Category Archives: Conservatism

Performative Contradiction: Pipsqueak Declares Pat Buchanan ‘Not A Great Writer’

Argument, Conservatism, Critique, Culture, English, Intellectualism, Logic, Reason

‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent’ ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

This is rich! (In-hysterics emoji)

Against the backdrop of the retirement of the superb Patrick J. Buchanan, some cipher—that’s a melodic word for a zero, a nobody—at The American Conservative, which I recommend avoiding like spam for penis extensions, one Declan Leary declares that Pat Buchanan “was not a great writer.”

Mr. Buchanan is a very fine writer! Spare and strong, easily great.

Let’s see: A nullity, Declan Leary, implies Buchanan was a mediocre writer, and does so while writing—nay embodying—mediocre, nondescript prose. I’m in stitches here.

Leary is still a pipsqueak, but you don’t grow talent. You either have it or you don’t. It is self-evident that Leary’s prose is never going to be anything but nondescript. (Experience Declan for yourself in “Against ‘Buchananism.’”)

I do declare that Declan Leary is engaged in something of a performative contradiction.

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent,” said Ludwig Wittgenstein, a great analytic philosopher.

*Lawrence Auster and I were first to denounce the American Conservative.

* Screen picture credit

MLK, Russell Kirk, And The Ignominy of Modern Conservatism

Boyd Cathey, Christianity, Colonialism, Communism, Conservatism, Democrats, Education, Egalitarianism, History, Intellectualism, Race, Republicans

Outrage is too mild a term to describe the inane barbarity visited by the Russell Kirk Center on the memory of its namesake, Dr. Kirk, founder of American conservatism. It is built on lies and blatant falsehood

By Boyd Cathey

For the past forty years (officially since 1986) the third Monday in January has been celebrated as a federal holiday, Martin Luther King Day. Federal and state offices and many businesses either close or go on limited schedules. We are awash with public observances, parades, prayer breakfasts, stepped-up school projects for our unwary and intellectually-abused children, and gobs and gobs of over-the-top television “specials” and movies, all geared to tell us—to shout it in our faces, if we don’t pay strict attention—that King was some sort of superhuman, semi-divine civil-rights leader who brought the promise of equality to millions of Americans, a kind of modern St. John the Baptist ushering in the Millennium. And that he stands just below Jesus Christ in the pantheon of revered and adored historical personages…and in some ways, perhaps above Jesus Christ in the minds of many of his present-day devotees and epigones.

It seems to do no good to issue a demurrer to this veritable religious “cult of Dr. King.” There are, indeed, numerous “Christian” churches that now “celebrate” this day just as if it were a major feast in the Christian calendar. In short, Martin Luther King has received de facto canonization religiously and in the public mind as no other person in American history.

And the King cult has taken hold in the “conservative movement” with an especial tsunami-like effect.

The latest outrage of this revolutionary “cleansing” of traditional conservatism has been what has been inflicted on Russell Kirk, the “Sage of Mecosta,” the generally acknowledged founder of the American conservative movement back in the early 1950s. And it comes at the behest and invitation of the very institution bearing his name, The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal, which plans to host a joint conference with the Acton Center, on Monday, January 16, with black activist John Woods, Jr., doing the honours. Under the looming visage of Abe Lincoln, Woods’ Web site, Braver Angels, defines his own organization as dedicated “to depolarization…bridging the partisan divide….” (A photo of a gaggle of brainless, lovey-dovey, googly-eyed Clinton and Trump supporters decorate the site.)

Here is part of the blurb from the Kirk Center:

Without King and Kirk, modern American Social Justice liberalism and modern American conservatism as we know them would not exist. And yet, for all of their differences, our modern politics suffer because contemporary liberalism and conservatism often lack the grounding in virtues, communitarian values and faith in an ordered universe to which both Kingian Nonviolence and Kirkian Conservatism held fast. Is it possible that by reacquainting ourselves with these lost traditions we could summon the better angels of left and right and restore a politics of virtue for the modern age?

Outrage is too mild a term to use to describe this inane barbarity. It is built on lies and blatant falsehood.

