They are driven solely by money and power

Again, cart before the horse. The left is driven by envy. They attack through power and greed, because that’s in the domain of the prince of this world. Cuckservatives also serve the prince, but they’re too chickenshit to put themselves front and center. They’d rather put their daughters on the chopping block, grill and watch the game. Deferring to their wives is yet another tactic: they do so because standing up to women means they lose their toys.

But no, the left and cucks serve the same master. One is offensive, the other defensive.

Completely false.

You are describing the left. They are driven solely by money and power, and their hypocrisies are easily explained by financial greed.

Cuckservatives are ideological blue-pill whiteknights. The type of cucks who buy 10 dinners for a woman without even kissing her. And then they advise other men to do the same. When some men know better and bypass blue-pill cuckservative norms, they want to legislate betatude to force society to value the only thing THEY know how to do.

But the overarching theme of cuckservatism is the most cartoonish of whiteknighting, combined with a belief that endless surrender somehow is ‘dignified’ and will impress those paragons of morality, women.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. The defining principle of Cuckservatism is individuality, specifically of their own wallet. They will do whatever they feel necessary to either make a buck or keep from losing it. Pay no mind to what they say; if you watch, everything they do revolves around their own wallets. The only thing that separates them from the small hats is their lack of cunning, which is why they’re following the bullet train to Hell instead of leading it.

Oh, I think cuckservatives do have defining principles, and things they will fight hard for. Unfortunately, every single one of these things is ridiculously whiteknighting and blue pill.

i) Cuckservatives are even more strident than the most radical feminists about making divorce laws in America even more punitive to men. Plus, they are the only ones who say men should be forced into marriage despite these laws. Most leftists are still of a view that if a man doesn’t want to do it, he doesn’t have to.

ii) Cuckservatives have chosen ‘transgenders in women’s sports’ as their hill to die on. Never once do they consider that this is the natural outcome of the ridiculous non-free-market existence of women’s sports, AND that the women themselves vote in a manner that supports this. Why shouldn’t the 700th best man in a given sport earn more money by pretending to be a woman? Suddenly, their pretend commitment to free markets is gone.

iii) As Dalrock often pointed out, the cuckservative’s highest goal is to lose, no matter how strong their position. Even if they are 99% of the way to victory, they crave loss, because they believe women are going to be impressed by them ‘taking the higher road’ and women will reward them sexually. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of how women think (women side with the winners, morals be damned). But cuckservatives think that endless surrender accrues them some heavenly points towards impressing women. In that way, cuckservatives are not much different than the Muslims who believe in ’72 virgins in heaven’.

iv) Ultra blue-pill Prager U has many videos trying to shame men into Marriage 2.0 (and it is shame, rather than enticement, because they portray negatives as positives). Tellingly, there are ZERO videos on that cuck channel telling women that being traditional is better.

v) Most of the cuckservative zeal for invading Muslim countries was under the premise that Islamic women were desperate to escape Islam, and by liberating these women, both these and other women the world over would reward these cucks with gratitude (i.e. sexual gratitude). This, of course, did not happen. I don’t know of a single US cuckservative who is married to a woman ‘liberated’ from Afghanistan or Iraq.

I could go on. But the overarching theme of cuckservatism is the most cartoonish of whiteknighting, combined with a belief that endless surrender somehow is ‘dignified’ and will impress those paragons of morality, women.

Thank ye kindly, sir. And yes, she was indeed born on the Ides of March – a momentous day that produced a momentous lady.

Yeah. THAT is a woman – and yet another reminder that God loves us very much and wants us to be happy.

Well, to be honest, it’s not ME saying that conservatism is a non-ideology. I’m taking that from the Patron Saint of Conservatism himself, Russell Kirk. This is literally the first sentence of Kirk’s “Ten Conservative Principles”:

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata.

There you have it. That’s what conservatism is – a non-ideology. Kirk went on to write:

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

You can see now precisely why conservatives have been almost completely ineffective at ANYTHING. It is because they have no defining principles, no belief system, and therefore, nothing to stand and fight for.

Contrast this with what Christians like me believe. We believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with His Father, one of the three Persons of the one Essence of God. We believe that He came to Earth in human form, lived as a man, died on the Cross, and was raised again. And we believe that we are to emulate Jesus in every way – up to and including dying for those that we love.

It’s not hard to see why Christianity has been effective, while conservatism has singularly failed to preserve even so much as the ladies’ room. Most so-called “conservatives” today can’t even figure out whether “Caitlyn” Jenner is a man or a woman. Christians, at least the real ones, have no such difficulty.

This is also why real Christians understand, at least to some degree, that the war between Russia and Ukraine is the manifestation of a far greater and more terrible struggle in the spirit realm, and why it is merely a very important phase of a much larger campaign. And that is why we have no desire whatsoever to nuke Moscow, because that would be profoundly stupid and would involve taking the wrong side in the war.

Anyway I think my gingervitas AND lactose intolerance is cured.

You are among the three people who have independently referred to US conservatism as a ‘non-ideology’. That meme seems to be spreading, based on anecdotal observations.

I agree, but was wondering if you had some more precise insight about how ‘non-ideology’ is an accurate description. I mean, these cucks are fully Pavlovian gung-ho about war, to defend the same Deep State they hated a month ago. They want to ‘nuke Moscow’, even though they had no such sentiment a month ago.