Everyone who hopes for the best but fears the worst cannot escape finding himself afflicted with a rather jarring, almost schizophrenic sense of psychic discombobulation from time to time. One who has fully abandoned himself to pessimism, on the other hand, has no such problem; since he always expects the worst, he isn’t in the least shaken when bad things happen. But the persistence of hope can have a devastating impact upon a person’s psyche. Hope leads to mental dislocation, because it muddles one’s perceptions. Hope springs eternal, entirely of its own volition; one cannot choose to do without it, because—being a force of nature—it won’t be ignored. Hope causes a person to wonder if things really are as dire as they seem, even when they clearly are, since (as hope seductively whispers), “Surely it’s not that bad.”

Every epoch is haunted by ubiquitous sinister spirits which plague the minds of men. It is useless to pretend otherwise. An earnest assessment of human history will reveal that certain types of people have always been prone to a certain moral hysteria, a fear and loathing of “dangerous” ideas and behaviors that are viewed as posing a kind of unhygienic threat of contagion to all that is good and decent. These sort of men tend to make their influence felt in various ways; they are nothing if not persistent; their crusader spirit fires them to lobby for their cause mercilessly, and the squeaky wheel, as ever, is the one that gets the grease.

Of course, most people are not crusading busybodies. Instead, the mass of men are the sort who want to avoid trouble, whose first and enduring impulse is to “get along” with others. They are, in other words, conformists. This sort is quite willing to mouth the mandatory slogans and repeat the pseudo-sacred shibboleths of the Zeitgeist, since they know instinctively that doing so will help them avoid attracting the wrong kind of attention.

The typical conformist is certainly not a “bad” person, by any stretch; he is simply not a terribly bold or brave person. Everyone must pick his battles, but the conformist nearly always passes on this prospect. He is, in Burke’s dictum, the good man who allows evil to prevail by doing nothing to stop it.

But just how prevalent is the conformist class’s cowardice? And how totally ruthless are the crusaders whose routinely cow the conformists into docility? These questions provoke confusion in the mind of the nonconforming Zeitgeist-defier, the one discussed above, who hopes for the best but fears the worst. “Surely,” hope again seductively whispers in his ear, “it can’t be that bad.” There may be tons of cruel fanatics and legions of worthless cowards in the world, but after all isn’t reason still a force to be reckoned with? Don’t most people still see the wisdom of such qualities as moderation and restraint?

Hope, as always, springs eternal. But then reality intrudes, spoiling everything. 

What witches were to 17^th Century Salem and Communists were to 1950s America, so are “racists” and “homophobes” within the current dispensation. I put these names in quotes because they mean little in a definitional sense—they are, in fact, little more than slurs, terms by which outsiders are marginalized and held up for ridicule and contempt. But names can never hurt us; rather, it is the stigma attached to such odious labels that does us in. This holds particularly true if you happen not to be incredibly rich and require gainful employment in order to support yourself and your family.

I have two particular recent cases in mind which illustrate the fearsome persistence of social stigma, demonstrating the power it has to wreck careers and put livelihoods in peril. They are two examples out of possibly hundreds, to be sure, but they are illustrative of a general trend, which is but the latest manifestation of an age-old proclivity to shun, spit upon, and otherwise cruelly castigate those considered outside of the circle of social acceptability. 

The first recent case involves Frank Borzellieri, a colorful and outspoken NYC-born goombah gadfly.

A few years ago, this curly-haired spitfire had caused quite a stir for a number of articles he wrote for the Leader-Observer, all of which weighed in on various forbidden subjects regarding the biological reality of racial differences; Borzellieri asserted, inter alia, that Whites were on average more intelligent than Blacks and Hispanics, and that Blacks and Hispanics were more prone to violent crime than Whites. His style of writing, however, wasn’t dryly academic in tone; he didn’t display charts or graphs and discourse in a professorial manner; instead, he wrote satirically, with a tone of mischievous insouciance, like an edgier Dave Barry.

I recall meeting Borzellieri briefly at the 2004 American Renaissance conference, where he gave an amusing talk about his experiences with various community activists who wanted to shut him up and intimidate his publisher into ceasing to carry his columns. At the time, Borzellieri served on a Manhattan school board and worked as an adjunct professor of journalism at New York Community College. I asked him if, living in the Bronx as he did, he had a lot of students who were Black and Hispanic. He owned that he did, indeed. I asked if they ever complained about the content of his columns, and he indicated that it hadn’t become an issue with them. “I tell them, ‘diversity’ is good, so how about let’s have some diversity of thought!” he exclaimed.