At one time figures such as Kirk were considered too unwieldly, too untouchable to be incorporated into the swirling vortex of crazed conservative political correctness. Very simply, although the standard encomia were regularly paid to his earlier accomplishments and role, his essential (negative) views on King, his opposition to the civil rights movement (and legislation), his staunch arguments against egalitarianism, his opposition to the frenzied anti-colonialism of the 1950s and 1960s (cf., his adventure novel, A Creature of the Twilight, set in late colonialist Africa), and his virulent disgust directed at George H. W. Bush (which led him to become chairman of Pat Buchanan’s campaign in Michigan in 1992, just as I chaired the North Carolina Buchanan effort) are significant mileposts which Kirk biographer, Bradley Birzer, must acknowledge (see generally, Birzer, Russell Kirk: American Conservative;  University of Kentucky Press, 2015).

From 1967, when I was a college freshman, until shortly before his death in 1994, I corresponded frequently with Russell. As chairman of the Pfeiffer University Visiting Lecture Program—that would never happen today!—I brought him to my school. And, then, after a year as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow at the University of Virginia (where I finished my MA in 1971), Kirk asked me to come to Mecosta to serve as his assistant for 1971-1972. There I was privileged to learn from the Master. Not only did I delve deeply into roots of traditional Anglo-American conservatism (I assisted RK on Eliot and His Age and The Roots of American Order), but one responsibility I had was to edit Kirk’s little educational quarterly, The University Bookman. There he demonstrated his willingness, among other difficult topics, to debate cognitive disparities between the races (publishing reviews of politically-incorrect volumes).

And then, I recall sitting in his library with him as the results of the Michigan Democratic presidential primary filtered in, in the spring of 1972. Although television sets and radios were not permitted in the old house, “Piety Hill,” up the street, I had a radio, and at Russell’s urging I brought it down from my room (the second floor of the library building). Kirk delighted in George Wallace’s upset victory, although I don’t think he wished his wife Annette to find out!

Such examples of his thinking and actions are now all swept under the carpet, carefully ignored, or simply rewritten, and the “Sage of Mecosta” emerges with new raiment, diminished and stuffed in a Procrustean bed, fully “trans-ed” and purified of his earlier inequities and sins of racism and against “human rights.”

Let us recall a little history, and this I essentially repeat from my earlier essays on this subject to which I refer the reader.

Mention the fact that King may have plagiarized as much as 40 % of his Boston University Ph.D. dissertation [cf. Theodore Pappas, Plagiarism and the Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr, and Other Prominent Americans, 1998, and Martin Luther King Jr Plagiarism Story, 1994, if they are have not been scrubbed from circulation], or that he worked closely with known Communists throughout his life, or that he advocated American defeat in Vietnam while praising Ho Chi Minh, or that he implicitly countenanced violence and Marxism, especially later in his life [cf., Congressional Record, 129, no. 130 (October 3, 1983): S13452-S13461]—mention any of these accusations confirmed begrudgingly by his establishment biographers David Garrow and Taylor Branch, or mention his even-by-current-standards violent “rough sex” escapades (which apparently involved even under-agers) [cf., Cooper Sterling, January 13, 2018, VDare] and you immediately get labeled a “racist” and condemned by not just the zealous King flame-keepers on the Left, but by such “racially acceptable” conservatives like Rich Lowry and Dinesh D’Souza who supposedly are on the Right.

Indeed, in some ways Establishment “conservatives” such as Lowry (National Review), D’Souza, Glenn Beck, the talking heads on Fox and the furious scribblers at nearly all major “conservative” journals, and many others, not only eagerly buy into this narrative, they now have converted King into a full-fledged, card-carrying member of “conservatism inc.”—a “plaster saint” iconized as literally no one else in our history. Thus, this latest attempt to “scrub” clean Russell Kirk so that he, too, can join the new holy pantheon…finally, it simply had to happen.

Celebrating King becomes a means for the modern “conservative” movement to demonstrate its “civil rights” and “egalitarian” bona fides. When the Neoconservatives made their pilgrimage from the Trotskyite Left into the ranks of conservatism in the 1960s and 1970s, they brought with them a fervent belief in a globalist New World Order egalitarianism that characterized their Trotskyite ideology, and the determination to redefine and re-orient the traditional American Rightwing, and to re-write, as well, American history.

