Why not? Seriously, why not? It’s all the same to the conservatives at the National Review, right? That’s what they themselves are saying! So let’s do this.

After being heckled on Twitter for being an apparent ‘cuckservative’ or something to that effect, National Review contributor David French decided to take to the safe space that is whatever CMS the National Review uses, to write out a long and rambling article where he claims that the ‘far-right’ and the ‘far-left’ are the same thing because they both disagree with him on the racialised-classised nature of reality itself, and they both disagree with him on the exact same issue for the exact same reason.

It has not crossed David French’s mind yet that the reason that both the ‘far-right’ and the ‘far-left’ disagree with the National Review, is because the National Review is denying biological realities while clinging desperately to a portrait of Jesus of Nazareth.

It’s almost like no one at the National Review has even the slightest sense of self-awareness.

Not even a little bit.

See here:

The National Review / David French, ’‘Cuckservative’ Has Got to Go’, 18 Sep 2015 (emphasis added):

[...]

Conservatives should reject those on both extremes of the spectrum. We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, “All are one, in Christ Jesus.” Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.

The last time conservatives tried that one, they got punched in the head from both sides. That’s what happens when their argument is trash.

But since ‘far-right’ and ‘far-left’ are all the same to David French now, I might as well quote Leon Trotsky being correct about a thing which is obvious, since it doesn’t really matter which side of the spectrum I choose to source this argument from:

Leon Trotsky, ‘Their Morals and Ours’, 01 Jun 1938 (emphasis added):

And who are all these democratic moralists? Ideologists of intermediary layers who have fallen, or are in fear of falling between the two fires. The chief traits of the prophets of this type are alienism to great historical movements, a hardened conservative mentality, smug narrowness, and a most primitive political cowardice. More than anything moralists wish that history should leave them in peace with their petty books, little magazines, subscribers, common sense, and moral copy books. But history does not leave them in peace. It cuffs them now from the left, now from the right. ‘Clearly’ – revolution and reaction, Czarism and Bolshevism, communism and fascism, Stalinism and Trotskyism – are all ‘twins’. Whoever doubts this may feel the symmetrical skull bumps upon both the right and left sides of these very moralists.

[...]

Moralists of the Anglo-Saxon type, in so far as they do not confine themselves to rationalist utilitarianism, the ethics of bourgeois bookkeeping, appear conscious or unconscious students of Viscount Shaftesbury, who at the beginning of the 18th century deduced moral judgments from a special “moral sense” supposedly once and for all given to man. Supra-class morality inevitably leads to the acknowledgment of a special substance, of a ’’moral sense’’, ’’conscience’’, some kind of absolute which is nothing more than the philosophic-cowardly pseudonym for god. Independent of “ends”, that is, of society, morality, whether we deduce it from eternal truths or from the “nature of man”, proves in the end to be a form of “natural theology”. Heaven remains the only fortified position for military operations against dialectic materialism.

[...]

Classical philosophic idealism in so far as it aimed in its time to secularize morality, that is, to free it from religious sanction, represented a tremendous step forward (Hegel). But having torn from heaven, moral philosophy had to find earthly roots. To discover these roots was one of the tasks of materialism. After Shaftesbury came Darwin, after Hegel—Marx. To appeal now to “eternal moral truths” signifies attempting to turn the wheels backward.

That’s completely applicable as a description of what the National Review is doing.

Of course, Leon Trotsky is not the only person who has said this. Much like how Leon Trotsky is not the only person who has announced that fire is hot.

Since conservatives, or ‘cuckservatives’ if you like, refuse to learn the basic building blocks of reality and apply them, I anticipate that we will all meet David French once again somewhere out there, and David French will once again find himself being punched on both sides of his face, from both the left and the right.