I employ the word “cucked” with the meaning: person, group, or movement who was defeated in a particularly ridiculous manner.
In this RT piece ‘Obsession with extreme PC behavior is a hindrance to the progressive movement,’ the author writes the following:
“This is not to say that it’s unimportant to respect an individual’s preferences when it comes to things like using preferred pronouns — but the left needs to realize it can do all that without becoming a caricature of itself.”
Even when they criticize the Identitarian left, they still try and disculpate themselves. It’s quite sad to see women and men having been reduced to pansies by PC culture. I also like some of the stupid leftists in the comments section, insisting that the only left they recognize is Marxism, and insisting that what the Scandinavians have is “socialism.” What those countries have is social democracy! Those countries still have usury, rent-seeking, private property, and idle shareholders. I don’t think any of these gits read Das Kapital [I know I didn’t in my foolish days as a loud mouth, stupid SJW] or any criticism of Karl Marx’s ideas that didn’t stem from republican and market libertarian outlets. Proudhon is a good place to start on that.
When the so-called progressive leftists [social democrats] criticize ID politics, but then end up adopting the same PC idea – they are betraying the fact that what really pisses them off is not the ridiculous and arbitrary PC culture, but that it garners bad PR with voters at grassroots, limiting their ability to obtain votes. There is no progressive left in the West! They’re all cucked to the Nth degree. The only socialist systems, during the 20th century, which proved viable from an economic perspective, were two: [German] National Socialism and National Communism. I don’t care how much it upsets people across the political spectrum, facts are facts. The Nazis took a battered, humiliated, starving Germany and in 5 years time transformed it into a military and economic superpower, the nr 1 superpower in the world at the time. To sum up the ‘magic’ formula: stopping land and financial speculation + deficit spending to develop the real economy.
National Communism closely resembles German National Socialism, except for a few things. Its social policy wasn’t based on eugenics and it had full collectivization. That’s pretty much it. National Communism had nothing to do with the deranged anarchist, feminist, liberal, libertarian, globalist discourse we see on the left today. The USSR didn’t practice or promote free trade or free movement of labor between itself, its satellite states, or partner nations. Homosexuality was decriminalized, but sexual ‘exploration’ [of any type] wasn’t pushed on children. National Communism had none of this gender-fluid nonsense, hedonism, super-abortion propaganda, or misandry. And even though state atheism was the norm, state authorities and media treated God and the Church with a lot more respect than today’s media and culture, and the family was protected. The Soviet system of National Communism would have succeeded by an entirely different order of magnitude, had its political elites not abandoned the Nation-wide Automated Economics Control System [OGAS] project in favor of Liberman’s [market profitability] reforms. Once the communist block nations adopted [Western-inspired] market reforms and or [Western-approved] austerity plans, the rot was firmly set in.
I wish to quote a line from a Romanian movie from ’71 – back when Ceausescu was signalling his change in country affairs, promoting nationhood [instead of denigrating it like the left does today] and leaving behind the dark days of Bolshevism and foreign governance. First, some background to the movie scene. During a party assembly, an engineer [original member of the party and loyal] is attacked by the organization’s ideologues for speaking against the construction of a new factory. The engineer in question cites technological and logistical arguments to justify his position. But that doesn’t satisfy the sycophants and the regional chief. After being grilled with straw men and ad hominems, the engineer is asked how is socialism to be achieved and if he believes that the individual member of the party has to abide by the majority’s decision. He answers, “Socialism is built through the application of the highest conquests of science and through the people’s heroism and sacrifice. Yes, a party member must accept the majority’s decision. But in matters of science, the notion of a majority is without sense!”
In conclusion, as far as so-called left-wing politics go, there’s nothing cheaper than a social democrat trying to rebrand social democracy into socialism. The former is establishmentarianism, and today it suffers a lot from mental illness, greed, materialism, outright hypocrisy and cowardice – just like their mainstream ideological counterparts, but to a higher degree. Actual socialism, on the other hand, is revolution, either via coup d’etat or civil war; but it sure works when put into action right. Politically incorrect, but true.