Tuesday, February 19, 2019

February 19, 2019


MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

The Smollett “Racism” Case and Tucker Carlson: One More Faked Episode Pushed by the Left

Friends,

I have purposefully stayed away from commenting on the Jussie Smollett “case,” as the circumstances surrounding it are still unfolding and developing in the most bizarre fashion. Yet, increasingly, this case is beginning to resemble innumerable other instances of manufactured and faked “hate crimes.”  These cases have been engineered for a variety of reasons, but almost all are employed by our dominant Leftist culture, by the Mainstream Media, and by politicians (of both political parties), to create a narrative, an ongoing template, to support the assertion that America has been historically and still is in great part “racist” and “sexist,” carrying a heavy burden of “white supremacy,” “homophobic bigotry,” and oppression of women. And that hatred must be expunged, in fact, by whatever means necessary.

Whether the notorious Tawana Brawley case of decades ago (spearheaded by that huckster Al Sharpton), the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, the Ferguson shooting, the supposed rapes at the University of Virginia, the Duke Lacrosse scandal, and various purported “assaults” on Muslims—all have proven to be false, faked instances of “hate” and abuse. And they have provided the necessary fodder for the Progressivist Left to buttress its continuing assaults on what is left of our republic and its traditional institutions.

What is startling is that despite the revelations that these and many other instances are faked, it makes no difference to those advancing revolution in our society and pushing a radical transformation of our culture. Such hate crimes simply must exist, must be found, and must be denounced, if the narrative go forth and the agenda advance. And if it takes a “creative touch” here and there, the manipulation of an obviously faked story, of a falsehood into a societal totem, so what?  Is this not the underlying message of Saul Alinsky’s classic textbook of post-Marxist cultural and social revolution, Rules for Radicals?

After all, such instances, whether fake or not, serve the greater and more admirable purpose of overthrowing the inherently oppressive structures of white racism and historic misogyny. Only then—only after those societal structures are rooted out and overthrown—may the true Parousia, that frenetically-desired egalitarian Utopia be finally achieved.

Like all other such utopian revolutions its path will be scattered eventually by ruined lives, by new Holocausts and Holodomors, by the destruction of nearly everything that makes life truly worth living, noble, and human. No matter: nothing must stand in the way of the “idea” and its realization. And the first barrier to fall is truth, itself.

On Monday night [February 18] Tucker Carlson on his 8 p.m. prime time program summed all this up, with reference to the Jussie Smollett case in Chicago.

I pass along below a Youtube of the program, plus, following that a short written summary—the video is far more complete, and I urge you to watch it. Carlson’s opening monologue begins at about the two minute mark after a news update on the Smollett case. It lasts another twelve minutes. He then continues with two interviews…the whole portion lasts nearly a half hour.

Apparently, the Smollett episode is just one more  faked “hate crime” which, along with the Covington Catholic boys “hate crime” a couple of weeks ago, the Progressivists have attempted to use: they don’t  give up…if these instances don’t convince, why, there is certainly one more just around the corner.

And it is we who will pay the price as, despite the falsehoods, the narrative continues like a tsunami. Will we stand against it and denounce it for what it is?

Here is the Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFRPInskQIE

---------------------------------------------------------

Tucker Carlson: Why the left so desperately wanted to believe in Jussie, and not in America

When TV star Jussie Smollett claimed to be the victim of a racist anti-gay attack at the hands of two Trump supporters, virtually the entire news media and a parade of politicians immediately believed him and demanded the rest of us do so as well.
Now, that story is coming completely apart, with police sources saying Smollett likely orchestrated the entire attack himself. But while we wait for the facts to come to light, it is worth remembering that almost 3,000 people were shot in the City of Chicago last year -- women, small children -- sometimes alone and sometimes in groups. Many hundreds of them died, and not a single one received anything like the attention the media has lavished on a relatively minor assault alleged by Smollett.
On the other hand, none of Chicago's 3,000 shootings were even half as useful as Smollett's story.
The Smollett story had everything for a national media that long ago gave up the pretense of gathering news.  Journalism is now explicitly a political job, the point of which is to enforce cultural orthodoxies and punish enemies.
Jussie Smollett was the perfect vehicle for both of those things.
Journalists pretended to be horrified as they recounted what he said happened to him, but secretly, they were thrilled.
“There are many indications of a hate crime here. They are looking for two suspects who were wearing apparently wearing "Make America Great Again" hats though that has not yet been officially confirmed,” said MSNBC National Correspondent Miguel Almaguer.
Liz Plank, host of Vox Media’s “Consider It,” just knew President Trump had something to do with the attack.
“We don't know what happened to Jussie, but what we do know is that racism is alive and well in this country,” Plank said. “There is real evidence of people who have done these crimes, who cite that the President has inspired them.”
Jonathan Capehart, of the Washington Post, agreed with Plank. President Trump was most certainly to blame.
“The fact that [the attackers] reportedly said, ‘This is MAGA country,’ adds to sort of the atmosphere of menace that African-Americans in particular and people of color in general have felt since the advent of the Trump administration," Capehart mused.
Finally, there was this observation from CNN’s Brooke Baldwin: “He said his attackers hurled racial and homophobic slurs at him. This is America in 2019.”
Oh, and if you had questions, much less doubts, the elites were poised to attack you.
“And the media has really cast so much doubt on his story which I find so personally offensive that a gay black man is targeted and then suddenly he becomes the victim of people's disbelief,” said actress Sara Gilbert. “It is so outrageous to me.”
To the national media, Smollett's story was the perfect metaphor for the Trump era. It was also pretty clearly a total crock. Smollett's account began to fall apart within hours after a series of leaks from the obviously skeptical Chicago Police Department.
His handlers paired him with a network anchor they could rely on, with a 16-minute interview with Robin Roberts of "Good Morning, America."  Roberts surely knew there was ample evidence that Smollett was lying, but she decided to ignore that. Instead, Roberts colluded with him.
She nodded empathetically as Smollett wept on camera. She asked no significant follow-up questions.  The two parted like old friends. Both Smollett and Roberts turned out to be talented actors. Check out their performance on YouTube before it is scrubbed. You will never watch ABC News again. Virtually every word they utter is dishonest.
“If I had said it was a Muslim or a Mexican or someone black, I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot much more, a lot more, and that says a lot about the place that we are in our country right now,” Smollett told Roberts. “The fact that we have these fear mongers, these people that are trying to separate us and it is just not okay.”
Who is dividing us? And who exactly is the victim in all of this? While Smollett claims that he is the victim, he tells us that he represents the most despised and unfashionable groups in America, that is why bigots doubt his story. The rest of us nod as if this was true because we are required to do that.  That is how dishonest our society has become.  Everyone must lie all the time.  We know the rules, we have no choice.
The fact is, the much-hyped epidemic of hate crimes we have heard so much about essentially is made up. The premise is absurd. America is not a hateful country, it is the most welcoming place on Earth that is why even as our children learn from their teachers what a bigoted country this is, millions continue to stream in from Africa and Latin America for a better life here.
So why does the left insist on inventing bigoted bogeymen waiting around every dark corner? Maybe because stoking race hatred ensures continued power for the Democratic Party. Divided populations are easier to manipulate and rule. There would be no Democratic coalition without racial animosity. It is what holds their constituencies together. That is the point of identity politics.  It is why they are forever reopening the wound.