From our brief conversation, I saw that this fiery, funny little guy probably had a superb rapport with his students, whatever race they were. His down-to-earth, no-nonsense manner, combined with a twinkly-eyed amiability and good humor, no doubt made him a fine teacher. I could easily see his kids immensely enjoying his company. (Truth be told, I rather envied this quality about him, being a teacher myself, but one with no such easy rapport with students, or with people in general, for that matter…)

In the intervening years, Borzellieri was able to advance in the educational establishment. Most recently, he’d been appointed principal of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Catholic school in the Bronx. But then his past, apparently, caught up with him. After the school weathered a barrage of complaints from—who else?—“community activists,” for his controversial writings, Borzellieri was dismissed from his post in August.

Apparently, it was assumed that refraining from parroting rote multiculturalist dogma can only mean one is unfit for a position where one presides as administrator over an ethnically “diverse” population. I’m not sure what Borzellieri is doing with himself now, and I’m sure he has no memory of our abovementioned exchange a few years ago, but I wish him well. 

The charge of being a “racist” lands one in roughly the same position as Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter, with a bold “R” on his chest for all to see, signifying his unworthiness to be a part of polite and civilized society. But when it comes to degrees of official ignominy, those tagged with the scarlet “H” of “homophobe” aren’t much better off today. Soon, in fact, their persona non grata status may well exceed that of the “racists,” if current trends are any indication.

On a purely aesthetic level, I personally find the “homophobe” slur even more risibly absurd. “Racism,” at least, actually used to sort of mean something—i.e., “unreasonably prejudice or malice towards members of a different race”—before it became an all-encompassing means of shaming ideological heretics and thus lost all definitional bearing in reality.

But “homophobia” has never been anything but an intellectually dishonest nonsense word whose sole purpose is to cast aspersions on anyone expressing dissent from mandated PC-norms regarding homosexuality. The -phobia suffix is in fact, completely inaccurate and misleading, even if one is trying in good faith to understand what makes some people dislike gays. Who actually fears the homo? What’s he going to do that’s so menacing? Will he break into your home at night and redecorate your kitchen? Hold you at gunpoint and give you a bad haircut? Tie you up, force your pupils open, and make you watch old black-and-white movies starring Bettie Davis until you wretch and beg for mercy?

Gays flatter themselves to think that we straights find them the least bit intimidating. The truth is, we simply tend to find gay sex gross. That’s all. Repulsion is not fear. If our disgust hurts your feelings, O noble queer brethren, please know we’re not trying to be rude, just honest.

In any case, the fact that “homophobia” is a term patently devoid of meaning didn’t stop Florida high-school history teacher Jerry Buell—a 22-year veteran in his field—from getting suspended from his post at Mount Dora High School last month for posting a comment on his Facebook page regarding New York legalizing gay marriage. Among other things, Buell said that the sight of two men kissing on the news made him want to throw up, and he likened sodomic unions to “cesspools.”

Someone somewhere anonymously complained—it is still unclear who this person was— and the Lake County school system responded by pulling Buell from his post and placing him in administrative duties. Later, Buell contended that he was “tossed into a blender” at a moment’s notice by administrators, simply for speaking his mind on his private social network page.

It is worth noting that no one ever complained about Buell’s actual behavior in the classroom towards gay students; his mere expression of his beliefs was enough to land him in hot water with his higher-ups. The man obviously has strong religiously informed conservative opinions, but then so does a large portion of the citizenry; indeed, if everyone who shared Jerry Buell’s disgust at the sight of two dudes in lip-lock were forced out of his job, the unemployment rate would skyrocket to previously unheard of proportions.

Buell’s story, however, has a happier ending than Borzellieri’s. He has became a cause célèbre of the religious right, and even won an endorsement from the left-leaning ACLU. Following a two-week suspension, the Lake County school board has allowed Buell to return to his classroom, albeit somewhat grudgingly, and now the superintendent has moved on…to giving him grief for mentioning Jesus Christ on his class syllabi. 

Personally, I hope he writes a book about his ordeal, makes a ton of money, and tells the worthless bureaucrats who dicked him around to go sodomize themselves in Hell. That’s what I would do, anyway. But something tells me that Buell will stick with teaching; like Borzellieri, it seems, this recently elected “teacher of the year” truly enjoys the company of his students.

In the wake of cases like Borzellieri and Buell, a dark question lingers ominously: how many more will be threatened with dismissal from our professions for the offense of expressing un-kosher opinions in our private time? How safe are any of us confessed and incorrigible thought-criminals, really? How stout are our supposed allies, who may not agree with us, but think we should have the right to say what we speak out without forfeiting our ability to feed ourselves and our families?

Hope springs eternal: surely, it’s not that bad, we reflect. We tell ourselves that people don’t really like the type of heavy-handed, ideological browbeating on display in cases like this, that even liberals are discomfited by such grinding totalitarian tendencies found among some in their own ranks.

But… we can never be sure. We hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and try to find a way to behave prudently without lapsing into obsequious cravenness, to be bold without being foolish. And we pray, if we feel so inclined, as we wait patiently for the guillotine blade to drop on our necks. Whatever will be, will be.

