Category Archives: Race

UPDATED (8/12/022): WATCH: My Talk With The ‘Jolly Heretic’ About The Future Of America

Africa, America, Anti-Semitism, Democracy, Judaism & Jews, Juvenal Early's Archive, Race, Racism, South-Africa

Dr. Edward Dutton of the popular “Jolly Heretic” podcast interviews me about my 2011 book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa”; what it portends for America—has the tipping point been reached?—and much more.

Ed quipped that the book has held up “quite well.” I, of course, wrote “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” with a view to boldly outlining for Americans the contours of the anti-white society that will materialize in America if… if…

Alas, that society is upon us.

I suffer the usual glut of Jewy questions and taunts, but I get the last word. A spontaneous one-upmanship, if you will. But don’t go skipping to the end.

Still, Ed and I have a jolly good time of it. Watch:

UPDATE II (8/13/022): I have uploaded the video with Ed’s kind permission to my own YouTube channel. You can now watch the joust minus the offensive “Jewy” comments below it.

https://lnkd.in/gZeXmsuE

Nothing personal, Mr. Sheer. But I’m up to my eyeballs–had it!–with brooding, sour, judgmental puritanical scolds—species prevalent in North America—lying in wait to take offense at me, my jolly fun use of English (“off with her head!”)–and my persona; simply because it’s not flat-lining. The “F” word when used judiciously is fabulous. Ask D.H. Lawrence. Being an alive, if demure, personality among the walking dead isn’t fun.

UPDATE I (8/12/022): The Mercer fan page praises me for turning in a good performance and has some mild, fussy and unfocused words (the worst kind) for the Jewy stuff that occupied the segment.

Reply: You find “Jew, Jew, Jew” “boring”? What an understatement. Try enduring it for decades. As someone who has written in depth, well-developed works on the defining issues of the day, since 1998–I was having to speak not about my writing; but rather, to defend my character on the grounds that I was born Jewish; and in response to the  irrational hate of low-IQ, emotion-driven mouth-breathers for someone they don’t know.

Here is a simple statement from a man with an obvious urge to do the right thing and an ability to say the right thing:

Robert Dolan @UnzReview says:

She takes a lot of abuse here and never whines.
Her book is actually very good.
Everytime she writes a piece we get to hear about how she’s jewish…..as if we didn’t already know….
C’mon. Judge people by their work and their accomplishments.
Consider also the fact that the people facing the harsh (and usually unfair criticism) are public figures…..they have the courage to speak their minds in public and reveal their thoughts to the world at large, inviting not only social ostracism but financial ruin.

As to the comment about “financial ruin,” Robert gets it. My income—syndication dropped—was lost after I came out against the ConOink’s Iraq War in September of 2002. And burned as hot as molten lava against it for years. Dissident in 2001; dissident now. No change.

UPDATE III (8/13/022): Juvenal Early Dons His Shining Armor: 

A woman is lucky to have a friend such as Juvenal Early (nom de plume naturally), writer extraordinaire, and all-round fine human being. That my toil—and persona—inspires such a valiant defense in someone so kind and gifted means a lot—and offsets unkind cuts and slights from other quarters.

Oh, Jew! Jew! Jew! To paraphrase Scarlett O’Hara, is that all you guys ever talk about.

ILANA expressed herself in this long interview with all of intelligence, class, & erudition that she usually brings to her podcasts, and was, as always, great fun to listen to. But I’m afraid she didn’t speak to the issues I was hoping to hear about: CRT, black crime, the morass in Ukraine, the utter worthlessness of the GOP, etc. For that I blame the interlocutor, Mr Dutton. He seemed to be more interested, in the first half, to hear about South Africa, in the most minute details too, & we got a little bit more about tribal traits than we bargained for. Or perhaps that’s just me. ILANA has been in America for 20 years, & few writers understand better than her what’s happening here, & it was that I was led to believe would be the host’s agenda. But no, we got a lot of Xhosa & Zulu & Buthelezi—& the inevitable Jew questions. The patient lady rolled with the punches, & handled herself with aplomb.

When Dr. Dutton turned to the listeners’ questions, it became really evident that the fix was in. The first 3 questions came from the same guy. And they all had something to do with the so-called JQ. The rest of the questions were of a similar mouthbreather sort. The final question posited one those hypothetical situations that is completely irrelevant to the way we live now (& will be living a millennium from now), something about a world where Jews can’t hold office. ILANA’s jolly “Fuck off” was triumphant & completely appropriate, under the circumstances. It shouldn’t have been, but it was the best moment in the whole 98 minutes.

