Who, really, can be surprised by National Review Editor Rich Lowry’s firing of John Derbyshire this weekend for the sin of practicing anthropology without a license? Who can be surprised, as well, by the reaction of the “Conservative Movement,” whose partisans, seemingly without exception, took the opportunity to dance on The Derb’s grave? The real shock is that John lasted as long as he did.

Perhaps his secret was that he would always lace race realism with irony and humor, lighting the mood while stalking the big taboos. Take, for instance, this passages from the Derb Canon, one of my favorites:

In September 2006, political scientist Robert Putnam was awarded the Johan Skytte Prize, one of the most prestigious in his field. The prize is awarded in Uppsala, Sweden, by a Scandinavian scholarly association. (Skytte was a seventeenth-century Swedish grandee.)

As usual with such events in the academic world, Putnum presented a research paper to commemorate the event. The paper is titled “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century.” [ . . . ]

The paper has a very curious structure. After a brief introduction (two pages), there are three main sections, headed as follows:

• The Prospects and Benefits of Immigration and Ethnic Diversity (three pages)
• Immigration and Diversity Foster Social Isolation (nineteen pages)
• Becoming Comffortable with Diveristy (seven pages)

I’ve had some mild amusement here at my desk trying to think up imaginary research papers similarly structured. One for publication in a health journal, perhaps, with three sections titled

• Health benefits of drinking green tea
• Green tea causes intestinal cancer
• Making the switch to green tea

Derbyshire’s offending article at Takimag, “The Talk: Non-Black Version,” was, no doubt, a little too frank. People recognized exactly what Derbyshire has in mind—not only regarding the natural behavior of Black people but the lie of “equality” at the heart of contemporary “Conservatism.”

But it’s worth dwelling on this question “What took NR so long?” A plausible answer is offered by The Atlantic’s Elspeth Reeve:

The truth about intellectual magazines is that not all of their readers are as enlightened and forward-thinking and clear-eyed as the people who produce them imagine themselves to be. So the trick to pull off is how to give what those less enlightened readers want -- and thereby secure their money either through subscriptions or contributions -- while still maintaining an air of respectability. Think of how your PBS station always trots out the stars-of-the-1970s concerts and River Dance whenever pledge drive comes around. That's where Derbyshire comes in.

You're probably familiar with the phrase, "No offense, but…" which always precedes something offensive wrapped in an "I'm just telling it like it is" attitude. In certain parts of the country, there's a similar use of the phrase, "I'm not racist, but..." which always signifies that the speaker is about to say something racist. Derbyshire's specialty is the fancy-pants version of "I'm not racist, but…"

Reeve, of course, always wanted Derb to be fired. He’d much prefer conservatives who are “enlightened and forward-thinking” (that is, neutered)—people like Rich Lowry, who agree with liberals on the essentials and only want to argue about the means.

In this way, Reeve hints at a basic asymmetry between the American Left and Right—with both, the constituents are to the right of the leadership.

The Left gains support from the public by appearing normal: they care about the trees and the children and are trying to create jobs with benefits and pensions. The actual leaders are far more radical—and far more dedicated to dispossessing and replacing the middle-of-the-road White people who support them.

With the Right, on the other hand, the conservative base is, in its guts, “racist”: such people grasp what is really happening to their country. They have sour memories of their (re-)educated children scoffing at the “talks,” quite similar to Derb’s, that they’ve given to them about Black people over the years. They’ve spent a great deal of their income isolating themselves and their families from “Diversity.”

In other words, the conservative base supports its “enlightened and forward-thinking” leaders despite what they say and do (and how they look). The base supports its leaders because it views them, rightly or wrongly—for the most part, quite wrongly—as on the side of the “home team.”

The Derb might have offended some NR readers with his scientific worldview, but it was always clear to them that he was in their corner.

Those who truly walk a tightrope, or who “dance around these issues” (in Rich Lowry’s words), are not the John Derbyshires of the movement (if any still remain) but the Rich Lowrys. It is they who must ensure that White anxiety, anger, and hope is safely and effectively channelled into the quarantine of the Republican Party and “Conservative Movement.”

John Derbyshire got off script.

* * *

Over the past 24-to-48 hours, NR writers, and especially those at more popular websites like Breitbart and the Daily Caller, have been falling over themselves denouncing Derb and claiming that they lack all sympathy for his plight.

