Cuckservatives: Marco Rubio Is a “True Conservative”

Here are two items which should be considered in light of the National Review symposium on whether Donald Trump is a “true conservative”:

“It is now axiomatic that Marco Rubio is the “establishment” favorite in the 2016 Republican primaries, due for a collision with a conservative alternative such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson. But if Rubio really represents the new GOP “establishment,” then the fight is over and the conservatives won. Despite infuriating many grassroots conservatives by pushing the failed Gang of Eight immigration-reform bill and advocating a path to legalization, Rubio has an indisputably conservative record as a senator. …

Across the board, Rubio’s stances, policy proposals, and rhetoric fall squarely within the bounds of traditional conservatism. …

He’s got the guts for entitlement reform, too. He wants to raise the retirement age for those under 55, change the benefit calculation for wealthy seniors who do not rely on Social Security, and eliminate the Social Security payroll tax after retirement age to encourage older Americans to stay in the workforce. He wants to open federal workers’ Thrift Savings Program to all Americans. Rubio opposes raising the minimum wage, contending it would only encourage employers to search for new technological solutions to replace American workers …

While conservatives disagree on how much military interventionism is needed in a dangerous world, Rubio’s foreign-policy stances are of a piece with the party’s recent history.”

Well, that’s reassuring.

Marco Rubio is a “true conservative” because he opposes raising the minimum wage, supports antagonizing Russia, and has “got the guts” to raise the retirement age for the working elderly. Oh, but what about the Gang of 8 amnesty? Rubio was one of Obama’s best-informed critics foreign policy critics on Ukraine.

“Rubio’s humble roots and modest circumstances may be his most powerful defense against Clinton. As the son of a bartender and hotel maid, Rubio, who has lived check to check, speaks from an economic position that is much more typical than Clinton’s. …

Unlike Trump, Rubio is vaccinated against the class-warfare virus that Democrats routinely deploy to infect and kill Republican presidential nominees. In fact, it would be hilarious for Hillary to paint Rubio as a coal-hearted plutocrat. Her $25 million household income for 2014 puts her in the top 0.1 percent of tax filers. Equally comical is the fact that some on the right denounce Rubio as the GOP establishment’s Plan B, now that Jeb Bush has fizzled. One Miami-based conservative activist dismisses Rubio as “white Republican Obama.” …

How soon we forget: Marco Rubio was a tea-party pinup in 2010 and was endorsed by the devoutly anti-establishment Club for Growth …

Rubio co-sponsored, with Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015. This new law limits the Iranian-backed terrorist group’s access to global financial markets and punishes banks that serve this band of anti-American, anti-Israeli killers. These radical Islamist murderers denounced Rubio’s law as “a new crime by American institutions against our people and nation.” …

On another key issue, Rubio’s tax plan cuts personal-income-tax rates, although the top bracket should be lower than 35 percent. If elected, Rubio should cut rates as deeply as possible and abandon his proposal for costly per-child tax credits and other pro-family social engineering. …

Rubio can and should make these modest improvements to his platform. He is a conservative leader on virtually everything else.”

Unfortunately, no candidate is perfect. Marco’s support for “sugar subsidies is inexcusable.” The sooner he jettisons this “destructive statist boondoogle, the better.”

Asked about National Review‘s condemnation of Donald Trump, Rubio had this to say:

“What he’s running as is someone who’s a populist, someone who’s upset at the direction of this country — as am I, as are millions of Americans,” Rubio continued. “But we also have to know what we’re going to do about it. So I would just say that one of the reasons I feel so strongly about my candidacy, is I offer the Republican party in this campaign someone who offers consistent conservatism — real conservatism — but also the ability to beat Hillary Clinton.”

Consistent conservatism … it is about amnesty for illegal aliens and open borders, globalist free-trade agreements, tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, busting unions and taking on sacred cows like Social Security. It is also about standing firm, defending, and restoring Ukraine’s sovereignty against Putin’s aggression.

Vote for the “real conservative” in this race, not the populist!

Note: Richard Spencer reacts to the National Review symposium with glee:

54 Comments

  1. Rubio is now White? When did he have ‘race reassignment surgery’? We’re told gender is now a mutable ‘feature’ like Caitlin Jenner (really still just a mentally ill and physically disfigured Bruce Jenner) … now a race transplant?