This past June Rome’s Circus Maximus, where chariots were once raced in honor of emperors, was the site of the Europride-2011 festival. The Continent’s annual celebration of homosexuality also featured a special performance by a disturbingly popular entity known as Lady Gaga, a vocal supporter of the gay agenda[1]. The show was doubtless a hit with the million-strong crowd, and the carnival deemed a success, if only to remind the Vatican it operates in enemy-held territory. Yet Mme. Gaga wasn’t originally on the Europride billet- she needed some special persuasion from behind the scenes to make her grand appearance.

As it turns out, we can thank U.S. diplomacy for another round of last-minute heroics in the defense of freedom. American Ambassador to Italy David Thorne was ‘instrumental’ in bringing Gaga to the event, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed. But the Rome concert only serves as a symbol of the U.S. campaign to normalize homosexual practices throughout the world. In her address to the organization GLIFAA (Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) last week, Clinton enumerated State’s achievements on this front, from U.S. embassy employees helping organize a ‘pride’ march in Bratislava, Slovakia, to new gay-friendly UN resolutions and specialized aid for LGBT (in commissariat-speak, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered) refugees and sex workers. She then rallied the troops with this St. Crispin’s Day barn-burner:

I’ve always believed we could make progress because we were on the right side of equality and justice. Life is getting better for people in many places, and it will continue to get better thanks to our work. So I ask all of you to look for ways to support those who are on the front lines of this movement, who are defending themselves and the people they care about with great courage and resilience. This is one of the most important human rights struggles of all times. It’s not easy, but it is so rewarding.

In my December 2010 piece "Ten Shocking Predictions," I foresaw, with uncanny, Nostradamus-like prescience, the current mess in which SNL alum and 30 Rock star Tracy Morgan now finds himself. I wrote:

I predict that someone famous will get in trouble for making allegedly racist or homophobic statements in some public or private venue in 2011, and will be forced to offer a humiliated apology for his supposed verbal malefactions. I further predict that said malefactions will NOT be forgiven by representatives of the dominant paradigm (which, by the way, will NOT be subverted) until he does further work to begin the 'healing process,' which he will immediately do forthwith, and that after he does them forthwith, the representatives of the dominant paradigm will CONTINUE to withhold forgiveness indefinitely.

It was a bold and stunning prediction, describing an occurrence we have very rarely witnessed in recent years, that of a celebrity being made to pathetically grovel before a powerful and favored special interest group for the sin of expressing a forbidden opinion, thus committing an unforgiveable transgression against the Holy Zeitgeist. We have rarely seen it, that is, with just a few minor exceptional cases, like those of Jimmy "the Greek" Synder, Andrew Dice Clay, Andy Rooney, John Rocker, Trent Lott, Reggie White, Mel Gibson, Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Juan Williams, Rush Limbaugh, Lars Von Trier, and possibly a few hundred others who have run afoul of the PC thought police in these otherwise easygoing and totally un-censorious times. Yet against all odds, my prediction came true, demonstrating to all doubters once and for all the impressively virile extent of my formidable psychic powers.

This particular controversy, which is ironically transpiring in the former capital of the Confederacy, may well symbolize the present state of Western Civilization as much as anything fostered by the forces of PC to date. A writer of absurdist fiction who wished to illustrate the madhouse that modern society has become would have a hard time thinking up something this good. The piously politically correct folks at the Federal Reserve may have destroyed the economy, but at least they are inclusive. Un-effing-believable.

The Richmond Federal Reserve Bank's attempt to show inclusiveness in the workplace by flying the rainbow flag outside its building has reignited a divisive gay-rights debate.

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, is calling on the bank to remove the flag, terming its presence "a serious deficiency of judgment by your organization, one not limited to social issues."

In a letter to Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker, Marshall says the homosexual behavior "celebrated" by the bank "undermines the American economy."

"What does flying the homosexual flag, or any other similar display, have to do with your central banking mission under the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress?" writes Marshall, one of the General Assembly's most conservative members.

The Fed, which deems itself an independent entity within the federal government, placed the flag at the request of PRISM, a group of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender bank employees, to coincide with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.

Jim Strader, a bank spokesman, said the flag was raised to fly for the month of June, and that there are no plans to change the timetable. It hangs under the American flag on a pole in front of the building.

"We are flying the pride flag as an example of our commitment to the values of acceptance and inclusion," Sally Green, the bank's first vice president and chief operating officer, said earlier this week.

Opponents in the battle over gay-rights expansion in the state staked out familiar positions, with the conservative Family Foundation saying it's "disappointing" to see the bank participate in the "celebration."

"At The Family Foundation, we will simply choose to use this flag, like the view of Mr. Jefferson's Capitol, as motivation for the work that lies ahead," said Victoria Cobb, president of organization.

Equality Virginia, a Richmond-based gay-rights group, threw its support behind the Fed's decision on Friday, criticizing Marshall and the Family Foundation as "Virginia's self-styled morality police."