For the past few weeks, however, these same sites have been dedicated to documenting, meticulously, exactly what Derbyshire was warning about.

Ever since President Obama symbolically adopted Trayvon Martin, the Daily Caller has been posting stories on the not-so-innocent life of the murder victim, revealing his “No Limit Nigga” Twitter account, the thuggish photos, and not-so-flattering aspects of his record.

Of course, much of this is legitimate investigation into a national story. But in a very real sense, sites like the Daily Caller are doing exactly what the Left says they are doing—race-baiting. They’re pushing buttons, dropping hints, “Trayvon’s really a nigga,” wink-wink . . . (Much of this is related to what Colin Liddel termed “sub-racism.”)

Glenn Beck and the late Andrew Breitbart are (and were) Grand Masters of the race-baiting game. Breitbart rose to national awareness publishing videos of James O’Keefe, dressed as a ‘70s Black pimp, entering a Black-run ACORN office in search of government funding for his “ho.” Breitbart later warned conservatives of the dangers of Black Nationalists in the Department of Agriculture. His posthumous coup (which ultimately fell flat) was to hint that the President himself isn’t what he seems . . . . He’s no liberal backed by Wall Street, no; he’s a closet Black Nationalist!

Analogously, Glenn Beck’s upward trajectory began when he announced, on Fox and Friends, that Barack Obama “has a deep seated hatred of White people or the White culture.”

The Blaze and Breitbart (Beck’s and Breitbart’s answers to the Huffington Post) have filled their webpages with salacious stories of various flash-mob attacks and general Black misbehavior. As I write (Sunday, April 8), the top story on The Blaze is about the New Black Panther Party’s call for a “race war.” On the same night that Breitbart declared John Derbyshire to be a non-person for talking about the dangers of Blacks, its best-read story was one on a unsuspecting White Man who ventured into Black Baltimore and was attacked and stripped of all clothes and possession by a feral gang.

When Andrew Breitbart explicitly talked about his political philosophy, one got the impression that it was some kind of universalistic libertarianism; Beck outdid him in genuflecting to the myth of Martin Luther King. But what they sold to their readers is quite different. It was never about race, but about "principles" and "fair play." R i i i ght . . . 

Owing to the decline of the “Gate Keeper” media, at no point in the past half-century has implicit racism been more intense. And at at no point have explicit racists, like Derb, been more furiously denounced.

The new wave of conservatives, represented by Breitbart and Beck, have peddled implicit racism; they’ve made a great deal of money off implicit racism. But the trick only works if they shun and condemn anything approaching actual White Nationalism.

With race-baiting, racism remains just that—bait. The ultimate object is for Whites to continue voting Republican, and to view this as resolving their fears and anxieties and fulfilling their hopes. The moment racism ceases to be a short-circuit in the minds of the American Majority, it must be censored furiously.

Derbyshire’s real crime was that he refused to race-bait. He instead told the truth.

* * *

Though I rooted on Republicans in Middle and High School, I never in my adult life was I part of the “Movement,” whose foreign policy and basic worldview—defined by George W. Bush, neocons, and various FOX celebrities—repulsed me. After meeting the persons who populate official “Conservatism” in the Beltway, I recognized that my instincts had been sound.

Since I’ve always been on the “alt” side of the Right, I’ve befriended many for whom the NR and movement “purges” have taken on a kind mythical status. (Paul Gottfried, for one, has allowed his (justified) hatred of neocons to color almost everything he writes and says publicly.) I, on the other hand, never understood why intelligent people would be complaining about being pushed out into cleaner air. (Needless to say, making a living has much to do with it, and the various Movement purges have hit many good people where it hurts.)

It is, of course, NR’s prerogative whom it hires and fires, and it doesn’t ultimately surprise me that the magazine has, over the decades, attacked Ayn Rand and Pat Buchanan and “purged” from its ranks of contributors Revilo Oliver, Murray Rothbard, and Sam Francis. All of these were too radical and interesting, in their own ways, to support NR’s quest for “respectability.”

That said, it’s hard to mistake the trajectory of official “Conservatism” as anything other than a gradual degeneration and dumbing-down. NR has gone from James Burnham and Russell Kirk to Kathryn Jean Lopez and various man-children spouting human-rights doctrines.

