Monday, November 12, 2018

November 12, 2018

MY CORNER  by Boyd Cathey

Veterans’ Day and One-Hundred Years of the Suicide of the West


Although yesterday, November 11, was actually Veterans’ Day, as is the custom now (for convenience sake) in the United States today (a weekday) is the observed legal holiday.

As commentators have pointed out, it was one hundred years ago, the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, that an armistice went into effect in the battle-scarred French countryside. Anyone who has had the opportunity to view the classic film, “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930), starring Lew Ayres, based on a classic novel by German World War I veteran Erich Maria Remarque, will begin—but only begin—to fathom the barbarity of that conflict, the suffering, the slaughter, and the mangled bodies, a whole generation of young Englishmen and Frenchmen, forcibly wrenched from their societies, lives extinguished. And in Germany: a nation and an historic and noble culture, with millions dead and maimed, held up as irremediably guilty of the immensity of “war guilt.”

But, Austria-Hungary and Russia suffered even more severely. Austria, once one of Europe’s great empires and the center of much of Western culture, the land of Beethoven and Mozart, was literally castrated, huge swathes of its historic fatherland sliced away arbitrarily and turned overnight into quarrelsome petty states, none of which was satisfied with the treaties and boundaries that followed the Armistice: a powder keg for future war. The ancient and revered Habsburg dynasty, the inheritor of the old Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne, was summarily dispossessed, and Austria was left as a small rump state. As English Lord Curzon described it: “A major European capital [Vienna] ruling over a minor state, like Constantinople in the latter days of the Byzantine Empire.”

And the effects on and in Russia were even more incalculable. The world’s largest country, the seat of the 300 year old Romanov dynasty, the land of Peter the Great, of Dostoyevsky, of Tchaikovsky, of Tolstoy, the Third Rome, the shield and buckler against the Mongols and the Tartar hordes, in eight short months fell to a fanatical clique, a monstrous cabal of violent Marxists intent of remaking that country, subjugating the Russian Orthodox Church, and spreading the Communist virus across Europe and the world. The vicious and criminal execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his family at Yekaterinburg (July 17, 1918) and of the sainted Grand Duchess Elizabeth and her family (July 18, 1918) in Alapayevsk brought home in chilling detail the unparalleled brutality that the war had unleashed. Elizabeth, who years prior to war had become a nun and who had engaged in numerous charitable activities for the poor (and later for Russian soldiers), was taken and, with family members and her household, cast down a dank and deep mine shaft.

The description of her martyrdom deserves to be told and repeated, for how many of us could meet impending death as she did?

That night [July 17] the prisoners were awakened and driven in carts on a road leading to the village of Siniachikha, near Alapayevsk where there was an abandoned iron mine with a pit 66 feet deep. Here they halted. The Cheka severely beat all the prisoners before throwing their victims into this pit, Elisabeth being the first. Hand grenades were then hurled down the shaft, but only one victim, Fyodor Remez, died as a result of the grenades.

According to the personal account of Vasily Ryabov, one of the killers, Elisabeth and the others survived the initial fall into the mine, prompting Ryabov to toss in another grenade after them. Following the explosion, he claimed to have heard Elisabeth and the others singing an Orthodox hymn from the bottom of the shaft.  Unnerved, Ryabov threw down a second grenade, but the singing continued. Finally a large quantity of brushwood was shoved into the opening and set alight, upon which Ryabov posted a guard over the site and departed [for fear that local peasants would come to save them].

Early on 18 July 1918, the leader of the Alapayevsk Cheka, Abramov, and the head of the Yekaterinburg Regional Soviet, Beloborodov, who had been involved in the execution of the Imperial Family, exchanged a number of telegrams in a pre-arranged plan saying that the school had been attacked by an "unidentified gang". Lenin welcomed Elisabeth's death, remarking that "virtue with the crown on it is a greater enemy to the world revolution than a hundred tyrant tsars.”

It is no wonder that the Russian Orthodox Church has canonized Elizabeth, and rightly so, as a “New Martyr” who gave her life unselfishly for the Christian faith (and indeed, more recently Tsar Nicholas and his family have been sainted as martyrs as well).

After the conclusion of World War I various historians began to examine and sift through the records, the correspondence, the documents regarding the war and its origins. And what became readily apparent was that perhaps unlike World War II, the First World War was a conflict that did not have to happen, indeed, it should not have happened. And that both the French and English foreign offices had just as much blame for its initiation as the Germans or Austrians, perhaps even more.