But the cost to the country has been high. Hate hoaxes make ethnic groups fear and distrust each other.  That is a dangerous thing to do in a country that is becoming more diverse by the day.

Sunday, February 17, 2019

February 17, 2019


MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey


The Death of North Carolina Congressman Walter B. Jones, Jr.


Friends,

It did not pass unnoticed; yet it still came as something of a shock.  The death of longtime North Carolina Congressman Walter B. Jones, Jr., one week ago reminded us of both the fragility of life and the palpable fact that our culture—our present society—is sorely lacking in the kinds of leaders and leadership that we once took for granted. And that paucity, that absence, has had a deleterious, nearly fatal effect on what remains of the American republic.

The late Representative Walter B. Jones, Jr., who passed away this past Sunday, February 10, in Greenville, North Carolina, was a giant among men and a singular member of the United States Congress. He was unbending in his devotion to the Constitution and his upright adherence to a strict standard of personal and public morality. Yet, he was also known—by friend and foe alike—as one of the most gracious and kindest men in Congress. Back in his eastern North Carolina district, at home in Farmville, or visiting all the rural backways, his constituents knew him as “Mr. Walter,” always attentive to their needs and issues.

Walter Jr. was the son of Congressman Walter Jones Sr., an old-fashioned Southern Democrat, who represented the district for years. Like his dad, Walter Jr. began life as a conservative Democrat. For several terms he served as a State Senator in the North Carolina General Assembly. But, like many Southerners he changed parties, and after his father’s death, he ran and was elected to that seat in 1994, and held it until this past week, nearly twenty-five years. But he was never a good fit with the Republican Party as it seemed to embrace globalism and principles that owed more to “big government” and the progressive Left than the traditions of North Carolina and the old American republic. In 2008 he endorsed the candidacy of Representative Ron Paul for the presidency.

During that long tenure he gained a reputation for absolute probity and honesty of character, a deep and abiding Christian faith (he was a convert to the Catholic faith at age 31), and an unswerving fealty to the letter of constitutional government. Although he initially supported the American invasion of Iraq, he came to deeply regret that position, and took measures after that to comfort the families and widows of veterans of that conflict. And he opposed consistently further American interventionism overseas, just as he opposed government overreach domestically in the United States.

For his consistent opposition to foreign aid, including massive aid to the state of Israel, Jones incurred the wrath of the Israeli lobby in the United States. In 2014, alone, in the GOP primary the Emergency Committee for Israel spent $317,000, and the Ending Spending Fund, spent $735,000, to defeat him. Leading Neoconservative Bill Kristol headed these efforts. But Jones was not anti-Israeli—his position was consistent across the board: he opposed nearly all foreign aid appropriations.

Each and every election Jones turned back his opposition, massively and overwhelmingly. His constituents knew him and trusted him. And he never let them down.

Representative Jones was a true gentlemen and an old school traditionalist, an admirer of the late Senator Jesse Helms. His door was always open, and he took his position as representative seriously.

He will be missed sorely.

A few days ago I had published at the Reckonin.com Web site a short “in memoriam” which I authored about Congressman Jones. I pass it on now.

*************************************

The Death of a Tar Heel: Congressman Walter B. Jones Jr.


By Dr. Boyd D. Cathey  2/16/2019


The news came Monday morning that Congressman Walter Jones, Jr. had died [on Sunday, February 10]. He had suffered for some time from a very serious neurological condition, and had been placed in Hospice about a week ago in Greenville, North Carolina. 

Representative Jones was one of--if not the--last of the old former Southern Democrat ("Jessecrat") traditionalist conservatives who left the corrupted Party of Jefferson after the Reagan-Bush years, but never was a good fit in the Neocon-directed Party of Lincoln. When his father Walter Sr, (the real last of the old Southern Democrats) passed away, Walter Jr. succeeded him in his congressional seat, and served for years as a stalwart naysayer to almost every form of American "exceptionalism" and foreign entanglement--from Iraq (he had originally supported American involvement, but then became a staunch opponent), to Afghanistan, to Syria, and opposed every expansion of big government and affirmative action and "civil rights."
He even found the "Freedom Caucus" in Congress a bit too liberal for his beliefs.
Like the late Senator Jesse Helms, whom he greatly admired, he was known as "Congressman No" to his colleagues; but his "no" votes were always predicated on firm and abiding principles of statecraft, grounded in the original Constitution and his traditionalist eastern North Carolina upbringing. And he was viewed by members of both parties as the finest and most gracious gentleman in Congress.

At every election the Establishment Republicans would run someone against Walter in the GOP primaries. For his stand against giving a blank check to Israel, Bill Kristol and AIPAC funded "conservative" candidates on various occasions and spent millions of dollars to defeat him.
But each time Walter turned them back, and usually with massive support in his district.
As a young man Walter became a convert to the Catholic Church. Years ago when I encountered him in an elevator (he was then a state senator in the North Carolina General Assembly, representing Pitt County, and I dealt with members at that time), I mentioned my own Catholic faith. I recall clearly that he responded: "I became a Catholic because I believe it to be true; but I did not become one to see it destroyed by liberalism."