A part of me, a demonic part of me, is thus quite happy that The Derb was next on the list. It makes the mainstream Right much stupider . . . more defined by the Goldbergs, Ponnurus, Lowrys, and Lopezes of the world . . . and more obviously a racket and dead-end.

The conservative movement deserves to die. And it must be fully de-legitimized before we can build something new in its place. The firing of John Derbyshire brought us a step closer.

The Herald Sun has reported, just in time for Australia Day, that those who fly Australian flags are more racist than those who don’t. The study was conducted at an Australia Day fireworks celebration last year in Perth, where 513 people were interviewed and asked about their views on a variety of immigration and values related statements.

This study has been cited all around Australia and I’ve even seen some global news sources carrying it, despite the fact that it doesn’t really pass academic rigor and the “conclusions” are really just assumptions, possibly based on the researcher’s own biases.

A self-selecting sample of Australians who live in Perth, attend fireworks displays, and agree to an interview are hardly representative of all Australians. The researcher, Professor Farida Fodzar of the University of Western Australia, specialises in race relations, a field of sociology/anthropology that sets out to imagine racial conflict and racist motivations where there are none. If there were no racism, she’d be out of job, after all.

Furthermore, none of the questions actually ask about racist views. Fodzar and the media are equating patriotism with racism, which is incorrect. Patriotism is the love of and devotion to one’s country. Racism, in this context, is intolerance of others based on their race. Patriotism has nothing to do with racial intolerance in and of itself, though one who is patriotic may be intolerant of those who are undermining the country they love, regardless of the race of those people.

Let’s break down some of the findings of the study which were reported in the above linked article:

Professor Fodzar said the team found that of the 102 people surveyed on the day who had attached flags to their cars for the national holiday, 43 per cent agreed with the statement that the now-abandoned “White Australia Policy” had “saved Australia from many problems experienced by other countries”.

She said that only 25 per cent of people who did not fly Australia car flags agreed with the statement.

Under the “White Australia Policy”, which was non-official government policy until after World War II, non-Europeans were barred from migrating to Australia.

It’s no secret that multicultural/multiracial societies have serious problems resulting from conflicting values and lifestyles. It’s not outrageous that some people might think that the net loss from the conflict caused by racial and cultural diversity outweighs any potential or imagined gain. However, such views do not necessarily make one “racist”. And indeed, it’s entirely possible that many of those who believe that the White Australia policy was a good policy were direct beneficiaries of it themselves.

The survey also found that a total of 56 per cent of people with car flags feared for Australian culture and believed that the country’s most important values were in danger, compared with 34 per cent of non-flag flyers.

If a flag-flyer is a patriot (and if one isn’t, why fly the flag?), then a concern for preserving Australian values is legitimate and expected. The values of yesterday are not the same as the values of today and anyone with open eyes can see them changing right before us. A patriot who loves his country and sees it changing into something unrecognisable will be understandably concerned and upset.

But this doesn’t make one a racist. The implication of the word “racist” is usually that the racist is white. It’s rarely spoken, but always assumed. In fact, a non-white Australian could just as easily be concerned about the decline of important Australian values as much as any white Australian. But even if the person in question is white, race still isn’t necessarily a factor. Most of those leading the drive to destroy traditional values are themselves white, so here it is a conflict of ideology, not race.

Thirty-five per cent of flag flyers felt that people had to be born in Australia to be truly Australian, compared with 22 per cent of non-flag flyers.

Again, not a racist view. Australian immigrants come from every corner of the globe, with the United Kingdom leading the top of the pack. The question here is one of supposed dual loyalty or lack of loyalty to one’s adopted homeland, but not one of race. In America, people who hold this view are called racists and the accusers get away with it because almost all immigrants to America these days are non-white and it makes a convenient red herring in the immigration debate. But despite an end to the White Australia policy, Australia still has significant European immigration and a quarter of Australians are foreign born.

Twenty-three per cent of flag flyers believed that true Australians had to be Christian, while 18 per cent of non-flaggers agreed with the statement.

This is just an example of how non-academic this study is. Not only does Christianity have nothing to do with race, but a 5% difference in opinion may well be covered by the margin of error. We’re not told what that margin is, but considering the sample is small and non-representative, it’s likely that the margin of error is 5% or even higher. We don’t know, but this point seems to be thrown in only to denigrate Christians.