Thus, the purges of the old conservative movement in the 1980s and 1990s—there was no room for Southern conservatives like Mel Bradford, no room for traditionalist Catholics like Frederick Wilhelmsen or Brent Bozell Sr., no room for paleo-libertarians like Murray Rothbard, no room for Old Right anti-egalitarians like Paul Gottfried, and no room for “America Firsters” like Pat Buchanan…. These figures did not believe in King’s (and Lincoln’s) “promise of equality,” and thus were no doubt scarred by latent or real racism.

King Day becomes, then, for the modern Conservative Movement an opportunity for it to beat its chest, brag about its commitment to civil rights and “the American dream, the unrealized idea of equality” (that is, to distort and re-write the history of the American Founding), and to protect its left flank against the ever increasing charges that it could be, just might be, maybe is —“racist.”

The heavily-documented literature detailing the real Martin Luther King is abundant and remains uncontroverted. During the debates over establishing a national “King Day” in the mid-1980s, Senators Jesse Helms and John East (both North Carolinians) led the opposition, supplying the Congress and the nation, and anyone with eyes to read, full accounts of the “King legacy,” from his close association and collaboration with the Communist Party USA to his advocacy of violence and support for the Communists in Vietnam, to implicit support for Marxist revolution domestically. Ironically, it was Robert Woodson, a noted black Republican, who highlighted in a lecture given to honor the “conservative virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King” at the Heritage Foundation on November 5, 1993, the difficulties in getting black advocates of the older generation to respect King’s role as a Civil Rights leader. According to Woodson, as quoted in an excellent essay by Paul Gottfried,

…when Dr. King tried to bring the Civil Rights movement together with the [Marxist] peace movement, it was Carl Rowan who characterized King as a Communist, not Ronald Reagan. I remember being on the dais of the NAACP banquet in Darby, Pennsylvania when Roy Wilkins soundly castigated King for this position. [Paul Gottfried, “The Cult of St. Martin Luther King – A Loyalty Test for Careerist Conservatives?” January 16, 2012].

But not only that, behind the scenes there were voluminous secretly-made FBI recordings and accounts of King’s violent sexual escapades, often times with more than two or three others involved in such “rough sex” trysts; and of his near total hypocrisy when discussing civil rights and other prominent civil rights leaders. It is, to put it mildly, a sorry record, scandalous even by today’s standards…Indeed, King makes Harvey Weinstein look like a meek choirboy in comparison.

But you won’t hear any of that mentioned by the falling-all-over-itself media mavens at “Conservatism Inc.” or on Fox. In fact, such comments will get you exiled to the far reaches of the Gobi Desert and labeled a “racist,” quicker that my cocker spaniel gobbles down his kibble.

Almost all the material is now available and accessible online, including material from the Congressional Record. And I have listed it in previous forays into this topic. Much of what we really have come to know is thanks to the excellent work and dedicated research of the late Dr. Sam Francis, who served on the staff of Senator East. Francis’s work is critical, and originally was written to preface the publication of voluminous testimony and documentation placed in the Congressional Record by Senator Helms.

Francis’s essay and the Helms’ dossier were eventually published in book form (I have a published copy, but I’m unsure if you can still find it on Amazon). A few years back Dr. Francis’s introduction [“The King Holiday and Its Meaning,” February 26, 2015] and the lengthy Congressional Record material, which he prepared for Helms [“Remarks of Senator Jesse Helms. Congressional Quarterly,” February 26, 2005] were put online. For a very complete understanding of King’s association and cooperation with American Communists and his endorsement of Vietnamese Communism, as well as his putative endorsement of Marxism here in the United States while condemning the free enterprise system, these two items are essential reading.

But, say the scribblers at the “establishment conservative media,” wasn’t King really a conservative at heart, an old-fashioned black Baptist who believed in the tenets of traditional Christianity? Shouldn’t we simply overlook these all-too-human failings? And, like John Woods, Jr., shouldn’t we search diligently for those points of “consensus” and “shared communitarian values”?

The answer is a resounding NO.

