (but not all) respects ruined.

I may have told this story before, but I have a clear memory of returning to my college dormitory one Saturday evening, admittedly fuddled but not incapable of reflection.  Waiting for someone at the front door, I took a seat in a small alcove by the front door that had once housed some sort of porter or door monitor.  It hadn’t been used for that purpose in years, and I remember noting that there were crumpled beer cans in its otherwise empty bookshelves.  Meanwhile, beyond the disused desk, the front door banged as bibulous couples came through, laughing, and headed upstairs to do the same. It took me a long time to grasp the full meaning of what I saw that night, but it was in that alcove at the door of Livingstone Hall that I first began to smell the rat.

“Cuck” is a useful and expressive term, but it loses its value if we ignore the original analogy. A cuckold is, of course, a man who remains faithful to an unfaithful wife, and so a “cuck” is, properly, a voter who remains faithful to a politician, political party, or political ideology that actually puts out for someone else.  The word cuckold should be attached to politicians and political parties only as a verb, since they are the ones doing the cuckolding.  As a noun, the word cuckold applies only to the cheated husband, to whom this cuckolding is done.

Democrats have been cuckolding the White working class for fifty years, but the term really belongs to the dissident right and denotes Republican voters who retain their faith in the Republican party and the right liberalism of Ronald Regan.  These are the voters who come home to an empty house, cook their own dinner, and then sit up till midnight waiting for the Republicans to come home, with alcohol on their breath and motel matches in their purse.  I am not one of these voters.  I believe the Republican party as a club for chumps and conmen, and that right liberalism is a paper tiger that conserves nothing.

Sexual candor causes neuroses, so my evidence against the charge of sexual impotence will be modest. I have three children who give every indication of being mine, so flaccidity cannot be a permanent affliction.

As to the “frog quotes,” I must say that French is a language I am particularly loath to employ. My high school French teacher, a broken soul known as Mrs. Stephen, told my parents that I was the worst student she had had in a long and disappointing career.  I could not dispute this at the time, and have not thought of a single reason to contradict her in the forty-five years since.

19 thoughts on “Apologia pro vita sua

  1. Pingback: Apologia pro vita sua | @the_arv

  2. Pingback: Apologia pro vita sua | Reaction Times

  3. ‘Cuck’ is an obscene, juvenile term.
    I think we theocrats should eschew its use except in an ironic or meta sense.
    Those who typically make the most use of the term are blind to the fact that the ideology they adhere to makes them meta-cucks.

    • I agree. It has come to replace “nazi” as the go to insult for people who are not sufficiently pure in their ideology.

      • I’d say the usage is rather vulgar, but not obscene. Many people use the word “prostitute” as a metaphor for commercialized artistic talent, and I don’t think too many people are shocked. But you are both right to say that the term is already dog-eared from overuse, and will likely be forgotten in a few years time. But that will leave us in want of a word that names deluded voters. “Sheeple” and “blue pill” are also getting a little brown around the edges.

      • The sexual connotations of the term are the source of its efficacy – the disgusting shock of the original term’s denotation taints the reader’s impression of those to whom the writer attaches it. Such terms are always with us.

        There are two alternative terms that impute no sexual stain, but rather only the political sort – which is to say, the moral sort: “useful idiot” and “quisling.” They will not so likely flag or fail.

        But, of course, you need to know a little history to know what a useful idiot or a quisling might be. So, while those terms are pretty durable, they are not so widely efficacious.

        It is almost as though there is a Hobson’s choice between depth and breadth. “Cuck” is broad; “quisling” is deep.

        “Traitor” might be best.

      • I’d say the usage is rather vulgar, but not obscene.

        Well, the way you use it in the original post isn’t obscene.

        But the people who use it most widely also use it to refer to a particular ‘adult film’ practice (sometimes evidently accompanied with memes to hammer home the point). That reference makes the term obscene.

        The other problem I have with the term is that it is intended to be highly insulting. Like the term ‘faggot’. If you are going to call a man a faggot, do so at your own risk and be prepared to put up your dukes. Don’t complain if you get socked in the face.

        (Sometimes I think we ought to bring dueling back).

        So in a word, people who call other people cucks on the internet strike me as: cowardly.

      • One of the great things about the internet is that it allows anyone to say anything without much fear of immediate personal reprisal, such as was in the days of the duello ever present. So, lots of things that might not before have been noticed publicly do get noticed. And that can be good. But then, of course: TANSTAAFL. Benefit IFF cost. Reduce the cost and you reduce the benefit. All sorts of things get said on the internet that are just nonsense, precisely because there is no immediate personal cost to saying them.