An overwhelming 91 per cent of people with car flags agreed that people who move to Australia should adopt Australian values, compared with 76 per cent of non-flaggers.

This is a statement that even the Australian government endorses. In order to be granted permanent residency or citizenship in Australia, one must sign a declaration promising to adhere to and uphold Australian values. Refusing to do so is grounds for denial. In fact, most governments of the world that allow mass immigration at least pay lip service to integrating immigrants. In order to integrate, it necessarily follows that one must share things in common with one’s host population. In any case, the vast majority of both flag flyers and non flag flyers agreed that immigrants should adopt Australian values.

Only this could be said to have a slight tone of racial or cultural superiority, but it’s unfair to assume that racism is the motivating factor in those holding this view. It’s not inconsistent with the idea that immigrants should try to fit in with an Australian way of life and some may rightly believe that the ways of some immigrants are totally opposed to Australian ways.

Neither are we given any information on the people who agreed with that statement. Some of those who agreed with the statement may themselves be migrants who have made a great effort to adapt to the Australian way of life and expect other newcomers to do the same. One cannot simply assume this belief is based on racism, as people may have a wide variety of reasons for thinking migrants should assimilate.

It does not even mean one is opposed to immigration. In fact, many of these flag flyers might be so enamored with the Australian government’s immigration policies that it has inspired deep patriotism and pride in their country. If the question of whether or not one supported immigration in general was asked, it wasn’t reported upon.

Fodzar is simply engaging in Australian-bashing for publicity’s sake. Her research is shoddy and her conclusions appear baseless. Her conclusions about “racist” attitudes come from a whopping 102 people, about whom we have been given no demographic information. She went into the study with preconceived notions and came out with useless data that serves to validate what she and her ivory-tower colleagues already believe, while they look down their noses at ordinary people who aren’t as “enlightened” as they are.

Flying the flag of one’s nation should be considered a positive thing and patriotic attitudes should be desired from the populace for any number of reasons. If Fodzar (who was born in Brunei) is offended by patriotism for her own adopted country or views it with negative connotations, perhaps she should reconsider her citizenship.

The publication earlier this year of Jared Taylor’s White Identity was quite a milestone. In essence, it was the sequel to his Paved With Good Intentions, which was, as National Review remarked upon its publication in 1992, “the most important book to be published on the subject [of race relations] in many years.”

White Identity has already been ably reviewed in AltRight by Derek Turner, and there is no need to rehash the book's arguments. What I will do instead is reflect on what has happened the to pro-White movement in the almost two decades that separate the publication of these works—and how this history portends for the growth of a White racial identity in the United States.

The main difference between Taylor's two books is that while Paved focused almost exclusively on Black-White relations, Identity has separate chapters for Hispanic and Asian racial consciousness, in addition to ones on Blacks and Whites. Multiracial America is here, and while Asians and Hispanics will not be forming a rainbow coalition with Blacks, they are also not going to integrate like the Italians, Irish,and Jews of last century either. Indeed, with the reality of affirmative action, changing demographics and the racial spoils system, it is of no benefit for non-Whites to integrate into the existing White society. (One important point in Identity is that Asians, once the “model minority,” are increasingly shunning assimilation for an identity of their own.)

Reading Identity, it is hard to avoid the feeling that things look bleak for White Americans. Taylor sums up the situation as follows:

The demographic forces we have set in motion have created conditions that are inherently unstable and potentially violent. All other groups are growing in number and have a vivid racial identity. Only whites have no racial identity, are constantly on the defensive, and constantly in retreat. They have a choice: regain a sense of identity and the resolve to maintain their numbers, their traditions and their way of life – or face oblivion.

The fate of the two books tells a negative tale of the last two decades. Paved was published by a respected, mainstream publisher (Carroll & Graf) and sold roughly 45,000 copies. It was reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Washington Times and many other mainstream publications. White Identity was self published after getting numerous rejections from mainstream publishers. As Taylor notes, “this book is unfit for commercial publication in the United States.” It was reviewed in no mainstream publications.

Her language is crude; her feelings are real.  Who can deny that her native London has been destroyed? Certainly not the Diversity on the tram, who, mouthing television commetary, can only claim they're doing jobs the Brits won't.