    • I troll a lot of “mainstream” Conservatard sites. One of them recently ran an article about how Whites are not really becoming a minority, and then proceeded to change the definition of what IS White. I dove in, and a bitter battle ensued. After 2 days – all the comments were ovened.

      • Well then, M’am – after such an expenditure of energy, ’tis well that you came home for some affectionate correspondence.

  2. “conservatism” under Jewish impact has degenerated into nothing more than open-borders anti-White orc-insourcing – the Universalist Tikkun Olam – and endless wars in the Middle East to aggrandize Zion-in-Palestine. As to the shabbatz goy spic Rubio being White, sure he is: precisely as White as Sheldon Adelson and the other Zionist billionaires who own him. Overall, Spencer is right. With traditional conservatism now in neo-con rigor mortis, and the Trojan Horse Republiscam party soon to follow, Whites will have a stark choice: accept physical annihilation at the hands of the Judeo-globalists, or arm and organize to fight and win a Race War of Extermination that will commence when the Jews’ debtPonziconomy collapses. Which, from all present indications, won’t be long

  3. I am, again, trying to react analytically rather than emotionally here. It is important to remember that Donald Trump may not get anywhere near the presidency given the forces lined up against him. The true enemy is not cuckservatives but rather those in the mainstream who fund them. Trump is fighting the elite of the elite, some the most powerful people on the face of the Earth who are not going to go down with a fight. He’s also a fighting a very difficult electoral map, one that heavily favors Democrats.

    Even if Trump does somehow win the presidency, he may not implement any of the good ideas that he has been discussing. There is little evidence Trump, unlike say Pat Buchanan, operates from consistent principles and convictions. There is ample reason for dissident communities to keep emotions under control.

    That said, it’s a lot easier said than done under the circumstances. Think about it. National Review launches what they believe is a devastating attack on Trump. Trump basically responds by re-tweeting a white nationalist who identifies his location as “Jewmerica.” It’s hard not to respond to that that kind of dismissal of mainstream sacred cows with hope.

    • I’m still not wearing any rose colored glasses.

      The only thing that matters right now is inflicting a fatal blow on these cuckservative shills by pushing Trump through the primaries. I will think about the general election over the summer and fall.

      • Interesting remark, Sir. I guess that is how I feel, too. Ultimately I am looking for anything that can advance the Southern position from being shellackt toads to something holding the promise of deliverance from this god-awful system, even if it is only something faint.

        One thing that stays with me through it all – and that is how many times I have been had by this process, before.

        Though the process is interesting just to ponder, in realistick terms I participate in it because my fellow southerners still want to be a part of it.

    • Trump is the New Constantine. The NR crowd are the aging pagan senators, seeing their sinecures taken away from them, should he become Emperor.

      But, the People WILL it!

      Move aside, old man, or be trampled underfoot.

  4. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/julian-castro-possible-vice-president-218119

    Rubio polls well in general election matchups because he’s a clean cut, articulate Hispanic. When Hilary nominates Julian Castro as VP it won’t matter much as whites wont come out for Marc Ruby and most Hispanics will prefer Castro and his party.

    The Insiders love Ruby because he’s a true puppet, much like Bush Jr was, doing exactly what he was told because he knew nothing else.

    I can’t wait for this election to be over so we can get back to brass tacks: breaking the country up into a white homeland and as multicultural socialist utopia/hell.

  5. tax cuts for the wealthy

    Hunter, you’re just as much of an egalitarian as any Leftist, commie, pinko. And dem social programs that are near and dear to your heart are the reason why Democrats are so eager to bring in masses of 3rd World people here to build their free shit army. Blacks and 3rd worlders vote for the free shit you advocate for. Without dem social programs, 3rd worlders couldn’t afford to live here on their meager wages. Whether you recognize it or not, you are a part of the problems that we face.

    • You are on the edge of cuckservatism here which is surprising for a man who signs as Jeff Davis. Please quit being a dupe for capitalism. It is an abject failure. Or have you not see the data on median income in this country lately? Capitalism is great for “economic growth” that benefits the few. From the standpoint of raising median income, credible data shows it is a worse performer than late feudalism. i don’t what free marker nonsense you’re reading elsewhere, but you really out to reconsider these perspectives.