Back in 2014 the distinguished historian, the late Dr. Ralph Raico (Professor at Buffalo State College), authored an excellent article on the origins of the war that anyone interested in how that war began should read [“And the War Came,” June 30, 2014, at:].  In his conclusion Raico rightly concludes: “Britain’s entry into the war was crucial. In more ways than one, it sealed the fate of the Central Powers. Without Britain in the war, the United States would never have gone in.”

The German historian Ernst Nolte [d. 2016] has made the case [in his unfortunately yet untranslated volume, Der Europaische Burgerkrieg (1987) – The European Civil War] that in a certain manner the Second World War was a continuation of the First, that it was, in some ways, a justifiable reaction to the extreme injustice and unresolved crises produced by the imposed “peace” of 1919. While in no way legitimating the concentration camps or executions committed by the Nazis, Nolte has argued that the German reaction in the 1930s was both predictable and understandable, and that the crimes perpetrated were comparable, perhaps even pale in comparison, to those that can be laid at the door of Josef Stalin.

Be that as it may, over 117,000 American “dough boys” died during the First World War and another 204,000 were wounded (figures that pale, however, in comparison to losses suffered by Russia: nearly four million dead, another five million wounded; and the United Kingdom, over one million dead, with another 1.7 million wounded).  

Europe—and the world—would never be the same, and in so many ways historic European, Western Christian culture, would never really recover. After surviving the French Revolution and the various violent upheavals of the nineteenth century—after the assaults of scientific  and social Darwinism—after the challenges of industrialism and tremendous social dislocation—after absorbing the effects of triumphant political liberalism—after all these hurdles, in a real sense, World War I effectively dismantled the fragile remaining scaffolding, the structures in those nations, those empires, where something of the older framework of  what had been “Christendom” still remained.

The “total war” devastation of the Second World War completed that process, smashing to smithereens the remnants of the old order, and more ominously, freeing triumphant and victorious the unfettered spirit of universalized Progress. Sure, the Communists participated in this triumph, but their interpretation of victory was at odds with that of what became known as “the West.” For forty-five years the forces of NATO looked wearily across the demarcation lines, across the Iron Curtain at the forces of the Warsaw Pact.

We had defeated one form of ferocious tyranny, but had replaced it with another just as bad, and maybe even worse. Yet, both the West and the Soviet Bloc proclaimed their progressivism and their belief in equality and democracy, albeit with vastly different interpretations of that progressivism.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the virtual defenestration and final defeat of the KGB commissars in August 1991 (for which Vladimir Putin, then vice-mayor of Leningrad, deserves our eternal thanks, but won’t get it from American mainstream media) should have signaled the real end of the Second World War, but it only opened a new phase of world turmoil in which the forces of global progressivism now proclaimed their inevitable triumph: the Communists, you see, had become “old fashioned,” “reactionary,” “too stodgy and not revolutionary enough.” But international progressivism, with its handmaidens of “world democracy” and “global equality,” was only emboldened by the whimpering disappearance of the Communist bureaucracy.

Neoconservative writer, Francis Fukyama, in his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle could signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government.  Fellow Neoconservative Allan Bloom, in his The Closing of the American Mind (1987), counselled the “imposition” of “American democratic and egalitarian values” on the rest of the world; after all, we had won the war, so it was for us to dictate the universal peace, indeed, “to force those who do not accept these principles to do so.”

But is this what the millions of American men went off to battle for in 1941-1945, and why over 400,000 died in remote places like on the beaches of Anzio or in the Hurtgen Forest? To impose American-style democracy and values over the far-off desert oases in Libya or in the jungles of South Sudan, for what in effect has become “perpetual war for unobtainable peace”?

I don’t think so. Whether American intelligence or even Franklin Roosevelt knew about the impending Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor, or not, once it occurred America was in World War II, and nearly everyone, from pre-war anti-interventionists like Charles Lindbergh to the most rabid Anglophile pulled together for the war effort.

I can recall numerous conversations with my own father, a veteran, who served in the 101st Cavalry, a light tank reconnaissance unit, and who was wounded in the Saar basin in 1945. Normally a gunner in his tank, he had just traded positions with his close buddy, Dale Lackey, and piloted the tank which then was hit by a Wehrmacht projectile, killing Lackey then in the gunner’s position. If my dad had occupied that role, it would have been he who was killed. 