Walter Jones will be missed deeply by patriotic Americans and North Carolinians, and those who understand what this nation was intended to be.  Of his like there are few left...and we are perishing because of that.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

February 13, 2019


MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey


LATEST PUBLISHED ESSAY at The Abbeville Institute: “The Idea of Equality in America”


Friends,

The installment of MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey from February 10, 2019 [see:                                                                 https://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/2019/02/february-10-2019-my-corner-by.html ] has been edited and is now published by The Abbeville Institute [February 13, 2019].  I believe it is now a stronger piece, and that it makes a more complete, if brief case sharply questioning the idea of equality as the founding principle—the “propositional idea”—on which America was founded.

At the heart of the efforts to transform America into something totally different from the republic established by the Framers, there is the shibboleth, the sacralized totem, “the idea of equality” as a never-reached, always just ahead objective to be achieved, if only—if only—the forces of “reaction” and “opposition to Progress” can somehow be dislodged, shamed, and destroyed. Like all talismans based on unrealizable but fanatical desires, it has become the banner and standard under which all sorts of mischief, devastation, and horror are justified and inflicted on what remains of these United States and its citizens. And in America it has served, certainly since 1865, as the guiding and overarching ideology for change and transformation—and for the painful destruction of the old republic created with such high hope at Philadelphia in 1787.

Until this realization is understood and measures taken to counter and reverse it, we shall continue on our headlong plunge into historical impotence, a once-great nation like other once-great nations, with grand aspirations which have now passed from the scene—the British (of the 19th century), the Spanish (of the 16th century), and the Roman. But our decline and passing will be largely of our own making, our own incredibly demonic urge for national suicide, our own supine turning away from those actual principles and that actual foundation that once inspired our forefathers.

It is not a pretty sight to watch a nation die from a raging internal cancer: if it declines and falls, better that it perish manfully on the field of battle, heroically. 

On our present course, our great-great grandchildren—if there are any who remain—will remember the American citizenry of 2019 with anger and regret. They will recall the corrupt political class, the insidiously vile entertainment culture, our poisonous educational system, and they will curse both the actions and the inaction of this generation.

The election of 2016 may have offered a brief respite, a kind of opportunity to begin a reversal of course. But those invested in the onrushing destruction and perversion, the forces of the Deep State in both political parties and in our decadent and dominant culture, have reacted with fury. And too many of “our” people still seem to be sleepwalking through time and space, afraid to become involved.

On December 7, 1941, Americans were summoned to a united war effort as never before.  In 2019 there is no Pearl Harbor, no great attack or immense disaster that exists to rouse the unconcerned or convert the misled. Yet, even with the slight door left ajar by the results of 2016, the hour is late, very late, and the issues never more critical to address than at this moment.

And there are many false prophets in our midst: establishment-style conservatives who share the basic precepts of their supposed opponents on the far Left—Republicans who profess to be our representatives, but go along with the Progressivist Left for fear of being labeled a “racist” or “sexist”—white males who have been cajoled and cowed into believing that natural “maleness” is somehow “toxic.”

With such defenders the cause of restoration is lost.  Far better it is to look to Tucker Carlson on primetime television (and read his superb book SHIP OF FOOLS), and to read  essays by knowledgeable writers such as Paul Gottfried, Jack Kerwick, Anthony Esolen, Christopher De Groot, Heather MacDonald, Jesse Merriam, and Amy Wax. And dip into sites like Takimag (www.takimag.com), The Abbeville Institute (www.abbeville.com), Reckonin.com, The Agonist (www.agonist.org), Chronicles Magazine (www.chroniclesmagazine.org), and others.

Here is my essay at The Abbeville Institute:

ABBEVILLE INSTITUTE

The Idea of Equality in America

By Boyd Cathey on Feb 13, 2019
Given what is occurring in our society and culture, the ever increasing frenzy and hysteria associated with what is called “the women’s movement” and the ever-changing, always-increasing “racism test,” a review of the basics, a return to and familiarity with our history, is incumbent on us if we are to survive as a nation.
Yet, the real problem is that American history, that is, American history that is not completely warped by a predetermined progressivist ideology, hardly exists today as a subject taught in most US colleges and universities. And on the high school level, one is fortunate these days to find a teacher who is not convinced that “race” and “sex” are the only factors that actually shaped our nation, or who is not so cowed by political correctness that he or she doesn’t fear to deviate from the new ironclad template.
This disastrous situation in education should be self-evident to most observers of academia, but it is not…and apparently not for many conservatives and Republicans.
Wonder why and how so many millions of Millenials now ardently believe extreme socialism is the way of the future? Or, why an innocent college prank from forty years ago brands you as a “racist” or “sexist” for life? Or, why most students now believe the United States at its founding was dominated by “white racists” who imposed a “toxic [white] masculinity” on these shores?
Look to our schools and colleges.
Just this past week I attended a legislative reception for North Carolina legislators hosted by the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans. Outside, surrounding the host facility were shouting and screaming demonstrators, mostly Millenials, from several radical leftist groups located in central North Carolina, including the Workers’ World Party, the Hillsborough Progressives Taking Action, and Antifa of North Carolina.
Their praxis is to attempt to shut down opponents of their world-view. On an increasing number of college campuses the concept of “free speech” for those who dissent from the far Leftist viewpoint is no longer acceptable. The Yale [University] Daily News [February 8, 2019] now advocates spying on “white boys” so that when these “privileged” males reach fame, the silly words or pranks they committed in college decades before can be used against them: “I’m watching you white boy. And this time, I’m taking the screenshot!” wrote the editorialist. And the student newspaper of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, asked: “should white boys still be allowed to share their ‘opinions’? Should we be forced to listen? In honor of Black History Month, I’m gonna go with a hell no.”
At the reception as legislators and their wives got out of their cars, the screaming Leftists would approach them, hurling epithets and demanding to know why they “supported racism and the KKK.” Additionally, they had cameras filming each and every guest, shouting “we know who you are and where you live, and we are coming for you!”
This, then, is what your college dollars—the tuition you pay—have produced. And this is the result of the bounty and largesse of such globalist financiers as George Soros and those like him, who bankroll these folks and their mob demonstrations. 
This is the result of an educational narrative that dominates our educational system. And it is a fundamental template that is now shared not only by the frenzied revolutionary Left who get up in the faces of conservative legislators and attempt to shame them or scare them into silence or compliance, and who will follow them to their homes, but also, in effect, ironically by nearly all of the major conservative voices we hear on Fox or read in such publications as National Review.
You read that correctly….
That narrative is that America was founded on an “idea,” and that idea was “equality for all.” America, according to both the Progressivist Left and the Neoconservatives who dominate the “conservative movement,” is a “propositional nation,” based on the nebulous idea of “equality.” But, according to this version of our history, from the beginning that “idea” was perverted by evil white men and even more, by evil slaveholders who prevented America from living up to its ideals. 
That is not only inculcated into the minds of our children and students, but also is propagated as fact by the near-totality of our political class, whether in Congress or via the media.
Of course, Mainstream Conservatism attempts in its own way to rescue the idea by prattling on about “equality of opportunity” and that the Left has taken the concept “too far.” Yet, by accepting this as our original foundational principle, they inevitably fall to those who carry it to its logical extreme, and, thus, end up enabling them and, in a way, normalizing their narrative.
That this nation is founded on the idea of equality is historically false. And converted into policy it means the end of this country, the death of the republic, and the triumph of the far Left, enabled by a pseudo-conservative opposition that accepts the fundamental precepts of the Left.
Among the voices who have demurred and who have demonstrated the falsity of this view and its eventually fatal results for what remains of our republic have been such historians and authors as George Carey, Mel Bradford, and Barry Alan Shain.  Bradford back in 1976 warned presciently in a long essay in the pages of the Modern Age quarterly (Winter issue, 1976) of the incompatibility of the Neoconservative “propositional nation” vision with the inherited traditions and decentralized republican constitutionalism of the Founders and Framers. In that stand-alone essay, “The Heresy of Equality,” Bradford laid bare the clear intentions of those who came together to form the American nation, while giving the lie to the Neocon narrative that the republic was founded on universalized propositions—“ideas”—of equality and liberal democracy. Those notions, he pointed out, were a hangover from their days and immersion in the globalist universalism that owed its origin to Marx and Trotsky, and to the Rationalist “philosophes” of the 18th century, rather than to the legacy of kinship and blood, an attachment to community and to the land, and a central religious core that annealed this tradition and continued to make it viable.
What Bradford revealed in his research about our original Constitution was ultimately distilled in his superb volume, Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the American Constitution (Athens, GA, 1993). It remains a primary source for anyone interested in how we got our Constitution and what it means.
Along with Bradford, Colgate University historian Barry Alan Shain has confirmed in his well-documented The Declaration of Independence in Historical Context: American State Papers, Petitions, Proclamations, and Letters of the Delegates to the First National Congresses (2014)  that our old republic was not founded on abstractions about “equality” or “democracy,” or some fanatical zeal to “impose our democracy and equality” on the rest of the globe, or that we were “the model for the rest of the world,” to paraphrase the neoconservative writer Allan Bloom. We were a country founded by those who had left the old world in family and community, from England and Scotland, from Germany and France, and eventually from other countries, in search of better lands for them and more opportunity for them and their children.
Historian David Hackett Fisher’s impressive study, Albion’s Seed: British Folkways in America (1989), details and traces that quest, a quest that carried with it the beliefs, the blood, and the culture of those immigrants from the old world to the new. Unlike the Puritans of Massachusetts, most of the new Americans did not come to these shores to establish some “new City of God,” some new “Shining City on a Hill.” Their goal was not to establish an egalitarian Utopia. Rather, they brought with them their customs, their folklore, their music and arts, and their religion which were uniquely theirs, their inheritance. And as they moved West across the Appalachians and across the Great Plains to the Rocky Mountains they carried that culture with them, giving body to the American nation.
My father’s own family originally came to Philadelphia in 1716, having passed a few decades in County Monaghan in what is now Northern Ireland, and before that from Ayrshire, Scotland. Coming down the Great Wagon Road they made their way to old Rowan and Mecklenburg counties in North Carolina by the 1740s, from which they spread out, a few finally reaching the California gold fields in 1848, some founding a town that continues to exist even today, Catheys Valley, close to Yosemite National Park.
And what is fascinating is to scan a phone book from 1950 for Catheys Valley and compare it with the parish registries from old Ayrshire and Monaghan counties from three centuries before: the family surnames in large part remain the same. Those people who departed Scotland in the early 1600s left in family, and they remained together when they came to America. In the Colonial Period they established small, largely autonomous communities which gave being and form to the colonies that became fiercely independent states which, in turn, created the American confederation.
Robert W. Ramsey’s study, Carolina Cradle: Settlement of the Northwest Carolina Frontier, 1747-1762 (1964), maps the “Scotch-Irish Settlement” in Rowan County, North Carolina, in the 1740s. And those recorded surnames are in the main the same as a century before and as two centuries after in places like Catheys Valley. Like other immigrants my ancestors came as part of an already-existent society. The concept that they were somehow possessed of a mission to “remake” and democratize the world and that they were in the vanguard of a globalized and Utopian egalitarianism, would have struck them as the antithesis of their shared beliefs.
But that is what we are told is the mission of America, that is what our schools and colleges teach, and that is what we have failed to accomplish. And it is the door ajar that has permitted the growing extremist Left to seize the initiative and apply these “propositions” in such a way as to facilitate their success on the road to converting the republic into what will be an authoritarian state that will make present-day Venezuela look desirable. For “equality” is a chimerical goal. In the hands of ideologues it becomes the cudgel to enslave those who disagree, the triumph of the savage pigs of Orwell’s Animal Farm, who accomplish their evil under the rubric of equality: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others!”  Inherently, the Leftist revolutionaries recognize this: Power is the ultimate goal, complete power over us and power to transform what is left of this nation into something that even Orwell’s pigs might find unimaginable.