This woman has apparently been arrested for "racially aggravated public order offence." If any were in doubt of the true tolitarian nature of Cool Britannia, let Epic Tram Lady stand as an example.   

Ramzpaul makes a powerful response (if a bit stretched analogy-wise): when European cities are overrun, none dare call it genocide.  

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.

Tracy Morgan has declined to take my advice and fight his totalitarian-minded persecutors, and like a post-modern day Winston Smith, he appears perfectly content to declare his unabashed love for Big Gay Brother.

This is disappointing, but not at all unexpected. The desire to conform seems to run deep, especially among those who have become rich, famous, and successful. Once you’ve ascended to the mountaintop of such glorious adulation, it’s apparently hard to imagine doing without all the perks you’ve acquired in the process.

So Tracy has returned to Nashville, the scene of last week’s verbal transgressions, and put on his best Stepin Fetchit routine for the scowlingly butch and prissily effeminate bullies of GLAAD, as well as their legions of sodomic minions and “straight, but not narrow” fellow travelers. The grotesque absurdity of the entire spectacle can hardly be overstated; the dehumanizing degradation which suffuses Morgan’s Nashville repentance tour is as rank as the wicked atmosphere which no doubt permeated Tennessee slave markets during the antebellum era. Morgan is getting “owned” in the very region of the country where his ancestors were bought and sold years ago; only the masters, and the terms of ownership, have changed.

And who actually thinks Morgan has had a sincere change of heart in the few days between his rhetorical malefactions and his current fawning pleas for forgiveness? Those present for his willing self-emasculation surely know that, in his heart of hearts, Morgan must still feel the same disgust for homosexuality that he ever did before. Just the same, the reps of GLAAD must savor the power of knowing they can break a man’s will and spirit and shred his dignity at a moment’s notice; they are surely smiling all the while like cruel slavemasters, giddily anticipating the next occasion to crack their whips across the backs of all those uppity homophobes who still dare to resist their rule.

There are those who would joke that it's no surprise that the French are good at running.  But humor aside, it is great to see Christophe Lemaitre win the gold medal in the 100 meters sprint at the latest European Athletic Team Championships. His blistering run, in which he clocked up a personal best, not only saw him add to the European Athletic Championship title he won last year, but also helped to further undermine the myth that only Blacks of West African descent can compete at the top level in sprinting.

Usually, when White athletes do well, much is made of their superior training and mental attitude, with the implication being that Blacks are still physically superior and will ultimately dominate when they have overcome these setbacks which, it is further implied, are in some way a legacy of 'racism.' It was interesting therefore to hear the comments of the man Lemaitre beat into the second place, the Black British sprinter, Dwain Chambers.

"He has so many advantages with his height and those long legs that keep striding past me...he is like an antelope." 

While watching the video of efforts by left-wing thugs to disrupt Richard Spencer’s recent talk on affirmative action at Providence College, I was reminded of a conversation I had sometime in the late 1980s with a former member of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society who had been involved with the movement to oppose the Vietnam War since its inception circa 1962. He recalled how in the early days of the antiwar movement, protest organizers were thrilled if they could get fifty people to show up for a rally. To publicly oppose the war at the time was physically dangerous, and such rallies were always at risk of being physically attacked by vigilantes shouting epithets like “communist” at the protestors. If organizers of the rallies could get police protection at all, they were happy to have it. Not only were public demonstrations in danger of such assaults, but so were quiet and peaceful meetings of those who opposed the war held in church basements or on university campuses. Of course, we all know that the anti-Vietnam War movement morphed into a mass movement just a few years later.

So it is indeed ironic that half a century later it is those who challenge the established dogmas purveyed by the Left who similarly experience the disruption of their efforts to peacefully speak and organize, who become the targets of epithets like “racist,” “sexist,” or “classist,” and who are threatened with physical violence. Incidents of this type are exceedingly common. It is now widely known that conservative speakers on university campuses, even entirely mainstream neocon-friendly “movement conservative” types, are routinely shouted down and threatened by leftists. As most readers are probably aware, right-wing organizations outside the mainstream, such as American Renaissance, have endured even worse attacks. At times, simply attending an anti-illegal immigration rally can be all that it takes for one to become the victim of a physical assault.