After the war my father and mother both made a kind of pilgrimage to the site of Dale Lackey’s grave in Granite Falls, North Carolina, to pay respects to my dad’s fallen comrade and his family.

And when I was born a few years later, I was given the middle name “Dale” to honor that comradeship and that memory.

Like hundreds of thousands of soldiers who fought and died in World War II, or in Korea, or in Vietnam, my father fought for his country when his country called him to do so. He asked few questions, he did his duty, like millions of other soldiers from time immemorial have always done. 

Frenzied visions of imposing global democracy did not figure in his thinking; he did his duty for love of country, he fought for his homeland, for his family, for honor, and, also, for his comrades at arms…for Dale Lackey, and so many more like him.

And, so, today and yesterday I honor my father’s service and the service of millions of other Americans who have gone off to war, wars not of their making and sometimes highly questionable in both origin and objectives. Yet they did their duty before God. Some never came back and now rest in faraway cemeteries, some in unmarked graves. We honor them and show them our respect and our appreciation for their unforgettable sacrifice.

Friday, November 9, 2018

November 9, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

Gary Pearce, the Sundering of America, and the Racist Talisman


For nearly four decades North Carolinian Gary Pearce has been a major fixture in Tar Heel politics. Beginning during the first administration of Democrat former governor Jim Hunt (1977-1985), Pearce served in various capacities, including speech writer, communications director, and advisor; and later he worked intimately in Hunt’s unsuccessful bid (1984) to unseat Senator Jesse Helms.

In many ways he became something of a power broker in his own right. Indeed, I must confess that back in 1981, when I returned to North Carolina after teaching in Argentina and Connecticut (and I was still registered a Democrat, albeit a very conservative one), it was—I was informed—Pearce who put in a good word to my former supervisors at the North Carolina State Archives to quickly hire me (I had been a regular intern there during the late 1960s and 1970s, but I think it was Pearce’s apparent telephone call that may have helped the hiring process along.)

So, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge and thank him for speeding that process up—I think I would have landed that position anyway, but his word probably helped.

All through the intervening years I have considered Gary Pearce to be one of those more-or-less moderate, rational and thoughtful Democrats, indeed, a kind of throw-back to an earlier time when here in the Tar Heel State Democrats and Republicans could sit down over a meal and discuss issues politely, if vigorously. Indeed, several years ago my good friend, political strategist Carter Wrenn, who was one of the masterminds (along with the late Tom Ellis) of the successful senatorial campaigns of Jesse Helms (and who probably saved Ronald Reagan as a viable candidate for 1980 by managing Reagan’s incredible comeback victory in the North Carolina presidential primary in 1976 against Gerald Ford), got together with Pearce to begin an online bi-partisan Web site, Talking About Politics [] whose aim was to engage in civil discourse and debate on major state and national issues.

I had not kept up much with Talking About Politics until this recent election cycle; yes, I had seen a few of Pearce’s short columns, and also a few by Carter Wrenn. But nothing really caught my attention until what I read yesterday [November 8], a piece by Pearce titled, “Good Start, Right Direction. A Lot Left to Do” [] And this is the paragraph that jumped out and, in reality, is emblematic of what has happened apparently not only to Gary Pearce, but also to the transformed Democratic Party nationally, as well:

Trump’s America is rural, white, nationalistic and, yes, racist. Democrats’ America is urban, increasingly suburban, diverse, open and tolerant [sic!!!]. That augers well for the future of Democrats. We’re growing where America is going. Trump’s America that is passing by, and now the Republican Party’s future is tied to him. 

How does this portrait by Pearce of literally one half of the population of the United States differ in any substantial degree from the most hysterical accusations of the increasingly dominant Leftist extremists who label anyone  who dares utter a mild demurrer against their project of—yes—increasingly radical, even violent national transformation as “racists”? 

Let’s see:

---Oppose affirmative action, you are a racist;

---Oppose gun control and support your local police, you are a racist;

---Oppose illegal immigration and the impending arrival of the caravans of thousands of Honduran illegals (who are being funded by radical Leftist open borders groups including organizations linked to globalist George Soros:, you are a racist;

---Favor voter ID, you are a racist;

---Favor merit-based hiring in the workplace, you are a racist;

---Support President Trump and his agenda, you are a racist;

---Even vote consciously for a conservative or Republican candidate, you are a racist.