"The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond should receive accolades for its decision to recognize and celebrate its GLBT employees, customers and vendors during Pride month," said EV's Executive Director James Parrish.

Parrish took issue with the Family Foundation's claim that state residents spoke on gay rights when they voted 57 to 43 percent in 2006 in favor of the state's marriage amendment. He argues that people's attitudes on gay-rights issues have evolved and pointed to more recent polling.

The Fed is "a private business and should be able to make its own personnel and corporate policy decisions without Bob Marshall's guidance or the Family Foundation's approval," he said.

Marshall wrote in the letter to Lacker that homosexual behavior is a Class 6 felony in Virginia, referring to the state's sodomy law. That statute remains on the books despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited private, sexual acts between consenting same-sex adults.

Brian Gottstein, spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General's Office, said its attorneys "have not heard of a scenario in recent decades, even before the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, where a consenting couple acting in private was prosecuted."

That's consistent with the experience of Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring, who said "To my knowledge no one enforces consensual sodomy as a result of [Lawrence v. Texas]."

In recent days, a video has been circulating online depicting the savage beating of a customer at a Baltimore McDonald’s by two teenaged African-American females. Richard linked to it in one of his recent posts. Here it is again. The victim of the beating appears to be a Caucasian female. After repeatedly taking some rather brutal blows, the victim is shown apparently going into a seizure. Loose hair that had apparently been torn from her head (or wig) is shown on the floor near the victim. The employees of the McDonald’s in question apparently stood by and did nothing to assist the victim. The only effort at intervention was made by an elderly white female customer. The incident was filmed by a McDonald’s employee by the name of Vernon Hackett whom we are told has subsequently been dismissed from his position.

It has since been revealed that the victim was a 22-year-old transgender woman by the name of Chrissy Lee Polis. (For those unfamiliar with PC terminology, a “transgender woman” is roughly defined as a former “he” turned “she” in terms of self-identification though not necessarily surgical alteration.) It also turns out that Chrissy Lee Polis is an epileptic, which likely explains the onset of a seizure during the attack. The probable motivation for the attack was the two perpetrators having taken offense to the fact that Polis was attempting to use the women’s restroom. For a time, the video was being circulated in some white nationalist circles as a chilling example of a brutal crime being inflicted on a white person by ghetto blacks (which it clearly was). Upon the revelation of the victim’s proclaimed “gender identity,” some in the white nationalist milieu indicated their inclination to withdraw or scale back their sympathy. But clearly this was a horrific and despicable crime, regardless of the racial or sexual identities of either the victim or the perpetrator. Predictably, gay rights and “sexual minority” organizations have demanded that this incident be investigated and prosecuted as a hate crime.

Of course, what is interesting about this case is not merely that a violent crime occurred. Murders, assaults, robberies, and rapes are routine daily occurrences. Nor do the racial or sexual identities of either the victim or the perpetrators make this crime particularly unique. The fact that the crime occurred at a McDonald’s is no big news either. Someone was shot to death at a McDonald’s a few blocks from my residence some years ago. If Chrissy Lee Polis had been just another “normal” white person, this case would be getting scarcely any attention at all. There might be a few posts on various paleoconservative, white nationalist or alternative right websites about the hypocrisy of a mainstream media that turns hate crimes against racial or sexual minorities into front page news and national scandals whose memory lingers for years (the Matthew Shepard case, for instance) but ignores comparable crimes committed by minorities against whites (for example, how many Americans have ever even heard of the Wichita Massacre?). But that would be about it.

If she had not been a sexual minority, the victimization of Chrissy Lee Polis would not likely be receiving the attention of the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, San Francisco Chronicle, and other representatives of leftist opinion. Nor would she be receiving the attention of London’s Daily Mail, the Australian, the India Times, or other outlets of the international press. It is unlikely that she would be getting the recognition of even neocon mouthpieces like Lucianne.Com. Even the “movement conservative” press generally had little to say about the events in Wichita at the time of their occurrence. Nor would her attackers be facing the prospect of having hate crimes charges brought against them. In fact, the crime would likely be just another among countless routine criminal assaults reported to local police departments, though if Chrissy Lee Polis’ attackers had been skinheads or stereotypical “white trash” types rather than equally stereotypical “ghetto” types it is likely her case would be receiving much more attention than it currently is.

What we have here is an example of the “clash of victimologies” that is likely to become more evident as political correctness becomes ever more institutionally entrenched and as the realities of demographic transformation become ever more difficult to ignore. If indeed the two girls who perpetrated this are prosecuted for a hate crime against a transgendered woman, tensions between the organized African-American lobby and the organized “LGBT” lobby are bound to escalate. It is the standard political line of Sharpton-esque race hustlers and demagogues that virtually every black criminal, no matter how obvious the offender’s guilt or how malicious the offender’s actions, is somehow a victim of racism, social injustice, white privilege, this, that, or the other thing. The most obvious and celebrated case of this type was the elevation of O.J. Simpson, a wealthy celebrity with a lengthy history of severe domestic violence who became a cold-blooded double murderer, into an ostensible civil rights martyr, as though he were some poor black kid railroaded for a petty burglary by racist cops and unable to afford a competent defense attorney.