        This is why the willingness to identify oneself on the net is a mark of seriousness, and indeed of some measure of authority. What one is willing to pay to say, in personal economic (and in extreme cases corporal) terms, must ipso facto be treated by readers as serious, right out of the gate. Lives, fortunes, sacred honors, and so forth.

    • Ian – What is it with certain people on the right being obsessed with boomers?

      Boomers are the first generation to accept blank slate, proposition nation leftism, and even Boomers on the “right” proselytize for these beliefs like it’s a moral imperative. When the US collapses or splits, they’ll be to blame.

      Possibly worth your time: Nick Fuentes: “Generation Z: The Answer to the Boomer Problem”

      • Regarding the claim that when the U.S. collapses, the boomers will be to blame on account of their acceptance of the blank slate and proposition nation leftism: sure, the boomers have carried the liberal project further along than what came before, but in that sense, they’re not any different from any other generation. That’s what every generation has done. Every generation has accepted liberalism, so as old generations pass away and new generations come into being, the logic of liberalism gets developed further and liberalism metastasizes. Yeah, sometimes there might be hiccups where a generation rejects one aspect of current-year liberalism, but since they don’t typically question liberalism at a fundamental level, it just gets incorporated into a new version of liberalism and makes it stronger.

        We’re all in this together. Things won’t change until society decides to reject liberalism wholesale.

      • There was widespread acceptance of the blank slate idea long before the boomer generation, though perhaps the boomers were notable for accepting it in larger numbers.

        J.S. Mill was already a major proponent of it back in the mid 19th century and was quite influential in its widespread acceptance. Here is the Harvard psychologist William McDougall writing in 1921 in a series of lectures entitled Is America Safe for Democracy?:

        For at that time [mid 19th century] the prevailing view of the human mind, of which Mill was the chief exponent, was all against the assumption of racial differences…

        He goes on to say that at the time of his writing, the blank slate view is still the prevailing view:

        The “race-slumpers,” [i.e., the blank slaters] in their denial, both explicit and implied, are the champions of common sense and the views of the plain man – views in which the plain man has been supported by both law and medicine until very recent years. For the plain man, and law and medicine also, accepted the traditional assumption that our mental powers are the expression of a supernatural principle, the soul, miraculously implanted in each one of us at birth; and, while they recognized great differences of bodily endowment, they ignored comparable differences of mental endowment, with certain exceptions. The man of genius on the one hand, the idiot and the madman on the other hand, were mysterious exceptions; but, part from these exceptions, all men were born equal, and all differences of attainment were attributed to differences of opportunity and education; all men had equal powers and equal responsibilities, and must be treated as strictly alike…

        Likewise, in 1916, Madison Grant writes on p. 13 in The Passing of the Great Race:

        Religious teachers have also maintained the proposition not only that man is something fundamentally distinct from other living creatures, but that there are no inherited differences in humanity that cannot be obliterated by education and environment.

        And later on p. 19:

        There exists today a widespread and fatuous belief in the power of environment, as well as of education and opportunity to alter heredity, which arises from the dogma of the brotherhood of man, derived in turn from the loose thinkers of the French Revolution and their American mimics.

        Both writers thus regard the blank slate as the prevailing theory at the time, but acknowledge that racial consciousness was gaining momentum. Indeed, in the preface to the fourth edition (1936?) of The Passing of the Great Race, Grant writes that the dominant ideology among the elites had shifted to one of racial consciousness:

        The new definition of race and the controlling role played by race in all the manifestations of what we call civilization are now generally accepted even by those whose political position depends upon popular favor.

        So it seems that except for a brief period of time in the 1920s and early 1930s (views like Grant’s began to fall out of favor in the ’30s), the blank slate theory has been regarded as the default view in America from the late 19th century until today.

  4. The last couple of comments I’ve left here (as “chedolf”) have gotten stuck in the moderation queue. I’m guessing it’s because they contained links.

    • I haven’t disapprove a comment in a very long time, so I don’t know what became of the comments you left. I generally approve anything that is not blasphemous, obscene, incomprehensible, or wildly off-topic.

  5. Ian, your long and interesting comment with the embedded quotes came to my e-mail, but so far hasn’t shown up here. I don’t know why that is, but will wait and see if it emerges from the aether.

    • Thanks. I could try posting it again tonight (I think I saved the comment on another computer) if you think that makes sense.

      • Let me know if you can’t find it and I’ll paste the body of the e-mail into a comment box.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.