According now to Pearce, if you are part of “Trump’s America,” you are a racist, a bigot. And in today’s contemporary culture there is no graver offense, no harsher condemnation, no worse anathema, than that. Pearce is essentially joining fellow Democrats to excommunicate all those millions of mostly white folks living largely in what the late Leftist writer Philip Roth once called “fly-over” country, those of us who live in those benighted smaller towns and rural areas, who did not join with folks in more “enlightened” coastal enclaves and the larger cities to support socialists like the current crop of Democrat candidates such as Stacey Abrams in Georgia, or Andrew Gillum in Georgia, or “Beto” O’Rourke in Texas, or outright Socialist Anita Earls in North Carolina [see my analysis of her Marxist political history: “Who Is Anita Earls…and Why Does Her Election Present a Real Danger to Jurisprudence?” at:]

In the “new” America in which Gary Pearce now apparently partakes it is such candidates as these whose vision we should obligingly and willing accede to without murmur, lest we be as the worthless servant “cast into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (to quote St. Matthew 25).
Ironically, the positions of such candidates, indeed, the tenets of the “new” Democratic Party make the stodgy old Communist bureaucrats of the former Soviet Union look like George Wallace supporters! (Josef Stalin never countenanced anything like same sex marriage or transgenderism—such a display landed you in a Gulag; and despite his long-vaunted support for women in Soviet industry and the military, he would have been utterly appalled by the #MeToo and #Resistance movements and modern-day feminism.)

Yet this progressivist vision is the new totalitarian orthodoxy, and woe be to anyone who even mildly dissents…for the “racist” epithet, that choice term of final excommunication and disauthorization employed so frequently these days, will be applied as a veritable death sentence. This has, in fact, happened to dozens of reputable traditionalist and conservative writers and speakers, not to mention the few college faculty who dare disagree with the dominant Leftist narrative on whatever topic is brought up….Most recently to my friend Dr. Darren Beattie, a former professor at Duke who served briefly in the Trump administration, then was fired.  His offense? He attended a conference of conservative scholars [The Mencken Club] at which another attendee was Peter Brimelow of the anti-illegal immigration site. And Brimelow and his Web site have been labeled “racist” by Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Badgered by inflammatory and baseless accusations pushed by CNN, the administration’s cowardly personnel department panicked: Beattie had to go.

And if this praxis of guilt by (distant) association, personal defamation and professional disavowal should not silence you, then, behold there are those mobs, those howling demonstrators who will hound you in restaurants, or at airline terminals, or, most recently, as in the case of fearless Fox commentator Tucker Carlson, bang on your front door (until it is broken off its hinges) and threaten your wife and potentially your children []

Oh, yes, such physical threats and assaults bring the accustomed hand-wringing by the Leftists at CNN and a few Democrat spokesmen: such threats cross the line and are wrong, they repeat. But in fact it was those very same solemn voices and many more like them who first unleashed and fomented the present verbal tsunami of vitriol and hate more than two years ago in their vicious response to and unwillingness to accept the election of Donald J. Trump as president.

As I wrote back on October 29 [in the MY CORNER column, “Who is Really Responsible for the Violence We See in Our Society?” at: ], the Left blames the president for the “climate of violence” existent in this nation, or, at least, declares President Trump’s language as the major factor in what has occurred. Yet, there is no comparison at all with the supposed response from the president or his supporters, none. They are not responsible; the Left is: 
The difference is this: those folks who have supported the president, those “Deplorables,” are mostly average hard-working, God-fearing, go-to-church-on-Sunday, “normal” people. By nature they are “conservative” in the way they live. They do not get out in the streets; they do not gather in mobs. Even when pleaded with to demonstrate for some truly worthy cause (e.g, pro-life), most of our folks do not. Such action—demonstrations, marches—are not inbred in our DNA. We were not raised that way; we usually have too much going on in our own families, in our work, in our lives. And the idea of spending time ranting and raving or beating on poor auto drivers, or gathering to scream profanity and pull down historic monuments, is foreign to us.

When Donald Trump uses colorful language, we laugh and we smile. It’s imagery we can identify with. We’ve been frustrated for years that the Establishment takes us for granted, abuses us, manipulates us. But our revenge was at the ballot box back in 2016; it is not in sending fatal Ricin to our enemies or attempting to assassinate Democrats, or fantasizing about killing Obama.