It will be interesting to observe to what degree the self-appointed spokesmen for African-Americans call for solidarity with the two teenaged hooliganettes, make excuses for them, attempt to absolve them of responsibility for their actions, or attribute their legal status to racism. Perhaps they will try to make the issue go away by simply ignoring it. However the high priests of the civil rights industry respond to this situation, this incident is bound to raise doubts in the minds of many “LGBT” people about who their political friends actually are. After all, a transgendered woman who attempted to wander into the women’s restroom in a McDonald’s located in some stuffy white bread suburb might get some funny looks, maybe some teasing. At worst, some shocked little old lady or concerned soccer mom might summon a couple of patrol cops who in their bewilderment would go about their usual routine of asking for ID, running a name check, issuing a warning, and cracking jokes as they drove off in the squad car. No doubt the recipient of such treatment would consider herself harassed and embarrassed, but it hardly compares with being a victim of aggravated assault bordering on attempted murder. No doubt many from the “LGBT” community might begin to recognize that “victim” status does not necessarily translate into “tolerance," and subsequently start to wonder if replacing the traditional European-American majority with Third World immigrants would be in their best interests, given that the majority of immigrants originate from countries where “sexual minorities” are not exactly honored.

This incident has created an interesting dilemma for the Left. Which class of official victim groups are they going to side with on this one? The Battle of McDonald’s provides an illustration of why, I believe, the Left as it is presently constituted will fail in the long run, whatever its present level of institutional influence and however much it may be able to endure for a few more decades. The Left will eventually self-destruct because its core tenets are self-contradictory and cannot be sustained in real world social practice. The Left’s core constituent groups: racial minorities, immigrants, the LGBT community, feminists, “secular humanists,” the black and Hispanic underclass, wealthy Jews, etc. have interests that are ultimately incompatible with one another. As the Left becomes more powerful in the short run, as the realities imposed by mass immigration become more apparent, and the tensions between the official victim groups begin to surface to an ever greater extent, the coalition of the officially oppressed will begin to self-cannibalize. Each interest group within the victimology paradigm will begin to battle each other for the “More Oppressed Than Thou” championship title. This will be the death blow for PC. It’s only a matter of time.

The forces behind the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), namely homosexual activists, the media elite, Obama, leading Democrats, and some Republicans, have portrayed their efforts as a matter of “fairness,” “equality,” and “inclusion.”

Overturning the Clinton-era law isn’t about allowing individual gay servicemen to serve honorably as airman, sailors, soldiers, or Marines. What the repeal of DADT really comes down to is power and influence—the never-ending recognition and affirmation of homosexuality as a publicly sanctioned alternative “lifestyle”—and the political establishment rewarding an important constituency of liberal activists.

It is the latest attempt to normalize behavior that society has historically considered destructive and debauched. It is about extending group rights and privileges, societal recognition, and acceptance to a previously shunned subculture.

Author and Philosopher Michael Levin has identified the crux of what lies behind activist agenda:

It is commonly asserted that legislation granting homosexuals the privilege or right to be firemen endorses not homosexuality, but an expanded conception of human liberation. ... A society that grants privileges to homosexuals while recognizing that, in the light of generally known history, this act can be interpreted as a positive re-evaluation of homosexuality, is signaling that it now thinks homosexuality is all right. ... Many commentators in the popular press have observed that homosexuals, unlike members of racial minorities, can always “stay in the closet” when applying for jobs. What homosexual rights activists really want, therefore, is not access to jobs but legitimation of their homosexuality.

Supporters of the repeal of DADT frequently argue that purging the armed forces of homosexuals hurts the operational effectiveness of the military since many homosexual servicemen and women are highly skilled professionals. Hence, not allowing homosexuals to openly serve as homosexuals drains the military of much-needed talent. But it’s hard to imagine that a serviceman can’t adequately perform his job without announcing to everyone his sexual orientation.

The DADT repeal ultimately marks an attempt by activists to keep homosexuality before the public until this subculture is fully integrated into all spheres of American society. Today the military, tomorrow marriage.

In voting to repeal DADT, Sen. Richard M. Burr (R-NC) stated that repeal was “generationally right” and argued that Americans “don’t think exclusion is the right thing for the United States to do.” However, exclusion—maintaining high standards for selecting qualified applicants—is what has historically made the U.S. armed forces an effective and efficient fighting force. Stripping away the military’s exclusionary character, lowering standards for politically correct social experimentation, will eventually erode its combat effectiveness.