About Boyd Cathey


Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as State Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish, and English, on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival, and genealogical organizations. More from Boyd Cathey

Sunday, February 10, 2019

February 10, 2019
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
RACISM, SEXISM, and the Idea of Equality: What Is America All About? 
      Plus, Two Superb Essays by Christopher De Groot
Friends,
I return to a topic that I have addressed previously on various occasions. Given what is occurring in our society and culture, the ever increasing frenzy and hysteria associated with what is called “the women’s movement” and the ever-changing, always-elevating “racism test,” a review of the basics, a return to and familiarity with our history, is incumbent on us if we are to survive as a nation.
The real problem is that American history, that is, American history that is not completely warped by a predetermined progressivist ideology, hardly exists today as a subject taught in most US colleges and universities. And on the high school level, one is fortunate these days to find a teacher who is not convinced that “race” and “sex” are the only factors that actually shaped our nation, or who is not so cowed by political correctness that he or she doesn’t fear to deviate from the new ironclad template.
This disastrous situation in education should be self-evident to most observers of academia, but it is not…and apparently not for many conservatives and Republicans.
Wonder why and how so many millions of Millenials now ardently believe extreme socialism is the way of the future? Or, why an innocent college prank from forty years ago brands you as a “racist” or “sexist” for life? Or, why most students now believe the United States at its founding was dominated by “white racists” who imposed a “toxic [white] masculinity” on these shores?
Look to our schools and colleges.
Just this past week I attended a legislative reception for North Carolina legislators hosted by the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans. Outside, surrounding the host facility were shouting and screaming demonstrators, mostly Millenials, from several radical leftist groups located in central North Carolina, including the Workers’ World Party  [https://www.facebook.com/pg/DurhamWWP/photos/?ref=page_internal ], the Hillsborough Progressives Taking Action [ https://www.hptaction.org/], and Antifa of North Carolina [http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2018/08/27/big-league-politics-exposes-violent-north-carolina-antifa-cell/ ].

Their praxis is to attempt to shut down opponents of their world-view. On an increasing number of college campuses the concept of “free speech” for those who dissent from the far Leftist viewpoint is no longer acceptable. The Yale [University] Daily News [February 8, 2019] now advocates spying on “white boys” so that when these “privileged” males reach fame, the silly words or pranks they committed in college decades before can be used against them: “I’m watching you white boy. And this time, I’m taking the screenshot!” wrote the editorialist [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/yale-university-newspaper-editor-urges-students-to-spy-on-white-male-classmates-to-be-able-to-ruin-their-careers-in-the-future/?omhide=true]. And the student newspaper of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, asked: “should white boys still be allowed to share their ‘opinions’? Should we be forced to listen? In honor of Black History Month, I’m gonna go with a hell no.”

At the reception as legislators and their wives got out of their cars, the screaming Leftists would approach them, hurling epithets and demanding to know why they “supported racism and the KKK.” Additionally, they had cameras filming each and every guest, shouting “we know who you are and where you live, and we are coming for you!”

This, then, is what your college dollars—the tuition you pay—have produced. And this is the result of the bounty and largesse of such globalist financiers as George Soros and those like him, who bankroll these folks and their mob demonstrations. 

This is the result of an educational narrative that dominates our educational system. And it is a fundamental template that is now shared not only by the frenzied revolutionary Left who get up in the faces of conservative legislators and attempt to shame them or scare them into silence or compliance, and who will follow them to their homes, but also, in effect, ironically by nearly all of the major conservative voices we hear on Fox or read in such publications as National Review.

You read that correctly….

That narrative is that America was founded on an “idea,” and that idea was “equality for all.” America, according to both the Progressivist Left and the Neoconservatives who dominate the “conservative movement,” is a “propositional nation,” based on the nebulous idea of “equality.” But, according to this version of our history, from the beginning that “idea” was perverted by evil white men and even more, evil slaveholders who prevented America from living up to its ideals. 

That is not only inculcated into the minds of our children and students, but also is propagated as fact by the near-totality of our political class, whether in Congress or via the media.

Of course, Mainstream Conservatism attempts in its own way to rescue the idea by prattling on about “equality of opportunity” and that the Left has taken the concept “too far.” Yet, by accepting this as our original foundational principle, they inevitably fall to those who carry it to its logical extreme, and, thus, end up enabling them and, in a way, normalizing their narrative.

As history this nation founded on the idea of equality is false, and as policy it means the end of this country, the death of the republic, and the triumph of the far Left, enabled by a faux conservative opposition that accepts the fundamental precepts of the Left.