That is the difference, and it is what distinguishes us from the unleashed lunatics on the Left and who now dominate the Democratic Party.
I don’t think Gary Pearce—and the thousands of other once-responsible and civil Democrats—understand that. They have bought into the narrative that the divisions we see are caused by the president and his “rural, white, nationalistic and, yes, racist supporters, when, in fact, it is the connivance of once-reasonable and rational political personalities like Pearce who have enabled the infectious contagion we see spreading around us to fester and grow. When they condemn acts of violence—of which there are a thousand times more coming from the Left than from the Right  []—their words and actions implicitly give a green light to the uncivil climate and the outrages of Antifa or the violent mobs who topple monuments in Chapel Hill and Durham, North Carolina. [Witness the “response” by law enforcement to the toppling of  “Silent Sam” by a Leftist mob on the University of North Carolina campus and the apparent “stand down” order by university administrators which permitted the violence:]

There is one thing that Gary Pearce wrote, however, that is right on the mark: “Across the country [in these elections], we saw the widening divide between two Americas….”  But it is figures like Pearce and his allies, those media, academic, and political mavens on the Left who need to look inward to discover the sources of that division and the viciousness that may well break this nation asunder.

Finally, I pass on Pat Buchanan’s latest column which focuses these issues as no one else can:

The War for the Soul of America

By Patrick J. Buchanan  Friday - November 9, 2018

The war in Washington will not end until the presidency of Donald Trump ends. Everyone seems to sense that now. This is a fight to the finish.

A postelection truce that began with Trump congratulating House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — "I give her a great deal of credit for what she's done and what she's accomplished" — was ancient history by nightfall.

With the forced resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his replacement by his chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, the long-anticipated confrontation with Robert Mueller appears at hand. Sessions had recused himself from the oversight role of the special counsel's investigation into Russiagate. Whitaker has definitely not. Before joining Justice, he said that the Mueller probe was overreaching, going places it had no authority to go, and that it could be leashed by a new attorney general and starved of funds until it passes away.

Whitaker was not chosen to be merely a place holder until a new AG is confirmed. He was picked so he can get the job done.

And about time.

For two years, Trump has been under a cloud of unproven allegations and suspicion that he and top campaign officials colluded with Vladimir Putin's Russia to thieve and publish the emails of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

It is past time for Mueller to prove these charges or concede he has a busted flush, wrap up his investigation and go home. And now, in T.S. Eliot's words, Trump appears to have found "the strength to force the moment to its crisis."

His attitude toward Mueller's probe is taking on the aspect of Andrew Jackson's attitude toward Nicholas Biddle's Second Bank of the United States: It's "trying to kill me, but I will kill it."

Trump has been warned by congressional Democrats that if he in any way impedes the work of Mueller's office, he risks impeachment.

Well, let's find out.

If the House Judiciary Committee of incoming chairman Jerrold Nadler wishes to impeach Trump for forcing Mueller to fish or cut bait, Trump's allies should broaden the debate to the real motivation here of the defeated establishment: It detests the man the American people chose to lead their country and thus wants to use its political and cultural power to effect his removal.

Even before news of Sessions' departure hit Wednesday, Trump was subjected to an Antifa-style hassling by the White House press corps.

One reporter [CNN’s Jim Acosta] berated the president and refused to surrender the microphone. Others shouted support for his antics. A third demanded to know whether Trump's admission that he's a "nationalist" would give aid and comfort to "white nationalists."

By picking up the credentials of CNN's Jim Acosta and booting him out of the White House, Trump has set a good precedent. Freedom of the press does not mean guaranteed immunity of the press from the same kind of abuse the press directs at the president.

John F. Kennedy was beloved by the media elite. Yet JFK canceled all White House subscriptions to the New York Herald Tribune and called the publisher of The New York Times to get him to pull reporter David Halberstam out of Vietnam for undermining U.S. morale in a war in which Green Berets were dying.

Some journalists have become Trump haters with press passes. And Trump is right to speak truth to mainstream media power and to accord to the chronically hostile press the same access to the White House to which Robert De Niro is entitled. Since the days of John Adams, the White House has been the president's house, not the press's house.

Pelosi appears the favorite to return as speaker of the House. But she may find her coming days in the post she loves to be less-than-happy times. Some of her incoming committee chairs — namely, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings — seem less interested in legislative compromises than in rummaging through White House files for documents to damage the president, starting with his tax returns.