ILANA is an individual, coming at issues from an individualist’s perspective. At one point, she did say that, as far as identity was concerned, she was an Old Testament (she would call it the Hebrew Bible) Hebrew, with all that that implies with respect to embracing the truth, & raining hellfire down on your enemies. I thought that was pretty cool. Certainly an original perspective. She’s always been an original, you know. I scarcely know where the second-handers would be without her.

Now a lot of you will say how she ignores the elephant in the room, doesn’t say who’s behind all the evil in the world. You have the right to do so, & it’s a testament to Mr Unz’s love of free speech that you can do it here in the most colorful & imaginative ways possible. Personally, I get the enjoyment of a weekly wager with a friend, who also reads ILANA’s columns. We each try to guess how many JQ questions will turn up in the Comments before the next column is posted. The loser buys. We’re both getting pretty soused.

Matriarchy In The Sky–And In All Manner Of In-Your-Face Grotesquery

Affirmative Action, Business, COVID-19, Etiquette, Feminism, Free Markets, Gender, Ilana Mercer, Private Property, Race

Commenting on ‘The End of the All-Male, All-White Cockpit,’ Fox News personality Tucker Carlson beseeched, June 3, 2022: “What’s color to do with competence?” Sir, do check the aggregate accident statistics as to who are the best, safest pilots, sir! Correlation’s not causation, BUT:

Via ScienceDirect: “… female pilots employed by major airlines had a significantly greater likelihood of pilot-error incidents than their male colleagues.” Then the excuse-making weasel words begin—concealing with bafflegab that if you fly with a female you’re more risk. Female pilots yield a higher error/accident rate but, say the Fake Science propagators, this is only because they are younger and less experienced. What you the passenger MUST DO is not be such a bigot and forget about these confounding variables when you fly. Ya hear me, sexist? SEE? The desired outcome is that you fly with a less able pilot, ceteris paribus. Noble cause.

Or, as our reader put it:

“It states in the beginning that females had a higher accident rate, then it states they are about the same as males. SO WHICH IS IT??? Pretty much.”

I wonder. Does anyone get the life-and-death difference between a “pilot” trained at an affirmative-action, feel-good girlie flight school and a veteran of the Air Force? Remember Capt. Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger, III of the famed “Unable; we’ll be in the Hudson”? That was “Manliness (Not A Miracle) On The Hudson.”

Patronize the private airline industry nascent. Viva the free market and all the magnificent military trained man pilots ousted from the cartel of the commercial industry to fly private jets. This is what I’ll be exploring, as I think my life is worth it: “Flying private is cheaper than you think — here are 6 airlines to consider for your next flight.”  As illustrated in this 2002 tract—“Whose Property Is It Anyway?”—too many aspects of the airline industry, airports included, have been federalized (by The Shrub, aka Bush). Covid, and the cartel that has attached to it, has completed the demise of the industry.

In the vain of in-your-face female awfulness, Lena Dunham err, DungHam, resurfaced, “posing poolside in a bikini.” Says she, I “forgot how important it is to wear a bikini.

To be or not to bikini. I never thought of it this way. But if you say so, Lena. So, I posed in my bathroom, with my 30-year-old swimsuit, bought in Cape Town. But that’s as far as I’ll go with this outfit and this particular existential search for meaning.

And, thank you, role model Lena. I feel like a woman, now. At least I’ll say it: It is utter peacockery that moves women to pose, not authenticity, said here in “hedonism, not heroism:

To get naked for the world to see is immodest, not heroic. Displaying “saggy tummies” and “stretch marks” does not a hero make. Narcissism, self-adoration, bad taste, or just being comfortable in your own skin: these are not heroic, although they’ve been cast as such.

And here, in “Skanks in the Sky“:

Women are generally far more narcissistic and exhibitionistic than males are and habitually ho-up for travel and work. There is sexy and there is skanky.

We are nature’s worst peacocks, moved by vanity, not by the need to attract a mate, which is what moves the Real Peacock.

The celeb world responded to Lena Dunham with, “Just stunning.”  The old man said (about Lena, not ilana), “More like breathtaking.”