      • Define what capitalism is. I’m willing to bet that you can’t.

        And for what it’s worth, we have much of what Hunter argues for. We have the income tax. We have central banking. We have no hard currency. We have social welfare programs. So tell me, why is everyone bitching? Why are people surprised that having a privately owned central bank with a government granted monopoly on the creation of currency has led to ultra wealthy oligarchs? People demanded social welfare programs and yet can’t associate vote buying with mass 3rd world immigration.

          • You mean before the Progressive Movement? Money held its value. Little debt (both government and consumer). No empire. No large scale foreign wars. Women were in the home raising children and not in the workplace. No universal democracy. No vote buying. No blacks or immigrants living off the public. Therefore, no demographic displacement.

          • Re: Jeff Davis

            1.) Yes, when average per capita income in the South was less than 1/2 that of the North, and children worked over 60 hours a week in North Carolina, many of whom were infected with hookworms because they couldn’t afford shoes.

            2.) Southerners had money? Who knew? There were virtually no banks in most of the rural South at the time. The gold standard kept Southerners poor by making currency and credit scarce which punished farmers who were debtors.

            3.) The majority of Southerners were landless sharecroppers and tenants trapped in debt peonage. Many of them were so poor that they couldn’t afford meat and vegetables and suffered from pellagra as a result.

            4.) The South was effectively a colony at the time.

            5.) No, women were in the fields picking cotton as sharecroppers or working themselves to death in textile mills for subsistence wages. Hence the term, “go get her.”

            6.) That’s partially true. Something like 25 percent of the White population had lost the right to vote thanks to the poll tax.

            7.) The Gilded Age was the most corrupt period in American history. In Kentucky and West Virginia, US Senate seats were even bought and sold on the free-market like other commodities.

            8.) Immigrants were pouring into the US during the Great Wave in order to drive down wages. Few came to the South, however, as there were few industrial jobs and the poverty of the region deterred immigrants who settled elsewhere. They did come to some places like Birmingham where they were used to break strikes and keep wages as low as possible.

            9.) Perhaps that is a tailwind of laissez-faire, free-market capitalism? It made the South so poor that no one wanted to come here, but millions of Whites and blacks moved to the North and West.

          • Re: Jeff Davis

            1.) Yes, when average per capita income in the South was less than 1/2 that of the North, and children worked over 60 hours a week in North Carolina, many of whom were infected with hookworms because they couldn’t afford shoes.

            2.) Southerners had money? Who knew? There were virtually no banks in most of the rural South at the time. The gold standard kept Southerners poor by making currency and credit scarce which punished farmers who were debtors.

            3.) The majority of Southerners were landless sharecroppers and tenants trapped in debt peonage. Many of them were so poor that they couldn’t afford meat and vegetables and suffered from pellagra as a result.

            4.) The South was effectively a colony at the time.

            5.) No, women were in the fields picking cotton as sharecroppers or working themselves to death in textile mills for subsistence wages. Hence the term, “go get her.”

            6.) That’s partially true. Something like 25 percent of the White population had lost the right to vote thanks to the poll tax.

            7.) The Gilded Age was the most corrupt period in American history. In Kentucky and West Virginia, US Senate seats were even bought and sold on the free-market like other commodities.

            8.) Immigrants were pouring into the US during the Great Wave in order to drive down wages. Few came to the South, however, as there were few industrial jobs and the poverty of the region deterred immigrants who settled elsewhere. They did come to some places like Birmingham where they were used to break strikes and keep wages as low as possible.

            9.) Perhaps that is a tailwind of laissez-faire, free-market capitalism? It made the South so poor that no one wanted to come here, but millions of Whites and blacks moved to the North and West.

          • Sir, #1 sounds like a desccription of much of the white Northern work force, throughout the 19th century.

            #2. is an excellent point, for, in 1860, the average Tarheel subsitence farmer (more than 80% of the population) made an average of $8 per annum – which he spent mostly on buckshot, fabrick for the wife to make clothes, coffee beans, and metal tools and blades he could not manufacture himself.

            #3. In North Carolina this was perhaps less true than in other states, though, it is a good point you raise.

            As to points 4, 5, ,6, 7, and 8, it is difficult to add anything to that, or fire back at it – like the Rebel line at the sunken road at Fredericksburg…

            As to #9, I am surprised you did not see a little sunshine in that kind of demographick displacement…

            I am looking forward to your coming work.