To a world watching with fascination this death struggle convulsing our capital, one wonders how attractive American democracy appears.

And just how much division can this democracy stand?

We know what the left thinks of Trump's "base." Hillary Clinton told us. Half his supporters, she said, are a "basket of deplorables" who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Lately, America's populist right has been called fascist and neo-Nazi.

How can the left "unite" with people like that? Why should the left not try to drive such "racists" out of power by any means necessary?

This is the thinking that bred Antifa.

As for those on the right — as they watch the left disparage the old heroes, tear down their monuments, purge Christianity from their public schools — they have come to conclude that their enemies are at root anti-Christian and anti-American. How do we unify a nation where the opposing camps believe this?

What the Trump-establishment war is about is the soul of America, a war in which a compromise on principle can be seen as a betrayal.

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

November 6, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

Outrageous!  Fox Caves to the Left on Trump Immigration Ad—And a Little Bit of Shakespeare for Election Day


Two themes today: one concerning a decision by Fox News yesterday to pull a Trump ad on illegal immigration, and another concerning what William Shakespeare, the “Bard of Avon,” had one of his famous characters say the night before a momentous battle that would decide the history of England: words that should be our shield-and-buckler on this election day.

First, yesterday Fox News and Fox Business networks joined NBC and pulled an ad—that is, decided to no longer show it—produced by the Trump campaign critical of illegal immigration and, implicitly, of the impending arrival of new illegals in caravans from Honduras and Guatemala. [See: And also:]

The ad, which had aired during an NFL football game this past Sunday, provoked strong protest from the far Left: somehow being against an illegal alien who is also a convicted criminal who murdered two policeman is racist. That was to be expected from the frenzied, frothing-at-the-mouth Left, but—and this is utterly outrageous—also it was the decision of Fox News, in the person of its president for sales, Marianne Gambelli, who decided to likewise pull the ad, that is, to run in abject fear to the “tall grass,” as well. CNN, of course, had refused to run it early on, labeling it, what else, “racist.” Now Fox was doing the very same thing.

The ad runs just thirty seconds, and it can be seen as part of a story which was published by Breitbart News. Here is the link (the video is about half way down):

After viewing the ad, I would like any rational person—and, yes, I recognize that such people are getting rarer in some locales—to explain to me what is racist about the ad. It shows a Mexican, an illegal alien, who had murdered two US policemen bragging that he would like to kill more; then, a quick change to a visual of the caravan, and the implicit question about just how many drug dealers and criminals might be embedded therein.  Not a word about race­­, not a single reference to it…unless you consider showing a visual of an illegal Mexican criminal as somehow “racist.”

But that’s the point, isn’t it? Any time the president or anyone with a point of view contrary to the increasingly dominant vision of the Left about race or gender even dares to offer a slight demurrer, any time someone suggests that this nation—like any other nation—has a right to protect its borders and define, by and for itself, what it means to be a citizen, any time that occurs the hue and cry goes forth from the mainstream media and the political establishment that it simply must be a sign or “racism.” You know, all those “white folks” out in fly-over country, in the boonies, down deep are racists, at least that is what we are being incessantly told.

In fact, the accusation of “racism” has become that fearsome, very effective political and cultural cudgel like the charge of “sexism,” “sexual abuse,” and “misogyny,” which is hurled at men who seem stunned and disoriented by it, like a deer caught in the headlights. (The case of Justice Kavanaugh is just the most recent in a long line of such character assassinations).

And there are a goodly number of pusillanimous Republicans, including far too many in positions of power, in politics, and—disgustingly—in the so-called “conservative” media, who go along to get along, who are literally afraid, scared to death, of being labelled “racists” by the increasingly ideological and fanatical media-academia-entertainment elites.

Fox News’ cave is just the latest, and, sadly, was not unexpected given its inclination towards a Neoconservative desire to accept many of the revolutionary changes foisted off on the American citizenry during the past half century. But that is no excuse…and viewers should make their voices heard, both directly to the network and at the polls.

My second theme: A good friend sent me the other day a copy of the famous peroration of King Henry V, in Shakespeare’s immortal play, Henry V (Act IV, Scene iii), the night prior to the critical battle of Agincourt (in 1415). It is one of the most famous and noteworthy speeches in the Bard of Avon’s corpus.