I can think of no better summation of the real meaning of King Day and its bare-knuckled ideological use to deconstruct, dissolve and obliterate American traditions and heritage than to cite, again, Sam Francis:

“[T]he true meaning of the holiday is that it serves to legitimize the radical social and political agenda that King himself favored and to delegitimize traditional American social and cultural institutions—not simply those that supported racial segregation but also those that support a free market economy, an anti-communist foreign policy, and a constitutional system that restrains the power of the state rather than one that centralizes and expands power for the reconstruction of society and the redistribution of wealth. In this sense, the campaign to enact the legal public holiday in honor of Martin Luther King was a small first step on the long march to revolution, a charter by which that revolution is justified as the true and ultimate meaning of the American identity. In this sense, and also in King’s own sense, as he defined it in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, the Declaration of Independence becomes a “promissory note” by which the state is authorized to pursue social and economic egalitarianism as its mission, and all institutions and values that fail to reflect the dominance of equality—racial, cultural, national, economic, political, and social—must be overcome and discarded.

“By placing King—and therefore his own radical ideology of social transformation and reconstruction—into the central pantheon of American history, the King holiday provides a green light by which the revolutionary process of transformation and reconstruction can charge full speed ahead. Moreover, by placing King at the center of the American national pantheon, the holiday also serves to undermine any argument against the revolutionary political agenda that it has come to symbolize. Having promoted or accepted the symbol of the new dogma as a defining—perhaps the defining—icon of the American political order, those who oppose the revolutionary agenda the symbol represents have little ground to resist that agenda.” 

I will not be celebrating this day; rather, it is for me a mournful reminder of what has happened and is happening to this country…and what has happened to the once-fearless and vibrant “conservative movement” and now to the revered Dr. Russell Kirk.

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

~ 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.

UPDATED (1/11): Is Diana West Investigating ‘Just Another Mouth in the Republican Fellatio Machine’? Dunno

Argument, Conservatism, Conspiracy, Government, Israel, Law, Political Philosophy, Sex, The State

People who are killed or entombed by the state’s emissaries are usually not that powerful

Diana West, one of the few writers with whom I check back every now and then as she deserves dwindling energies, offers this tease on her website:

I decided to take the Whitney Webb challenge and fact-check the endnotes of her new book, ‘One Nation Under Blackmail (Vol. 1).’ Here, at my Patreon channel, are my initial results.

The link takes the reader to Diana’s Patreon home, to which, alas, one has to sign up.  “Signing-up” always feels like “signing away” something or another.

The Patreon post is titled “Fact Checking [Whitney Webb’s’] Salacious Endnotes (Someone’s Gotta Do It).”

No idea what Diana found, but I know that the low-watt Webb woman doesn’t warrant my own energies. Most of the Internet’s news porn does not. Quality output, my own, over decades without much appreciation exhausts. Worthy individuals will find that fact worth respecting, and recognize that I’m uninterested in addressing the Internet’s commentary crap or the dummy du jour, anointed fleetingly by elderly conservatives as Delphic oracle. Pelt me all you wish with questions about my own voluminous, wide-ranging writings—good or bad. Those I will happily address.

I’ve been around those fleeting brain infarcts long enough to ignore “Just Another Mouth in the Republican Fellatio Machine” (Yes, that title found a home <smile.> And, by the way, where is S.E. Cupp?)

These days, American publishers, as anatomized in the Foreword to Into the Cannibal’s Pot, published on VDARE, no longer publish important texts, but, rather, those written by popular dummies, as determined and selected according to social-media following and favor curried with equally loud, influential, TV mouths, for this reason:

Sidekick X, Y, Z (mostly interchangeable) is on TV, weighing in on weighty matters, because however hard she and her ilk try, they cannot outsmart their hosts

I can’t say for sure, and I might be wrong—but, from her use of “salacious,” I gather Diana is unimpressed.

A solid reference with respect to the Security and Surveillance State is Glenn Greenwald (if raw intelligence matters any more). He’s a good investigator, whose end-notes are unlikely to be “salacious”, and, to the extent his theoretical constraints allow—his deductions too are solid. Greenwald’s best work, of course, was in facilitating Edward Snowden’s revelations—not that it did any long-term good—and ferrying him to safety.

Thank You For Your Service, Mr. Snowden

Naturally, I’ll listen to Diana’s dispassionate analysis pertaining to said end-notes if she provides it.

However, an author can provide end notes that check out, while still using the data to string together a poor, phantasmagorical thesis. Thus, Diana’s verdict matters on the matter of the data, but  this will not change my own sense of the “thesis” underlying Webb’s Epstein, Israel and Ghislaine Maxwell nexus:

My antenna is not even up. The root of all evil is not in Epstein and his ho. Did they serve the powerful? Yes. Did they imagine they were powerful? I suppose. They are both dead–Ghislaine, poor woman, is as good as dead.