            My hope, as a professional novelist, is that, in addition to your formidable arnsment of ‘facts’, you weave it into a coherent praxis which which promotes Southern Nationalism.

            Otherwise, it will just be a project that declares your particular genius, and anyone who knows you, already knows that…

          • Mr. President, I do agree with most of this comment, though, as a Tarheel, I would remark that working whites underwent a very serious ‘demographick displacement, particularly in the eastern and eastern central parts of the state, during the 19th century, because they were unable to compete with forcet negro labour.

            NC Plantation oligarchs and their many spin-off negro industries (housebuilding, furniture-building, hosiery, for example) were a very sore subject in those days.

          • Yes, Sir – you are heavily dug in and parapetted around this line, and, there is no denying it is quite effective.

      • Dear Lew,
        This is an excellent comment of yours. Still, would you not consider modifying your statement from, ‘Capitalism is an abject failure’, to, ‘Capitalism in the present state in which it is being practised is failing’ – that, in fact, if I may, it is moving us back to ‘feudalism’.

        As far I can see, with all the blemishes of capitalism, no one has yet devised a worthy alternative, that actually functions long term.

    • I’m a populist and nationalist and therefore support an economic policy that favors a broad distribution of wealth. A “true conservative” is someone who wants to make life better for a tiny oligarchy at the expense of the rest of society.

      • I’m an anti egalitarian who believes in natural order. In any natural order, there will not be any kind of broad distribution of wealth. Equality is a myth, a lie, and evil. People who are naturally more talented, more creative, smarter, hard working, or ambitious are going to naturally acquire more material wealth than others.

        And just like the Jew Karl Marx, your focus is on relative wealth distribution rather than absolute standard of living. As long as people have adequate food to eat and a warm place to sleep they are generally well off. But commies get but hurt of relative wealth levels rather than absolute standards of living.

        It has been said that the capitalist and socialist have a worldview that’s entirely materialistic. This definitely applies to you Hunter.

        • 1.) Liberalism is not the “natural order.” It is a political order grounded in a peculiar philosophy and requires the power of the state to enforce its norms.

          2.) If these people are “naturally” more creative, smarter, hard working, and ambitious and so on, then they will inevitably rise to the top no matter what the government does, right? I mean … it is not like their wealth and power is due to any specific government policy that favors them as a class.

          3.) Libertarians are free to carry forth about “absolute standard of living” while decrying things like child labor laws and food safety inspections.

          4.) Last time I checked, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman were all Jews.

          • #1 – You’re right, liberalism/libertarianism are not natural order. They each have egalitarian aspects to them. But I never said anything about libertarianism.

            #2 – There is no “if.” There are people who are better. And despite all of the obstacles, they will rise to the top unless society is brutally repressive.

            #3 – Once again, I never anything about libertarianism. And I don’t know what’s your problem with child labor. Many successful people were child laborers.

            #4 – Once again, I never said anything about libertarianism. I don’t care at all about any of the names listed.

          • 1.) There is nothing whatsoever “natural” about any type of liberal order whether it is classical liberal, reform liberal, neo-liberal, or libertarian. In every single case, the liberal regime exists because of state power. It is no more “natural” than socialism or communism.

            2.) If that is the case, then certainly government policy is no obstacle to asserting their natural superiority, which as you say, isn’t due to any government policy or economic system.

            3.) How long should the workweek be for the average 8-year-old in North Carolina? I ask this because under laissez-faire capitalism it was over 60 hours a week until the “progressive movement” began to pass reforms at the turn of the century.

            4.) You said that Karl Marx was a Jew. Well, the same is true of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman, who are the guiding lights of anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism and neo-liberal economics.

          • Sir, may I suggest that determining your positions according to what Jews are advocating, or not, is going to put you in a bind, as there are prominent Jews on every side of the economick coin.

            After all, you don’t back away from secession and southern Nationalism just because I advocate it.

          • On the other hand, Sir, I do most strenuously agree with your observation that ‘liberalism’ is not a natural state – and, by implication, no state is particularly natural, and, thus, is perhaps not a relevant criterion.

        • Generally, President Davis, I agree with your thoughts about the various economick systems and what they auger socialogically – BUT, I think you are oversimplfying Mr. Griffin’s positions.