Like many of you, I imagine, I did not read Henry V while in school. We read Macbeth and then Julius Caesar, and later Romeo and Juliette (I invited a girlfriend to go see the 1968 movie!).  It was only later, after I had seen the marvelous and remarkable Technicolor filming of Henry V starring Sir Laurence Olivier (1944) that I was impelled to go back and read the play for myself. And King Henry’s peroration the night before the battle is one of the finest orations in the English language, a superb example of a summons to patriotism, to duty, to honor, and to love for country; and today, on this critical election day, it reminds us to go forth like those English knights and do our duty to preserve what is left of our country, by rejecting the massed forces of Leftist decay and destruction that would transform the Founder’s dream into a bleak, feculent, totalitarian nightmare, a dystopia where even the memory of what is good and just in our culture would be erased.

We must do our duty, and vote for our country and for the future.

Here is King Henry’s peroration, “On St. Crispin’s Day”:

“If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my 
coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmorland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made, 
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of 
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, 
Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whilest any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.”

Monday, November 5, 2018

November 5, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

My Latest Published Essay in CHRONICLES MAGAZINE: From Silent Sam to Screaming Selfies


Today I pass along to you a copy of my latest essay published in Chronicles magazine [“From Silent Sam to Screaming Selfies,” November 2018 issue]. Chronicles is arguably the dean and intellectual lodestar of Old Right traditional conservatism. This is the fourth essay that I’ve had the honor to publish there (two in print, two online), and I deeply appreciate the confidence of the journal’s editors who have chosen to run my writing.

For those who do not know the magazine, here is a brief description of its history and objectives   []:

For nearly four decades, The Rockford Institute’s flagship monthly,
Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, edited by Chilton Williamson, Jr., Scott P. Richert, and Aaron D. Wolf, has defended Western Christian civilization. A magazine without peer, Chronicles aims to influence the influential. Nearly a third of its readers hold advanced degrees and include novelists, filmmakers, university professors, teachers, homeschooling mothers, captains of industry, government researchers, journalists, bishops, priests, and politicians. Former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan called Chronicles “the toughest, best-written, and most insightful journal in America.” One venture capitalist described Chronicles as more useful in predicting social and cultural trends than all investment newsletters combined, and a best-selling thriller writer calls Chronicles “the magazine I read first.”

I hope you will consider subscribing. Each monthly issue is filled with thoughtful and well-written essays addressing the major issues of our time, excellent reviews, and acute commentary. For print subscriptions [one years, $44.99], please write: CHRONICLES Subscription Department, P. O. Box 3247, Northbrook, Illinois 60065-9968, or:

My published November 2018 essay, “From Silent Sam to Screaming Selfies,” may be found both in the print edition and also online (for subscribers, log in at:]. 

The essay is largely a rewriting of an installment of MY CORNER from August 26 of this year which addressed the toppling of the “Silent Sam” monument on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the deeper implications; []


November 2018

Letter From North Carolina

From Silent Sam to Screaming Selfies

by Boyd D. Cathey

In the wake of the August 20 toppling of Silent Sam, a monument to North Carolina students who volunteered to become Confederate soldiers in 1861-65, our television screens were filled with images of scraggly, rough-bearded Millennial men and unkempt women screaming profanities and shouting imprecations about racism, white supremacy, and the dangers of “fascism.” Which is to say, they were “demonstrating for peace and justice.” Silent Sam, a symbol of courage, sacrifice, and duty, has stood on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for over 100 years. News accounts showed the figure lying on the ground, as members of the mob took turns kicking at it and spitting on it, and taking selfies while doing so. Behind those fierce images of anarchy lurked a darker, scarier truth.

Admittedly, some members of the mob of August 20—a number of whom came back to demonstrate again on Saturday, August 25—were not really students. They were professional itinerant militants from Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other Marxist groups. But many indeed were enrollees at that institution—students who are by most accounts receiving the finest public education that money (and Mommy and Daddy) can buy from one of the most prestigious universities in the South.

There was, for example, Margarita Sitterson, a Chapel Hill student who is the granddaughter of former chancellor of the university J. Carlyle Sitterson. As reported by Big League Politics, she boasted of her participation in the lawlessness of August 20 and her active involvement in tearing down the monument:

“So basically what happened was there was four banners on each side—well actually one banner on each side, and they were all connected by sticks, and people wrapped rope around the sticks and we pulled back and forth and back and forth until it fell down.”