Every year, thousands of applicants are rejected from serving in the military because these prospects do not pass the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), a multi-aptitude test. Scores in four critical areas (arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, and mathematics knowledge) comprise an applicant’s Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT) score. Passing the baseline AFQT score determines whether or not applicants are qualified to enlist in the U.S. military. (A recent report by the Education Trust found that 23 percent of high school graduates fail to meet the minimum threshold on the enlistment test to join any branch of the U.S. military.)

The ASVAB is discriminatory in the sense that it weeds out unqualified applicants and the results often have “disparate impact,” in other words the disqualified applicant pool has a greater impact among ethnic and racial minorities.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. that the use of an IQ test for employment selection is discriminatory under Title VII of Civil Rights Act because of the test’s “disparate impact” on racial minorities. The U.S. military has, by law, been exempt from discrimination lawsuits under the Civil Rights Act.

Granted, the military has recently both dumbed-down admissions as well as begun to eclipse the private sector in terms of “Diversity” hiring, but the point is that the cohesiveness and operational effectiveness of the U.S. military and the military’s primary mission of national defense depend upon preserving this exclusionary factor in recruit selection. The United States Armed Forces should remain isolated from egalitarian coercion—external pressure to conform and shape our military to contemporary fads and fashions.

Lifting DADT is indicative of what author John Kekes describes as the “Rhetoric of Toleration” in his book, The Illusions of Egalitarianism:

The truth is that egalitarian liberals advocate toleration of discrimination in favor of minorities and women (but not against them); of obscenity that offends religious believers and patriots (but not blacks and Jews); of unions’ spending large sums in support of political causes (but not corporations’ doing the same); of pot smoking (but not cigarette smoking); of abortion (but not capital punishment); of the public lies of Clinton (but not of Nixon); of hate speech against fundamentalists (but not homosexuals); of sex education in elementary schools (but not prayer); of jobs open only to union members (but not private clubs open only to males); of lies about American imperialism (but not the Holocaust); of sacrilegious language (but not of language that uses he to refer to all human beings); of scientific research into just about anything (except racial differences in intelligence); and so on and on.... [E]galitarian liberals are unique in favoring limits on what they dislike while claiming to champion toleration.

Repealing DADT is simply the removal of one more exclusionary barrier that egalitarians find contemptible. In the not too distant future, given the repeal of DADT, one can easily foresee “Gay Enlisted Clubs” and “Gay Officer Clubs” or the “Gay Leatherneck Association” or the Marine Corps branch of the Mattachine Society as the extension of this privileged group reaches new zeniths within the ranks of the U.S. military.

Worse, would not a logical extension of “non-discrimination” be granting the disabled—including the blind and lame—full “rights” as soldiers? Don’t laugh, moves in this direction have already been made.

Is it really worth jeopardizing the cohesiveness and combat effectiveness of an overwhelmingly macho institution such as the USMC for the sake of accommodating the agenda of the Stonewall Brigade?

The waning days of Democratic control of the District of Corruption have actually been rather surprising. I generally expect nothing good to come out Washington, which means that I’m never disappointed. Though in the case of the “DREAM Act” going down in defeat, I’m positively overjoyed.

We shouldn’t forget, however, that the anti-Amnesty crowd is essentially putting a finger in the dyke. In 2010, the majority of births in the United States were to non-White mothers. Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were cut off tomorrow, the much touted “2050” date, when American Whites will become just another ethnic minority, would merely be postponed, not cancelled. The immigration restriction crowd—which acts independently of the conservative movement, I should point out—has effectively taken its stand: no major illegal immigrant amnesty will be passed in the coming two-to-four years. That’s undoubtedly a good thing. Though the reality is that far more radical measures will have to been taken if America is to remain anything resembling an Anglo-Saxon, “Western” nation-state...

Just as the DREAM died, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is set for repeal. The end of DADT is a kind of milestone in the slow, relentless ratcheting up of anti-traditionalist “liberalism.” The same groups, indeed, many of the same people (Joe Lieberman, most noticeably) who once argued that DADT was a necessary, reasonable comprise, now depict it as “un-American" and cruel. (We should expect exactly the same process to take place with "civil unions.")

As someone who believes that homosexuality is, in part, genetically determined, I think DADT is a suitable compromise for the military—and society at large. Some things are better not spoken of. And society would be healthier without both moral crusaders who want to “save” gays and the utterly repulsive “out” homosexuals of the Perez Hilton variety. Silence on the homosexual question (by both homosexuals and normal people alike) is the best way of containing the homosexual phenomena, which, without question, has culturally destructive effects.

And I have no doubt that the decent homosexual people in the military who decide to “come out” after the passage of the bill will be substantially outnumbered by those who join the military with the express purpose of transforming it into a polymorphously perverse freak show.

At any rate, I am far more offended by the prospect of women in combat than by gays serving openly.