The lead image on this post comes via Max Denken of Gab. No need for words, but in case you mince yours or use euphemisms; I offer the correct crawler—as in the apt chyron beneath an image: Polina Gagarina, Russia’s most famous singer, chaste, gorgeous, natural; vs America’s  slumdog culture’s offering: Lizzo. This mountain of flesh is seen mounting a jet. Let’s hope Lizzo will not be piloting the thing.

WATCH: Tucker Cancels GOP, So Should You: ‘Republicans Have Done Nothing To Defend YOU’

Conservatism, Constitution, COVID-19, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, Elections, IMMIGRATION, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Race, Racism, Republicans, The Establishment

WATCH HARD TRUTH: “Tucker Cancels GOP, So Should You: ‘Republicans Have Done Nothing To Defend YOU’”

In his June 20, 2020 J’accuse, Tucker Carlson, for all practical purposes, cancelled the Republican Party:

“Property was looted, people were beaten and killed and Republicans joined the side doing the looting, beating and killing. President of the Heritage Foundation and think tanks on the right climbed into … law enforcement and ordinary Americans, calling them racists, ignoring the damage done to their property and person.”

Jack Kerwick has been anatomizing ConOink establishment failures for over a decade:

“in  the country bequeathed to us by the generation that, in the midst of a smallpox epidemic, fought and defeated the most powerful empire in the world in order to be a self-governing union of sovereign states—subjected itself to a nationwide internment. The United State of America became the Interned States of America as the Constitution of the Old Republic was indefinitely revoked, the economy crushed, and ‘the little platoons’—as Burke referred to those buffers between the individual and the State, those forms of community constitutive of civil society and in the absence of which human flourishing would be impossible—were radically undermined. … And all of this occurred in a country with a Republican President, a Republican-controlled Senate, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees, and a majority of whose state legislatures and governors are Republican.”

HARD TRUTH’S David Vance and myself speak to Jack about the irreparably hopeless Republican Racket. RIP, GOP.

WATCH: “Tucker Cancels GOP, So Should You: ‘Republicans Have Done Nothing To Defend YOU.’

SUBSCRIBE.

 Also on Odysee and BitChute if those platforms float your boat

 

National Review ‘Conservatism’: As Ugly As The Promulgators

America, Boyd Cathey, Conservatism, Federalism, History, Race, Racism, The South, The West

Can there be unity with those who wish our extinction and replacement, or with those who urge us to surrender our beliefs?

By Boyd Cathey

Now, after what may have been a racially-motivated mass shooting in Buffalo (May 14) by a deranged young man, new insistent calls go out for the government to fight “white nationalism” and “right wing domestic terrorism.” Attorney General Merrick Garland has already signaled more than once that this is the nation’s major challenge—not the illegal drugs epidemic, not the rampant criminality tearing our cities apart, not the huge spike in gang violence, not the literally millions of illegals coming across our borders; no, not any of these, but homegrown “extremism” coming from disaffected, white segments of the American population.

In addition to new surveillance and potential censorship measures, such as the Disinformation Governance Board, and additional government intrusion into the lives of American citizens, also come the now-accustomed demands from various anguished personalities, political and otherwise, with pained expressions on their faces, pleading for national unity. “Can’t we all get along,” they mumble, echoing words uttered decades ago by Rodney King. (Remember him from the violence in the streets of Los Angeles?).

But such desired “unity” is always one-sided, meaning that we must discard our beliefs, our principles, and accept the latest agenda item, the latest conquest advanced by the post-Marxist Left. Far too many so-called “conservatives” in positions of leadership in America have embraced this elastic strategy, of first opposing something (e.g. same sex marriage), then almost abruptly reversing course, even showcasing their about-face, while defending it as completely consistent with “conservative principles.”

Then, whether from pundits at Fox News or from the Rich Lowry and Kevin Williamson types at National Review, we are instructed to follow suit, to unite around a refashioned definition of conservatism which always seems to tag along just a few steps behind the worst outrages of the radical Left.

The great Southern author, Robert Lewis Dabney, writing a decade after the end of the War Between the States (1875), expressed presciently this tendency of dominant, post-war Northern conservatism:

“This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.”

Thus, a Robert E. Lee and a “Stonewall” Jackson were only a few years ago honored not just by conservatives but nationally, but now lightweight Neoconservative historians like Allen Guelzo dictate for us positions scarcely distinguishable from views current on the extreme Left. And Fox News personalities like Bret Baier and Brian Kilmeade do their damnedest in unserious, ghostwritten potboilers to publicize the greatness and sublime conservative vision of figures such as Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Douglass, and Abe Lincoln.