          I continually read Mr. Griffin’s thougthful analysises, and he is, as I understand him, interested in central government trade policies that would spread the wealth, as opposed to harsh government measures that redistribute individual earnings through taxation.

      • Well, I guess John Locke and the Reaganomick ‘trickle down’ is not going to be the ticket for you.

        In some ways, Sir, you might find Mr. Sanders’s campaign intriguing, as, on the issue of trade, he has a proven track record of economick nationalism.

    • JD – do you know the difference between “re-distribution of wealth”, and “broad distrutbution”?

      • Forced re-distribution of wealth typical occurs via taxation. There are people (I believe Hunter is one of them) who believes is collective ownership of wealth. The purpose of the tax code to these people is to take money from people who have it, just because they have it. They see the purpose of government is prevent people from having too much wealth.

        • I interpret Hunter’s statement as a broad distribution OF wealth, where-in all sorts of people have access to the means to manufacture good, and DISTRIBUTE goods, vs. a tiny, ruthless claque of oligarchs, who collect wealth from the productive, to distribute trinkets among the parasites.
          The ability to produce goods, and ACCESS to markets, is being severely restricted BY the afore-mentioned Oligarchsky’s.

  6. Who really cares what these clowns have to say? The millions of working class Whites they turn their noses up to because they support Trump?
    IMO Richard Spenser is right and they’re doing it to themselves. Good riddance!

  7. The trew conservatives are also rallying around Paul Ryan, who just helped pass a 95% friendly Federal budget which will be balance on the 12th of never.

    My only slight disagreement with your missive and all the similar ones lately is that even these oblivious living in a bubble airheads know that the first time the Social Security checks don’t go out, there will be a revolution, led by old people. Of the million things we should have rebelled over, that will be what causes a revolution. There won’t be any Social Security cuts, no Medicare cuts. What the trew conservatives mean by “reforming Social Security and Medicare” is creating a path between the Federal government and the beneficiaries such that either Wall Street or an insurance company gets a cut. They can’t get those cuts if the money isn’t spent to begin with. The last I looked (FY2013), Social Security and Medicares Part A, B and C represent $1.3 trillion of Federal spending from which neither Wall Street nor an insurance company gets a cut. (Medicare D, the newer drug benefit, is run through private insurance). So, this “need” for “reform” isn’t so much economic as it is bought and paid for politicians wanting to benefit their donors. Whether I think it should be done or not will never be based on the anxiety of a large corporation or a cartel of them operating in a small geographical area; not that I’m saying it should never happen or it should happen, it’s just that bribery doesn’t inform my decision making.

    It’s also why I can’t take Republican opposition to ObamaDontCare seriously, because insurance companies benefit from it; I think Obama and Rahm Emanuel set it up that way to make sure that once it was passed, that Republican opposition would be no more than talk.

  8. “Rubio” is a Sephardic Jew name. “Marc” is often, not always, but often a Jew variant for the name “Mark”. (The clues are in the names. Jews used to change their names to Gentile names, to hide their true identity). Little Marc is the pool boy of Jew fag machers.
    What else does any-one need to know?

    • According to Justin Raimondo, Rubio was arrested one night in Miami for hanging out in park where gay men go for anonymous sexual encounters. The Washington Post has a story on it.

      • Why am I not surprised or shocked this information? Just what we need – another homosexual Orc, as POTUS.
        J’refuse.

      • Yes, now that you bring it up, he does feel gay.

        That said, Pat Buchanan is gay, too, and I have always liket him, so, apparently, Sir, that is not the issue for me.

        What bothers me is that Mr. Rubio just seems like another skilled popinjay for globalist interests.

    • There is nothing for a Confederate in a prospective presidency of Mr. Rubio’s, whatsoever, M’am – just more squandering of national reserves in pursuits of the shadow government’s agendas – Jeb Bush by another name.

  9. I used to identify as conservative, after all the crap the GOP and “conservative” media pulled these last few months I no longer do so

  10. It will be a siesta Thursday night. Trump tells Fox to shove it! Señor Yeb, Pool boy fag and the Cuban, Goldman -Sachs puppet will be the main focus.

    The debate will be captioned in English for the non-Spanish speaking cucks.

Comments are closed.