Richard Spencer’s references to Alex Knepper and his erotic activities while working as David Frum’s assistant bring up what is not an isolated embarrassment. It betokens what may be a widening problem for the neoconservative camp and given the influence of the neoconservatives, for the entire authorized Right. (Fortunately our side will not be involved, since we have no more investment in the present conservative movement than we do in the Obama administration.) It is highly doubtful that Knepper’s solicitation of sexual favors, “posting many pieces on a chat site for gay teens,” began the day before yesterday. Presumably there was a cover-up going on for a while, that is, as long as Frum could keep Alex’s critics at bay. Finally despite his value as a gutter journalist, Knepper became too much of a liability to be kept any longer (pardon the double entendre), and so Frum gave him the heave ho with expressions of “regret and remorse.”

I do recall a time when those who stupidly or opportunistically tried to see the good side of their new masters assured me that the ascending neocons were “serious about family issues.” They might have sounded like a cross between Trotsky and Ariel Sharon on foreign policy; and they might have drooled incessantly over Latino immigration, the Civil Rights Act, and the memories of their anti-Stalinist Marxist favs. But when family issues came up, one could supposedly count on them. This may have been the case for a few years, but by now the old story has worn thin. On family issues, the neocons are social-cultural leftists, and it is likely they’re going to drag all their dependents and lickspittles, and particularly their Christian stooges, in the same direction.

The neoconservatives have had a cozy relation with gays for some time, a truth that can be ascertained by looking at the staff of New Criterion, the catamites of Allan Bloom, and many neocon friendships in the New York-Washington Corridor. This however is no reason to ascribe ideological positions to those who feel comfortable around gays. De gustibus non disputandum! And one can always point to the fact that truer conservatives in an earlier period showed the same erotic propensities and were often exposed by the Left for their indiscretions.

The difference between then and now however is that none of these earlier homosexual conservatives or their well-wishers went around legitimating alternative lifestyles. It was simply assumed that individuals, including conservatives who thought of themselves as Christians, had their failings; and it was they who would have to cope with such flaws as idiosyncratic sexual preferences. But since the early 1990s, when the Wall Street Journal began bashing Buchanan for insulting the “San Francisco Democrats,” which was taken as a coded reference to gays, the neocon camp has been keen on homosexual rights, even pushing in some well-publicized instances the institution of gay marriage.

Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, and John Podhoretz are only three of the more prominent advocates in the “conservative” communion of extending marriage to gays. And for the last ten days, we’ve been treated to one tirade after the other against New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, for failing to show sufficient respect for Gay Pride parades. Paladino’s remark before a gathering of Hasidic Rabbis in Brooklyn that they should not “allow their children to be brainwashed” by those who treat homosexual relations as a norm, was perfectly appropriate. Such brainwashing goes on in our public schools incessantly; and I’m sure that Frederic Dicker of the New York Post, Charles Krauthammer on FOX, and other neocon talking heads know what Paladino said is directly related to reality.

But he is clearly not on the same page with Human Events’s “conservative of the year” in 2009, Dick Cheney. Unlike the scorned Paladino, Cheney is passionately in favor of gay marriage and showcases his lesbian daughter. While Cheney’s value as a “conservative” has more to do with his foreign policy belligerence than with his conception of marriage, indisputably his work as a gay activist has not damaged his “conservative” image. By contrast, the spunky Italian hard hat Paladino is being savaged night and day by neocons for taking the opposite position.

Earlier in the year, when every neocon celebrity came out enthusiastically for Obama’s concession to the social Left, to get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, I naively assumed that the reason was the one I heard Krauthammer give: “We’re going to need the military and so why exclude anyone who wants to serve on the basis of sexual preference.” I won’t get into the arguments that could be marshaled on the other side, for example, about gay officers trying to extract favors from those with lower ranks. But presumably if I thought like a neocon, that the primary mission of the U.S. is to get repeatedly into military crusades for democracy, I might have seen Krauthammer’s point.

Unfortunately, by now the neocons, and especially the children of the founding fathers, seem to be intent on accommodating gays, that is, people they’re more likely to run into in Starbucks than their well-wishers who live in fly-over country. And I don’t blame the neocons for preferring sexually ambiguous Jewish publicists whom they meet in their own social world to the cognitively deprived goyim who hang on their every word. I might prefer the company of urbane metrosexuals to those fools who weep over Glenn Beck’s incoherent encomia to MLK.

My question is what will happen when the latest neocon move to the left becomes an authorized position in their movement. Will those who depend on neocon favors go along with the move or will there be some opposition? My prediction is as follows. The drones will fall into line, with their usual rhetorical dishonesty. Just as in the case of the transformation of the Reverend Dr. King, from a quasi-Marxist philanderer and crass plagiarizer into a conservative theologian and Augustinian Christian, gay marriage will become a new exemplification of “family values.” There is no way one could do verbal justice to the sleaziness of kowtowing movement conservatives. I still vividly recall the way The Gambler, Bill Bennett, came out for hyper-Zionist Lieberman for vice-president in 2008, after having devoted years of his life to inveighing against abortion. Supposedly Lieberman, who voted for late-term abortion, was good on “democratic values” and therefore deserved to be president. Perhaps Bennett’s sponsors threw him payola for this highly publicized endorsement.