A number of observations could be made concerning the demeanor and behavior of the disrupters of Richard’s presentation at Providence. One is the obvious fact that they are so certain of their own moral superiority and the nobility of their crusade that they feel ordinary rules of civilized discourse or common courtesy no longer apply to them. Another is that far from their image of themselves as enlightened, free-thinking rebels, they come across more like brainwashed zombies similar to members of the LaRouche cult or the Moonies I used to encounter selling flowers on the streets of Washington, D.C. years ago. Their level of intellectual prowess seems to amount to little more than thinking that merely throwing labels at people and ideas they find disagreeable counts as a valid refutation of the opposing viewpoints.

Judging from the hysteria of their reaction, one would think that Richard was advocating genocide rather than arguing for the fairly standard right-of –center position that affirmative action is a bad idea, a position that even some minority scholars and analysts hold. It is also rather difficult to see how Richard was arguing for “white supremacy” given that the data he was presenting actually showed Asians to be the top performers with regards to SAT scores. As Richard pointed out in his talk, it was he who was the moderate and the protestors who were the extremist nutjobs.

For the diversitarians, affirmative action is not merely a policy preference, but a sacred article of faith, like the Holy Trinity or the Immaculate Conception. Affirmative action is a political tool the liberal establishment utilizes to maintain the loyalty of one of its core allies and constituent groups, the black elite and the middle class professional sectors of the black population. Affirmative action is an entitlement used as a reward for political loyalty from these sectors. It is doubtful that AA is of much benefit to genuinely impoverished or disadvantaged blacks, many of whom do not even finish high school, much less attend college or obtain professional-level occupations. And as Richard pointed out, if the goal of AA was to help the poor and disadvantaged in the first place, AA would be class-based rather than race-based.

Indeed, “black conservatives” like Thomas Sowell and Elizabeth Wright have documented a myriad of ways in which policies implemented by the welfare state and civil rights bureaucracy that has meta-morphed in recent decades have severely undermined the organic economic, cultural, and family life of urban black communities, and contributed exponentially to the social pathologies often found in those communities. Likewise, the black libertarian economist Walter Williams has produced rather extensive evidence indicating the contribution of efforts at intrusive economic micromanagement to high unemployment rates among urban blacks.

Additionally, there is some evidence that black children who are educated in culturally specific Afro-centric schools perform much better than black children who receive conventional public schooling. The reasons as to why this is so are inconclusive but what is interesting is that the efforts of either conservative and libertarian black scholars like Sowell, Wright, or Williams, or of Afro-centrists with a nationalist or separatist outlook, are routinely attacked or dismissed by white liberals and the captains of the civil rights industry alike. Indeed, such people are often reviled by the Left. The obvious reason for this is the fanatical egalitarian-universalist ideology that has come to dominate the Left, an ideology that just happens to coincide with the political and economic self-interest of those who push it. It is an ideology that seeks a society where all resources are controlled and managed by the state and administered according to a spoils system the ostensible purpose of which is the imposition of bureaucratically-managed “equality.” The ultimate outcome of totalitarian humanism taken to its logical conclusion would be a totalitarian state organized as a kind of caste system whereby individual rights are assigned on the basis of group identity and group rights are assigned on the basis of the position of the group in the pantheon of the oppressed or on the victimological family tree.

Given these considerations, it might be apt to compare our present day lefto-fascist, stormtroopers-on-granola with the Red Guards of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Red Guards were, of course, bands of youthful vigilantes who scurried about China during the 1960s smashing up cultural artifacts deemed “old” (e.g. conservative, traditional) and engaging in vigilante violence against persons deemed “reactionary” (mostly dissident intellectuals and those labeled “bourgeois” or originating from politically incorrect cultural or class backgrounds.) We see a similar though milder version of this today in the West today with attacks on expressions of traditional culture (like Christmas celebrations), historical artifacts considered to be reactionary (like Confederate Civil War monuments or streets named after Confederate generals), and vigilante actions against people given labels like “racist,” “fascist,” “sexist,” or “classist.”

I suspect that these “antifa” types, these Red Guards-on-tofu, would be every bit as murderous and destructive if the authorities would sanction it, as Chairman Mao did during the Cultural Revolution. We’ve seen hints at this already with the nonchalant attitude of the authorities towards threats of murder and arson against innocent people made by the Antifa in response to American Renaissance’s planned gathering in 2010. Plenty of other incidents have occurred where destructive or violent behavior by those claiming to act in the name of noble causes like “anti-racism” and “anti-fascism” have been overlooked or dealt with leniently by authorities convinced of the purity of their motives or restrained by political pressure.