In this connection, an important book to write would be on the loss of due process and the rules of evidence. Paul Craig Roberts wrote the first installation. It is he, not dumbo distaff at large, that ought to be paid to write a second volume, analyzing as I often do, the final death knell dealt to Law by MeToo movementarians, the same species of “due process” that has entombed Maxwell.

In all, people who are killed or entombed by the state’s emissaries are usually not that powerful.

As I say in my blog post, “Ghislaine Maxwell: Not Evidence-Based Law, But MeToo, Sexual Moral Panic,” I didn’t support the couple’s prosecution.

Consider: Matt Gaetz is also libeled now as a so-called pedo, for cavorting with young greedy gals. Mind you, he’s been smeared as a sex trafficker, no less, since he traveled with one willing lass on an airplane. Crossing state lines with a young, willing woman I guess is a crime in Police State USA. Tragic.

The state, overt and deep, is corrupt, and that includes the Israeli state, although Israel distinguishes itself by not dispossessing its own; the Jewish state acts in self-interest. That’s the real scandal: the treason of the Anglo-European Axis. Anything else is a distraction to me.

UPDATED (1/11): Diana West, author of the simply superb American Betrayal, has promised to provide us with her forensic examination of the “history” of low-watt Whitney Webb. Not that I doubted them—but my instincts have been confirmed. Stay on this page.

NEW COLUMN: The Hell With Hunter; Call Joe In For Hearings On Treason, Cancel The Neocons While You’re At It

Conservatism, Constitution, Critique, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Government, IMMIGRATION, Neoconservatism, Republicans, War

NEW COLUMN is “The Hell With Hunter; Call Joe In For Hearings On Treason, Cancel The Neocons While You’re At It.” It is featured on The Unz Review, WND and The New American on Friday.

The Republicans are investigating the Hunter “Baaaden” affair, to imitate the repetitive intonations emitted by Fox News’ Australian journalist, about the ‘Baaaden’ laptop.

Deplorables, don’t be misled into this dummies-and-ditto-heads dead-end. This is vintage lightweight, GOP tit-for-tat distraction, on par with the Democrats’ ongoing January 6 production.

The Hunter Biden preoccupation amounts to, “They (Democrats) do January 6; we (Republicans) hack away at—or hit back with—Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell.”

The outcome: The Democrats get what they want: détente. They neuter Deplorables, sending us down a political rabbit hole.

We gain nothing from such a foray. It’s zero-sum for Deplorables.

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, whom I respect, disagrees. Turley, understand, operates within the philosophical parameters of the state. By and large, he believes in the extant integrity of American institutions, even confident that one party is more righteous than the other. When out-of-sync, the good party led by the right people, or so the good professor imagines, is sure to right wrongs through a congressional committee.

Wrong. Not for nothing do we call it the Permanent State, fronted as it is by evil and stupid-party operatives.

Correctly so, the matter of the FBI’s endemic corruption and bias has been settled both in the minds of deplorables and by the objective facts. (FBI Director James Comey anyone? Director Christopher Wray?)

If the GOP were seriously working for Deplorables, and not engaged in tit-for-tat political gotcha—they’d pursue First Principles driven congressional oversight.

Duly, Biden would be summonsed for a hearing charging that by intentionally, and as a matter of policy, leaving the Southern border wide-open and unguarded—in effect inviting the world to invade our country—the president is willfully flouting his constitutional obligation to protect Americans from foreign invaders, and is thus committing treason.

The obligation of a Republican congressional majority is to pursue oversight by investigating and prosecuting a flagrant violation by the president of his constitutional obligation to defend the United States and its people from foreign invasions.

That the incoming Republican congressional majority is already falling flat, opting for showy politicking, instead of a solemn focus on Biden’s treason against his people, is all the more jarring given the GOP’s abject failure to deliver as promised in the 2022 midterms.

Other predictably ominous signs were on display at a recent Republican Jewish Coalition conference, where some Republicans who ought to disappear reappeared …

… THE REST. “The Hell With Hunter; Call Joe In For Hearings On Treason, Cancel The Neocons While You’re At It” is featured on The Unz Review, WND and The New American on Friday.