The most breath-taking example of servility toward the neocon master class that I’ve encountered came in a book of essays by a minor art critic dealing with postmodernist academics. The book treated the violently anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-rational ideas of three professors at prestigious universities, all of whom, not incidentally, had conspicuously Russian Jewish names. Although the Jewish backgrounds of these postmodernists may not tell everything about their intellectual journeys, such biographical data is certainly relevant for understanding them. American Jews, like American Irish, are disproportionately on the left but the fact that the Jews go disproportionately into the academic profession may have something to do with the leftist orientation of universities. Moreover, the attraction to postmodernism, as a vehicle for deconstructing a culture that one finds oppressive to one’s ethnic group, would be understandable in a group that feels rightly or wrongly marginalized in a Christian society.

There are certainly ways of expressing this self-evident connection between leftwing postmodernism and Jewish alienation without being unduly offensive. But the author in question had no desire to bring up a taboo subject, which might have cost him a cushy post in the neocon empire. Instead he devoted the last part of his book to beating up on German straw men, which is a favorite neocon pastime, perhaps best exemplified by Alan Bloom’s rant against “the German connection” in The Closing of the American Mind. Apparently recognizably Jewish representatives of leftwing postmodernism had been reading too much Martin Heidegger and were being corrupted by the same ideas that led to the Holocaust.

Now I for one admire Heidegger’s work and, presumably unlike our art critic, I have read his Sein and Zeit several times with growing admiration. I could also never imagine myself believing any of the trash the author in question attributes to Heidegger’s philosophy of being; and I’m not sure it’s even there. And I doubt he believes his other subjects picked up their subversive thinking (or anti-thinking) from Heideggerian ontology. The neocon art critic is obviously trying to kill two birds with one stone, both aimed at pleasing his masters, savaging the goddamned Krauts, who were once ruled by Hitler, and stripping Jewish leftists of any significant Jewish association. Those who play such abject games should have no trouble recognizing gay parades and gay marriage as paradigmatic “family values.” They will be depicted as the newest stage of the Civil Rights revolution, which was a “conservative” event from Selma through Stonewall.

Yesterday, George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign manager and the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, revealed to The Atlantic that he’s gay. Mehlman now intends to become a public advocate for “gay marriage” and has already participated in a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the organization that worked to overturn California’s Proposition 8 that had banned homosexual matrimony.

Mehlman claims that he “arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently”…  Political observers who weren’t daft, naïve, or self-deluded arrived at this conclusion many years earlier. The Republican chief’s sexual predilection was an open secret in Washington. And to be frank, he just looked it. Throughout Mehlman’s tenure at the GOP, there was a great deal of hand-wringing in the media about the “tragic irony” that the very party that wanted to restrict “homosexual rights” was run by …. a closeted homo.  (The assumption being, of course, that all gays must inherently support “gay marriage.”)

Just for the record, though I’d prefer not to have deviants in high office, I don’t get particularly exercised by the sexuality of politicians. That Mehlman and Bill Clinton are my enemies has nothing to do with the fact the one prefers men and the other can’t control himself around bimbos. If a statesman instituted the kind of radical, and currently unfeasible, political change that I desire, I could forgive bestiality.

Young people today have been programmed to “Rage Against the Machine.” The Left has successfully marketed youthful rebellion against “The Man” for decades. One has to wonder, though, how long it will take until today’s budding hipsters -- gussied up in a postmodern hodgepodge of recycled rebellions past -- finally realize that they are the new squares.

“The Man” is now a smooth-talking, b-ball playin’ brother who come up from bein’ a community organizer in the ghetto.  He wants to save the planet, offer healthcare to everyone, punish the greedy, redistribute wealth, and offer a welcoming hand to his working-class Brown brothers from the south. He’s surrounded himself with a rainbow coalition of the choicest minorities.

It’s got to be tough to make it as a real radical lefty these days. You really have to do your research and get out your microscope to find your microaggressions.  You have to go so far left that it feels almost tongue in cheek and goofy, like that awkwardly ironic t-shirt you bought at Urban Outfitters. You have to hold an anti-plastic bag drum circle. It’s not like back in the ‘60s when you could just grow your hair out, get naked and sit around singing and smoking pot in the mud.  And it’s not some wizened old beatnik feeding you communist propaganda; it’s your schoolteacher, your principal, your college professor and your Supreme Court Justices. The future is now, cats, and you can’t fight “The Man” when he’s on your side. You can take to the streets and march, if that’s what you’re into, but your signs might as well say “Yes, sir, more of the same, please!” All you can do is become part of the machine, another cog. Your “rage” is all staged.