Among the voices who have demurred and who have demonstrated historically the falsity of this view and its eventually fatal results for what remains of our republic have been such historians and authors as George Carey, Mel Bradford, and Barry Alan Shain.  Bradford back in 1976 warned presciently in a long essay in the pages of the Modern Age quarterly (Winter issue, 1976) of the incompatibility of the Neoconservative “propositional nation” vision with the inherited traditions and republican constitutionalism of the Founders and Framers. In that stand-alone essay, The Heresy of Equality,” Bradford laid bare the clear intentions of those who came together to form the American nation, while giving the lie to the Neocon narrative that the republic was founded on universalized propositions—“ideas”—of equality and liberal democracy. Those notions, he pointed out perceptively, were a hangover from their days and immersion in the globalist universalism that owed its origin to Marx and Trotsky, and to the Rationalist “philosophes” of the 18th century, rather than to the legacy of kinship and blood, an attachment to community and to the land, and a central religious core that annealed this tradition and continued to make it viable.
What Bradford revealed in his research about our original Constitution was ultimately distilled in his superb volume, Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the American Constitution (Athens, GA, 1993). It remains a primary source for anyone interested in how we got our Constitution and what it means.
Along with Bradford, Colgate University historian Barry Alan Shain has confirmed in his well-documented The Declaration of Independence in Historical Context: American State Papers, Petitions, Proclamations, and Letters of the Delegates to the First National Congresses (2014)  that our old republic was not founded on abstractions about “equality” or “democracy,” or some fanatical zeal to “impose our democracy and equality” on the rest of the world, or that we were “the model for the rest of the world,” to paraphrase the neoconservative writer Allan Bloom. We were a country founded by those who had left the old world in family and community, from England and Scotland, from Germany and France, and eventually from other countries, in search of better lands for them and for more opportunity for them and their children.
Historian David Hackett Fisher’s impressive study, Albion’s Seed: British Folkways in America (1989), details and traces that quest, a quest that carried with it the beliefs, the blood, and the culture of those immigrants from the old world to the new. Unlike the Puritans of Massachusetts, most of the new Americans did not come to these shores to establish some “new City of God,” some new “Shining City on a Hill.” Their goal was not to establish an egalitarian Utopia, from which then they would go forth to impose equality and democracy on the rest of the world. They brought with them their customs, their folklore, their music and arts, and their religion from the old world. And as they moved West across the Appalachians and across the Great Plains to the Rocky Mountains they carried that culture with them.
My father’s own family originally came to Philadelphia in 1716, having passed a few decades in County Monaghan in what is now Northern Ireland, and before that from Ayrshire, Scotland. Coming down the Great Wagon Road they made their way to old Rowan and Mecklenburg counties in North Carolina by the 1740s, from which they spread out, a few finally reaching the California gold fields in 1848, some founding a town that continues to exist even today, Catheys Valley, close to Yosemite National Park.
And what is fascinating is to scan a phone book from 1950 for Catheys Valley and compare it with the parish registries from old Ayrshire and Monaghan counties from three centuries before: the family surnames in large part remain the same. Those people who departed Scotland in the early 1600s left in family, and they remained together when they came to America.
Robert W. Ramsey’s study, Carolina Cradle: Settlement of the Northwest Carolina Frontier, 1747-1762 (1964), maps the “Scotch-Irish Settlement” in Rowan County, North Carolina, in the 1740s. And those recorded surnames are in the main the same as a century before and as two centuries after in places like Catheys Valley. Like other immigrants my ancestors came as part of a community. The concept that they were somehow possessed of a mission to “remake” and democratize the world and that they were in the vanguard of a globalized and Utopian egalitarianism, would have struck them as the antithesis of their shared beliefs.
But that is what we are told is the mission of America, that is what our schools and colleges teach, and that is what we have failed to accomplish. And it is the door ajar that has permitted the growing extremist Left to seize the initiative and apply these “propositions” in such a way as to facilitate their success on the road to converting the republic into what will be an authoritarian state that will make present-day Venezuela look desirable. For “equality” is a chimerical goal. In the hands of ideologues it becomes the cudgel to enslave those who disagree, the triumph of the savage pigs of Orwell’s Animal Farm, who accomplish their evil under the rubric of equality: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others!”  Inherently, the Leftist revolutionaries recognize this: Power is the ultimate goal, complete power over us and power to transform what is left of this nation into something that even Orwell’s pigs might find unimaginable.
Two recent essays by my friend, Christopher De Groot, examine some of these questions, adding valuable detail and acute observations. Christopher’s new Web site, The Agonist [www.theagonist.org], I recommend highly for its superb articles and commentary. Here are his fine pieces:

The United States of Abstractions

January 18, 2019
America was founded by British Protestant men. The Constitution, as we read in its Preamble, was meant to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” And yet, today ethnic traditionalism—a concept that includes religion—is off the table as a political good for white Americans. Indeed, anyone who, like Rep. Steve King, even dares to ask, in short, “What’s so bad about white traditions?” is sure to be condemned as a racist, and as happened to King, punishment may swiftly follow.
Any nationalism that wants to be acceptable in polite company—including Congress—must now be founded on certain Enlightenment abstractions: equality, liberty, and the like lofty notions. For the state itself exists, according to the enthusiastic believers, to realize these goods.
There are, however, a number of problems with this conception of the state. To begin with, most people really aren’t all that serious about America the propositional nation. Of course, they’re happy to sing the praises of equality and liberty, as they are of free markets and limited government, but in practice, such language mainly functions as a means for realizing individual interests and group interests, not any national good.

Our affections being, for the most part, local and rather limited in their applications, we find that talk about supposedly universal abstract goods is usually meaningless outside of its rhetorical (and often merely manipulative) purpose. Man, moreover, is essentially irrational; therefore, as motivating forces, and as justifications for the state itself, equality, liberty, and the rest pale in comparison with religion and the notion of “our people.”
To be sure, traditional blood-and-soil nationalism is hardly an unmixed good. It can make, and has made, for some immoral and crude attitudes and behaviors. Yet it’s strange that, while many people recognize the problems associated with such ethnic traditionalism, few of us seem to have a proper skepticism regarding the abstractions that, we’re to believe, are now the purpose of and justification for the state itself. Few people seem to know, or at least take seriously, the truth that the Enlightenment values which so many cherish, or appear to cherish, are themselves the fruits of organic, local, context-specific traditions.
One notable exception is the Israeli philosopher Yoram Hazony. “The Dark Side of the Enlightenment,” Hazony’s April 6, 2018, article in The Wall Street Journal, is a wise corrective for our naive rationalists, so I will quote it at length:

Consider the claim that the U.S. Constitution was a product of Enlightenment thought, derived by throwing out the political traditions of the past and applying unfettered human reason. Disproving this idea requires only reading earlier writers on the English constitution. The widely circulated 15th-century treatise “In Praise of the Laws of England,” written by the jurist John Fortescue, clearly explains due process and the theory now called “checks and balances.” The English constitution, Fortescue wrote, establishes personal liberty and economic prosperity by shielding the individual and his property from the government. The protections that appear in the U.S. Bill of Rights were mostly set down in the 1600s by those drafting England’s constitutional documents—men such as John Selden, Edward Hyde and Matthew Hale.
These statesmen and philosophers articulated the principles of modern Anglo-American constitutionalism centuries before the U.S. was created. Yet they were not Enlightenment men. They were religious, English nationalists and political conservatives. They were familiar with the claim that unfettered reason should remake society, but they rejected it in favor of developing a traditional constitution that had proved itself. When Washington, Jay, Hamilton and Madison initiated a national government for the U.S., they primarily turned to this conservative tradition, adapting it to local conditions.
Nor is there much truth in the assertion that we owe modern science and medicine to Enlightenment thought. A more serious claim of origin can be made by the Renaissance, the period between the 15th and 17th centuries, particularly in Italy, Holland and England. Tradition-bound English kings, for example, sponsored path breaking scientific institutions such as the Royal College of Physicians, founded in 1518. One of its members, William Harvey, discovered the circulation of the blood in the early 17th century. The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, founded in 1660, was led by such men as Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, decisive figures in physics and chemistry. Again, these were politically and religiously conservative figures. They knew the arguments, later associated with the Enlightenment, for overthrowing political, moral and religious tradition, but mostly they rejected them.
In short, the principal advances that today’s Enlightenment enthusiasts want to claim were “set in motion” much earlier. And it isn’t at all clear how helpful the Enlightenment was once it arrived.
Needless to say, the figures Hazony references weren’t beset by our decadent, self-destructive aversion to the national interest and our own heritage. They took such values for granted, and working within their traditions, they were able to accomplish the marvelous things that they did. The fertility rate in Hazony’s Israel is 3.1 births per woman. Here in the U.S. it’s 1.7 births per woman. That figure, like those found throughout Europe (Iceland alone excepted), is below population replacement level, a reality that presents many long-term economic challenges. Meanwhile, if current trends continue, fiercely nationalistic China will surpass the U.S. as the world’s dominant power in the near future.
In view of all this, it seems clear that the propositional nation isn’t as valuable as the neocons, the Jaffaites, and other ardent levelers would have us believe. It’s often said, for example, that open borders are necessary to maintain population growth. But this assumes that immigrants, on the whole, are adequate for a 21st-century cognitive economy, even though the vast majority lack the requisite skill sets. Open-borders advocates also overlook issues of cultural compatibility and the need to put America’s own working class first. Indeed, the trouble with the propositional nation is that it raises the question of why there should be a nation at all: If the lofty abstractions are what America is for, and how it justifies itself, then why should only “our people” enjoy them? Is such exclusivity not, at bottom, a blood-and-soil thing? Yes, it is.