Sitterson flippantly added a reference to her lineage:

“My grandfather—he went here for college, then he became a professor, then he became a dean [inaudible], then he became chancellor.” Sitterson said she was ashamed and that she carried guilt because she is white, and white people owned slaves.

The narrative is familiar: It conforms to the instructional template that frames nearly every course on American history, literature, and politics on offer at today’s institutions of higher learning. This framework admits two measures by which all human history and experience, all human knowledge and expression, are to be evaluated: racial oppression by the white race of black and brown people, and sexual oppression by men of women. Thus, reading our history and literature to discover deeply embedded examples of “racism” and “white supremacy,” and of “male exploitation” and the “oppression of women,” has become the central characteristic of the college-classroom experience. Shakespeare, a white male, glorified the abasement and enslavement of women and degraded nonwhites in Richard III and The Merchant of Venice. Mozart’s Die Entführung Aus Dem Serail and Rossini’s L’italiana in Algeri demonstrate an overtly racist hostility to Muslims and women. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Gone With the Wind, the Uncle Remus stories of Joel Chandler Harris: These are almost too triggering to mention.

When such works are taught and discussed in our universities, they are accompanied by grim warnings. This treatment of the patrimony of our civilization effectively cuts students off from the past and from the shared culture that shapes our collective identity as a people.

Obviously, when students like Margarita Sitterson arrive in the classrooms of Cultural Marxist ideologues who will do little more than inculcate the theories of “critical race theory” and the “feminization of history,” they have already, in most cases, endured years of poor education and early indoctrination in our public schools. They have been “softened up” for this process. These arriving freshmen, while able to describe in excruciating detail what they have been told about the “racism” and “white oppression” supposedly existent in the United States today, cannot read basic texts or pass basic exams in math, English, and history.

In late 2016, Dr. Walter Williams wrote that “a very large percentage of all incoming [college] freshmen have no business being admitted to college.” After taking the College Board test,

Only 32 percent of white students scored at or above proficient in math, and just 7 percent of black students did. Forty-six percent of white test takers scored proficient in reading, and 17 percent of blacks did. The ACT, another test used for admission to college, produced similar results. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reports, in an article titled “A Major Crisis in College Readiness for Black Students,” that 34 percent of whites who took the ACT were deemed college-ready in all four areas—English, mathematics, reading and science. For blacks, it was only 6 percent.

This educational rot extends to the U.S. Military. The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Trump and financed by a $670 billion defense-spending measure approved in September calls for an increase of 15,000 active-duty troops in 2019. This comes following a year in which the Army failed to meet its recruiting goal for the first time since 2005. There is a bigger problem: In addition to the fact that many potential candidates are too obese to meet the physical requirements of the military, many more are too dumb. As Mark Perry writes at The American Conservative’s website,

one in four cannot meet minimal educational standards (a high school diploma or GED equivalent), and one in 10 have [sic] a criminal history. In plain terms, about 71 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds (the military’s target pool of potential recruits) are disqualified from the minute they enter a recruiting station: that’s 24 million out of 34 million Americans. . . . [F]ully 30 percent of those who have the requisite high school diploma or GED equivalent fail to pass the Armed Forces Qualification Test (the AFQT), which is used to determine math and reading skills.

Given the wretched state of American education today, is it any wonder that rowdy mobs of students spouting Cultural Marxist slogans are answering the call of their leftist teachers and college professors to destroy Confederate symbols? And since they are glorified as courageous defenders of “free speech” and “social justice” by the media and Democratic politicians, what is their incentive to stop? Taught to hate everything, they will remain angry and restless until they obliterate every vestige of Western Christian civilization.

The administrators at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, like the administrators at most colleges throughout the country, have yet to comprehend the depths of this problem; indeed, many of them sympathize with the young lunatics. Too many political and civic leaders continue to bury their heads in the sand, look the other way, or hope the problem will just go away. But it won’t. Cultural Marxism is a rapidly spreading cancer that must be

excised and removed—else it will kill the host body.

At stake is the very existence of our civilization and our identity as a people.


Boyd D. Cathey holds a Ph.D. in European History from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an M.A. in Intellectual History from the University of Virginia. He was an assistant to the late Russell Kirk and served as state registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. His book The Land We Love: The South and Its Heritage is forthcoming in November 2018.

November 12, 2018 MY CORNER   by Boyd Cathey Veterans’ Day and One-Hundred Years of the Suicide of the West Friends, ...