We are told that we must discard what once we believed were fundamental principles, that we must unite around the evolving definition of conservatism.

But what are those beliefs around which we should unify? If what was once posited as fundamental truth can simply be discarded, tossed on the ash heap, or ignored, where does that leave us in the immense culture war that we have been losing now for more than half a century?

The strategy of the present-day “conservative movement” almost exactly parallels the observation made by Dabney nearly 150 years ago. It has failed abysmally, and, in fact, its most significant achievement is to lead well-meaning citizens away from genuine and effective opposition to the rot which threatens to engulf us.

On the contrary, my mentor the late Dr. Russell Kirk, who in many ways was the father of an older conservatism (back in the 1950s), stated what should and must be our essential credo: We hold a series of immutable beliefs as fundamental, and those principles and that vision are necessary for a just society. Those beliefs and principles come to us as a precious legacy from our ancestors and from our Western Christian traditions.

And as a necessary corollary: there can be no real agreement, no real unity with those who openly and forcefully reject that foundation and those essential principles as poisoned by racism, sexism, homophobia, and “white privilege,” not to mention hints of “fascism” and other not-so-pleasant “isms.”

Let’s consider some history.

The old American republic was formed through a kind of understood compromise between the colonies; the Authors of our constitutional system fully comprehended that there were diverse elements and interests that must be balanced to make the new nation at all workable. But in 1787 there was essential agreement on fundamentals that a seemingly miraculous result was possible. Yet, those far-sighted men also feared what might happen should that which they created be perverted or turned from its original propositions.

The central Federal government was counter-balanced and limited by newly and fiercely independent states which jealously guarded a large portion of their own sovereignty. Voting was universally restricted to those considered most qualified to exercise the franchise. Universal suffrage was considered by the near totality of the Fathers of our Constitution to be a sure means of destroying the young republic: absolute democracy and across-the-board egalitarian views were considered fatal for the future of the country. Such views were sidelined to the periphery, without practical voice in the running of the commonwealth.

Above all the American republic was, in all but name, a “Christian” republic. Certainly, the basic documents of our founding did not formally state as much. There was no formal national “religious establishment,” as existed in almost all European countries. Yet, despite that lack of national confessionality, the new nation, while demanding freedom for religious expression, professed de facto the Christian faith as a kind of understood basis of the new nation. As is often pointed out, almost immediately after adopting the Bill of Rights in 1791 (authored, ironically, by slaveholder James Madison), including the “freedom of religion” First Amendment, Congress provided for paid Christian chaplains in the new Northwest Territories. Even more confirming is the fact that nearly every one of the original thirteen colonies/new states had a “religious establishment” or religious test of some sort on the state level, and those establishments were left completely untouched by the First Amendment, which was understood to mean only the formal establishment of a national supported state church.

Above all, there existed amongst the new Americans the ability to converse and communicate with each other, using the same language, and employing the same symbols and imagery that had brought them together originally as a country. Appeals to traditional English law and the historic “rights of Englishmen,” the belief in a God of the Old and New Testaments whose prescriptions found in Holy Writ informed both the laws of the state and the understanding of justice and virtue, and an implicit, if not explicit, agreement that there were certain limits of thought and action beyond which one could not go without endangering the republican experiment, formed a kind of accepted public orthodoxy.

That modus vivendi—that ability to get along and agree on most essentials—continued, sometimes fitfully, until 1861. The bloody War Between the States that erupted that year might have been avoided if the warnings of the Authors of the Constitution had been heeded, if the Federal executive in 1861 had understood the original intentions of 1787 and the precarious structural balance that the Philadelphia Convention had erected. But that was not the case, and four years of brutal war followed, with over half a million dead and thousands more maimed, and, most tragically, that essential “via media” between an increasingly powerful central government and the rights of the states and of communities, and eventually, of persons, distorted and perverted.

The resulting trajectory towards centralization, the growth of a powerful Federal government, has continued nearly unabated for 150 years. With it and with the gradual destruction of not just the rights of the states, but also of communities and persons, came the institutionalization of a large and mostly unseen permanent bureaucracy, a managerial and political class, that took upon itself the role of actually ruling and running the nation. James Burnham and the late Samuel Francis have written profoundly on this creation of a managerial state within the state.  Indeed, in more recent days we have come to label this establishment the “Deep State.”