Many people today seem to think that government works rather like computer programming: Simply implement the right policies, and people can thrive anywhere. But men and women are not software, and besides, this Enlightenment dream ignores the actual character of the Enlightenment itself. Finally, we should know by now that such blind rationalism easily lends itself to foolish and destructive endeavors, such as democratic nation building in the Middle East.
Do the limitations of the propositional nation mean we should embrace ethnic traditionalism? I must confess my perplexity here, which I think many people in our uncertain time will share. I’m an atheist who doesn’t identify with white people (or any other group) in a deep sense. Still, I remain a reactionary for several reasons, one of them being my opposition to the technocratic, homogenizing world order that men like Steven Pinker call for with great fervor. Writing in QuillettePinker happily notes that “The demographic sectors that are the hottest hotbeds of populism are all in decline: rural, less educated, older, and ethnic majorities.” Nevertheless, such Deplorables have given Pinker and his ilk a lot of pains:

For believers in Enlightenment and progress, the second year of Donald Trump’s presidency felt like being strapped to a table and getting a series of unpredictable electric shocks. They include his kissing up to autocratic thugs, undermining a free press and judiciary, demonizing foreigners, gutting environmental protections, blowing off climate science, renouncing international cooperation, and threatening to renew a nuclear arms race.
Of course, however, the confidence man is never without good news. “But before we imagine the future as a boot stamping on a human face forever,” he continues (alluding to George Orwell’s 1984),

…we need to put authoritarian populism in perspective. Despite its recent swelling, populism appears to have plateaued. A majority of Americans consistently disapprove of Trump, and in Europe, nationalist parties won a median of just 13 percent of votes in 2018 elections…. The travails of Trump and Brexit in 2018 are a reminder to supporters that populism works better in theory than in practice. Lined up against it are democratic checks and balances within a country and pressures toward global cooperation outside it, the only effective means to deal with trade, migration, pollution, pandemics, cybercrime, terrorism, piracy, rogue states, and war.
And though Trump and other reactionary leaders can do real damage, and will have to be opposed and contained for some time to come, they are not the only actors in the world. The forces of modernity, including connectivity, mobility, science, and the ideals of human rights and human welfare, are distributed among a wide array of governments and private-sector and civil-society organizations, and they have gained too much momentum to be shifted into reverse overnight.
While they contain some truth, on the whole, these passages are quite glib and cheap, complex issues being simplified into progressive boilerplate. I don’t have the space for analysis, however, so let me simply observe here that this sort of thinking is just what should be expected from the rather neocon-like Quillette crowd. Indeed, Quillette recently had a party in Toronto, where David Frum and Ben Shapiro themselves were in attendance. Like those two warmongering hysterics, and like Pinker himself, it is the function of the Quillette crowd, in politics, to lend a naive rationalist faith to the technocratic globalist agenda. National sovereignty, and the desire of ordinary people to govern themselves, are to be subordinated to the calculations of large expert organizations, many of them transnational. And all this while Europe is gradually dying off, with America perhaps not far behind.

Like the neocons, the Quillette crowd says all the right things about equality, universal human rights, humanism, and the like moral clich├ęs, for as intellectuals know very well, there is ever a good living in such pretense. The Quillette crowd is led by the magazine’s founding editor, Claire Lehmann. Although she is celebrated as a steward of “free thought,” precisely the opposite is true; as I explain in my essay “The Intellectual Dark Web’s Unwise Center,” Lehmann is a fraud. In this respect, she is of course akin to neocons like Frum and Shapiro. The two groups are ideological bedfellows, and the independent right should regard the Quillette crowd with the same suspicion and distrust as it does the neocons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Evils of Equality

During the State of the Union address on Tuesday, a group of female Democrats, dressed in all white (in tribute to the suffragettes of the early 20th century), sat looking quite unimpressed by the president’s rhetoric. Seeing their faces, which ranged from sullen to sour, I felt profound sympathy, and looking back on the young beauties I used to date, I hoped our poor elected representatives would give yoga classes and Instagram a try, for they were bitter and in need of a diversion.
For some, the female Democrats represent the growing gender divide in politics, and the trouble Donald Trump would likely have getting enough female votes in order to be reelected in 2020. Others are optimistic about the spectacle. For instance, at American Greatness, Sebastian Gorka writes:

The party that has built its image as the party for the oppressed, for minorities, for the working class, sat scowling as the president regaled everyone else with the news of how his policies have brought employment, security, and prosperity to our nation, the likes of which the world has never seen, and especially to exactly those groups. Freshman diva Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) couldn’t even bring herself to applaud the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent President Trump recognized for rescuing more than 300 girls and women from human-traffickers. Ah, yes, the “party of women.”
But the masterstroke was the president’s decision to celebrate women—even those scowling women. He celebrated especially the historic number of women gainfully employed, including within the halls of Congress. Suddenly at that mention, the self-declared suffragettes looked at each other, decided to stand up, high-five the air and cheer. For themselves. And they had no idea what he had just done.
This was rhetorical jujitsu the likes of which I thought I would never see again since Trump’s “I’m with you!” moment in New York. In one deft joyous flourish of heartfelt celebration for the fairer sex, Donald Trump the master orator showed the “New Wave” Democrats for who they truly are: a selfish, mean-spirited, parochial, clique that only care for themselves and not for real Americans. No number of policy papers or campaign ads could do that. Pure genius.
Gorka, who is hardly an unbiased observer, may be attributing “pure genius” to the president where he simply enjoyed good luck. It was surely decided in advance that Trump would “celebrate women,” and the female Democrats being so averse to him, it was only that celebration which prompted them to “stand up, high-five the air and cheer.” And only “for themselves,” of course.
But while that reaction certainly “showed the ‘New Wave’ Democrats for who they truly are,” whether it will significantly increase Trump’s appeal to women voters is an open question. If anything, the reaction confirmed that the female Democrats can’t stand him. What’s more, polls since Trump was elected in 2016 suggest that his support among women, already pretty low, has decreased. Gorka and other Trump partisans are thrilled to see the true colors of the new identity-politics Democrats, but those true colors aren’t news, and it’s unlikely that Trump will gain many female voters on the left after Tuesday’s display—they won’t support him in any event—though it’s possible that he’ll gain some right-leaning women who had been on the fence.
The view that “the historic number of women gainfully employed, including within the halls of Congress” is something to celebrate is very revealing. Greater group equality (read: ideally, sameness of outcome) is supposedly a good in itself, irrespective of how people are living their lives, what they believe, and the effects of their ideas and policies on the nation as a whole. Motivated by status envy, feminists have taught women that the way to receive recognition is through success in the workplace, which is apparently superior in value to women’s traditional domestic roles. Yet while women are bent on achieving “gender parity” in every field, the American family is in a bad way. I described this in my Aug. 31, 2018, column, “Junk Science and the Feminist Manipulation Agenda”:

In 1950, married couples represented 78 percent of households in the United States. In 2011, the US Census Bureau reported, that percentage had dropped to 48 percent….  [In 2014], for the first time, the number of unmarried American adults outnumbered those who were married….   Meanwhile, only 30 percent of Millennials say that having a successful marriage is “one of the most important things” in life, according to the Pew Research Center, down from even the 47 percent of Generation X who said the same thing in 1997. Four in 10 Americans went ever further, telling Pew researchers in 2010 that marriage was becoming obsolete.
Nor is that all of the grim statistics. Between 40 and 45 percent of marriages end in divorce, a figure that does not account for the proportion, now larger than ever, of people who cohabitate without marrying, or for the number of cohabitating couples having children, which has increased tenfold in the past decade. Four out of ten children are illegitimate. Among blacks, the proportion is nearly three-quarters. The birth rate has fallen to a record low, and is…short of the population replacement level.
To this I would add an observation by the sociologist Mark Regnerus, from his article “The Future of American Sexuality and Family: Five Key Trends,” published on Oct. 17, 2018, in Public Discourse:

Marriage is…in the throes of deinstitutionalization.” It is no longer a shelter to be ducked into, a way for two to construct something together out of nothing but love. And it’s no longer expected. Instead, it’s a symbol, an unnecessary but nice luxury item, a capstone of a successful young adulthood. Americans now hold out for picket fences, figuratively speaking. Why? Because they can, because they have been taught to, and—at least for men—because sex is cheap.
Unfortunately, not everyone can afford this new type of marriage. Although the benefits of marriage are still—in theory—available to all, marriage is increasingly a middle- and upper-middle-class thing. As a result, income inequality—a social phenomenon often aided by getting married—is getting worse.
The core of Trump’s voting base is white men, but if current trends in marriage and immigration continue, eventually the support of white men won’t be sufficient for any Republican president to get elected. Even in 2016 Trump wouldn’t have won the presidency without the support he got from women on the right. Single women are overwhelmingly liberal, and a lesser proportion of married women in the future means a lesser proportion of conservative female votes.

Having children out of wedlock is no longer taboo, and many women don’t believe children need fathers. Plus, as Regnerus notes, marriage is becoming unobtainable for many working-class people. All this means that, provided we can still fund them, social welfare programs in the future are likely to make a greater proportion of mothers dependent on the government; that is, fellow taxpayers. But though Uncle Sam can keep your children alive, he can’t give them a father, a sad reality that the condition of the black family, with its 74 percent illegitimacy rate, makes abundantly clear. There is a huge literature showing that children who have both parents do better in every area of life than children raised by one parent. Of course, however, nobody can make women change their minds who regard fathers as dispensable.
It is important to understand that when it comes to gender equality, we are very much in uncharted waters. We hear a lot these days about women in the workplace, yet the state of the family, and of children, doesn’t get remotely comparable media attention. Still, we don’t know whether a culture in which most mothers and fathers have to work full-time, while their children are effectively raised by other people, can last, let alone flourish. Both Europe and America have been seriously altered by the professionalization of women, while the U.S. does not have a replacement-level birth rate, and of European countries only Iceland does. The time is not far off, perhaps, when people realize that, like the loss of religion, the loss of traditional gender roles entails the death of peoples.

Besides the poor state of the family, another reason to doubt the value of equality is its tendency to debase and even obliterate higher values. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” he meant that no man had a justification for ruling over another. Moral concepts are not static, however, so that legal sense of equality has morphed into the vague belief that all people are equal in some ultimate sense. It is this that makes equality so pernicious. “He who seeks equality between unequals seeks an absurdity,” said Spinoza. It was not for nothing that men as different as Samuel Johnson, Thomas Carlyle, and Friedrich Nietzsche all had contempt for democracy and equal rights. For they knew these things function to level everyone down to a base, common plane. In time, historical memory suffers: People forget, or never learn, why a man such as George Washington or Robert E. Lee merits reverence. They see no one and nothing to revere. So they do not know what reverence is, and they do not revere at all. Quite a price to pay for equality.

February 19, 2019 MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey The Smollett “Racism” Case and Tucker Carlson: One More Faked Episode Pushed by the Left...