The great irony presented by the Antifa is that despite all of their posturing as radicals and revolutionaries, they’re essentially doing the establishment’s bidding. The attitudes they subscribe to are not fundamentally different from those of the liberal elite overlords of the wider society. The Red Guards-on-tofu are simply a smellier, more ill-mannered, undisciplined, more in-a-hurry version of the liberal establishment itself. Wouldn’t it be an even greater irony if indeed the growing counterculture of the alternative right were to grow into a large influential movement as the leftist counterculture and antiwar movements did in the 1960s, with the Antifa and their ilk assuming the role of the “hardhats”?

YWC has published a hilarious catalog of some modern American icons: 

Where Are They Now?

Rodney King, the Jena 6, and the Duke Lacrosse stripper

By William Houston

One of my favorite hobbies for several years now has been keeping track of former "civil rights" celebrities after their fifteen minutes of undeserved media fame are over. It is an excellent way to demonstrate how political correctness has corrupted American journalism.

Everyone in America has at least a passing familiarity with these victims of White "racism," but few are familiar with their trials since then, which the mainstream media has refused to give the same amount of inordinate attention.

Where are these martyrs for "social justice" now?

Rodney King

Rodney King is my personal favorite: in the years since the Los Angeles riots, which led to the death of 55 people, King has been arrested for soliciting and having sex with a transvestite prostitute in Hollywood, beating his wife, multiple DUIs, vandalism, beating his own child, and indecent exposure in a public park while being high on PCP.

In 2003, King drove his car into a house after weaving through traffic and traveling at a speed over 100 mph. Two years later, he was arrested after threatening to kill his daughter and former girlfriend.

Don Lemon recently glamorized Rodney King in a CNN Presents special report called "Race and Rage: The Beating of Rodney King" to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the alleged "racist beating" of this scumbag.

King won a cool $3.8 million dollar settlement in his civil suit. He used the money to start a hip hop record label.

A month ago, Rodney King was stopped by the LAPD for erratic driving and was issued a citation for driving with an expired license. Twenty years later, Rodney King is still a threat to public safety.

Jena 6

The Jena 6 were six black students in Jena, Louisiana who in an unprovoked assault beat a White student named Justin Barker nearly to death in 2006. Al Sharpton marched on Jena with 15,000 to 20,000 supporters to protest the clear injustice that was done to Barker's black attackers.

The Jena 6 movement was hailed in the mainstream media at the time as "the first struggle of the 21st century Civil Rights Movement."

In 2007, Jesse Ray Beard was accused, convicted and sentenced for simple battery, simple criminal damage to property less than $500 and simple assault.

In 2008, Bryant Purvis was arrested for assaulting a fellow high school student in Texas.

Corwin Jones was arrested for trespassing and simple battery following an incident in which he struck a man from behind.

Also in 2008, Mychal Bell spat in the face of his female attorney and pushed her to the ground. He was arrested later that year for shoplifting, resisting arrest, and simple assault after trying to steal $700 worth of clothes from a Dillard's department store.

In 2010, Bell was arrested and charged with battery after punching someone who was "running his mouth" at a Jena barber shop.

Catrina Wallace, the sister of Robert Bailey, founder of "Organizing in the Trenches," and central organizer of the Jena 6 protests, was arrested in "Operation Third Option" in 2009 and was recently convicted on three counts of distribution of a controlled substance. She faces decades in prison.

Marcus Jones, father of Mychal Bell, is calling for a Justice Department investigation into the arrest and conviction of Ms. Wallace.

"Are Whites racially oppressed?" is the political question that's a little too "real" to be taken seriously. In the mainstream media, it can only be gestured at ironically by liberal journalists—who are then scolded for "legitimizing" hate and irrational fantasies. James Edwards, on the other hand, is someone who asks this question—and answers it in the affirmative—a regular basis. James joined me to discuss America's dispossessed majority on NPItv this Thursday and requested that I come on his program tonight to further delve into this explosive topic. I hope you listen in at 8PM Central.