Concurrent with this transformation governmentally and politically, our society and our culture have equally been transformed. It is certainly arguable that the defeat of the Confederate states in 1865, that is, the removal of what was essentially a conservative and countervailing element in American polity, enabled the nearly inevitable advance of a more “liberal” vision of the nation. At base, it was above all the acceptance by post-war Americans of nearly all persuasions of the Idea of Progress, the vision that “things”—events, developments in thought and in the sciences and in culture, as well in governing—were inevitably moving towards a bright new future. It was not so much to the past we would now look, but to the “new” which always lay ahead of us.  And that future was based squarely on the idea of an “enlightenment” that always seemed to move to the political and cultural Left.

While loudly professing and pushing for more “openness” and more “freedom,” liberation from the “straight jacket” of traditional religion and religious taboos, and propounding equality in practically every field of public and private endeavor, ironically, the underlying effect and result of this “progress” has brought with it, in reality, a severe curtailment of not just many of our personal liberties, but of the guaranteed rights once considered sacrosanct under our old Constitution.

This long term, concerted movement, and eventual triumph of nineteenth and twentieth century progressivism, politically, culturally, and in our churches, not only placed into doubt those essential and agreed-upon foundations that permitted the country to exist in some form of “unity,” but also enabled the growth of ideologies and belief systems that, at base, rejected those very foundations, the fragile creed, of that origination.

In one of the amazing turnarounds in history, the fall of Soviet Communism in 1991—hollowed out and decaying after years of boasting that it would “bury” the West—witnessed almost concurrently the exponential growth and flourishing of an even more insidious and seductive version of post-Marxism in the old Christian West, in Europe and the United States. A century of the ravages and termite-like devastation by liberalism and progressivist ideology had debilitated the foundations—and the required will—to resist the attractions of a cultural Marxism that eventually pervaded our culture, our education, our entertainment industry, and our religious thought. Older and gravely weakened inherited standards and once-revered benchmarks of right and wrong, of justice, of rights and duties, were replaced by what the Germans call a “gestalt,” or a kind of settled overarching Marxist view of society and culture which had no room for opposing views. Dr. Paul Gottfried has written extensively on this phenomenon.

That dogmatic vision now pervades our colleges and public education; it almost totally dominates Hollywood; it controls the Democratic Party and huge swathes of the Republican Party; it speaks with ecclesiastical authority through the heresiarchs who govern most of our churches; and, most critically, it provides a linguistic template—an approved language—that must be accepted and employed, lest the offender be charged with “hate speech” or “hate thought.” Its goals—the imposition of a phony democracy not just in the United States but across the face of the globe—the legislation of an across-the-board equality which is reminiscent of the kind of “equality” the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm “legislated”—the perpetuation of a largely unseen, unanswerable, unstoppable managerial and political class, secure in its power and omnipotence—the proclamation of the United States (and Europe) as an “open nation with no physical borders”—have been and are being realized.

It is this overlay, this suffocating ideological blanket, with its dogmas of multicultural political correctness, its anathematization of perceived “racism,” “sexism,” homophobia,” “white supremacy,” and other characterized forms of “bigotry” as unforgivable sins, that now has assumed near total dominance in our society. The older forms of liberalism were incapable of offering effective opposition, for cultural Marxism utilized liberalism’s arguments to essentially undo it, and eventually, absorb it.

Yet, there are still millions of Americans—and Europeans—who have been left behind, not yet swept up in that supposedly ineluctable movement to the Left. They are variously labeled the “deplorables,” or perhaps if they do not share completely the reigning presumptions of the Mainstream Media and academia, they are “bigots” or “yahoos,” uninformed “rednecks,” and, increasingly, maybe “white nationalists,” or worse. The prevailing utter condescension and contempt for them by the established Deep State would make the most severe witch-burner of the 17th century envious.

So I ask: we are asked to unify around what? Unite with whom? On what basis and on what set of fundamental principles? Can there be unity with those who wish our extinction and replacement, or with those who urge us to surrender our beliefs?

Frankly, such unity is neither possible nor desirable…unless millions have a “road to Damascus” conversion, or some major conflagration occurs to radically change hearts and minds.

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music. Dive into Dr. Cathey’s Barely A Blog archive and latest Hard Truth interview.