Sunday, February 25, 2018

February 25, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

Our Educational System has become a Major Weapon in the Effort to Destroy Western Christian Civilization

 The Assault of Critical Race Theory conjoined with Cultural Marxism


This morning I would like to let a good friend and my former colleague and superior at the North Carolina State Archives take center stage [I do not give his name here, but you may find it by accessing this discussion online]. I forward on to you a portion of his initial “message to friends” that he sent out on Sunday, February 25, with an attached OpEd piece that showed up in The [Raleigh] News & Observer [Friday, February 23], by one Professor John Biewen, who is Audio Program Director at the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Professor Biewen is illustrative of the wide influence—I would say stranglehold—that what is termed “Critical Race Theory” [CRT] now exercises over academia, most especially in our college law schools, and in departments of English and Comparative Literature (but also now embedded in most other liberal arts disciplines, including sociology, history and philosophy).

As my former colleague indicates and describes it in his short introduction, CRT basically begins with—posits—that “historic white racism and oppression” and “white privilege and supremacy” are “givens” in Western Christian society, historic realities that characterize and have shaped our history. They are ingrained and innate in “whiteness,” and thus any remediation must be radical and revolutionary, essentially tearing them out by the very root. And thus, the old classical “liberal” idea of “equality” and “equal justice” and “merit” (as remedies) must be completely redefined.

Instead, reaching this new brand of “equality” must entail and require, among other actions: reparations for endless past injustices, criminalization of what is deemed “hate speech,” and special compensatory privileges (extreme affirmative action) extended to designated minorities, that is, the ones that CRT designates as having been “oppressed” by the “white power structure.”

In other words, in layman’s language: the boat has tilted so far in one direction for so many centuries, that now it must be (forcibly and extremely) titled in the other direction for an indeterminate time. Old slogans of the older classic liberal idea of “equality” are completely insufficient.

In academia, on our college campuses, this means the suppression of anything deemed to be “hate speech,” and special preferences (NOT based on merit) for those designated and formerly “oppressed” minorities, the transformation of school curricula to reflect these CRT theories and ideological goals, and the connivance and at least tacit cooperation of college administrators.

In a real sense, CRT dictates a kind of totalitarianism, academically and culturally. Since the “white oppressors” by definition incarnate “evil,” in fact they deserve no respect or real consideration. As they have “oppressed” the downtrodden peoples of the Third World for centuries, they must be made to give way, to cede their power and authority, to continually grovel and apologize profusely for their past “sins” (which, in actuality, can never be fully expiated). In short, they must now experience the brunt of a furious, perhaps at times violent, ongoing revolution and a resultant deprivation of their “privileges.”

CRT now, in fact, dominates (even if not named) most all our national conversations about “race and racism,” and a “sister” theorization of radical feminism operates and dominates equally in the area of discussion over the “role” and “rights” of women in our society (and, thus, “historic male oppression and supremacy”).

As CRT is manifested in just about every discussion, in just about every question that arises these days concerning in any way race or racial questions, both national political parties now buy into its template. The Democrats now fully embrace it as their governing narrative; the Republicans, while often restless about its more radical manifestations, still acknowledge de facto its significance and power, and, normally, do not challenge its intellectual hegemony and control in society.

Want to discover the actual basis for the unbridled and frenzied hatred of Confederate monuments—or of the hatred of stricter voting laws—or of the attacks on perceived “police brutality” (directed at blacks)—or of countless other assaults on envisioned examples of “white oppression” and “white privilege,” then CRT is the explanation.

And it is the conjunction of CRT with Cultural Marxist theory about culture—and the gradual undermining and transformation of traditional society—that has produced what we see on most college campuses (and increasingly in public schools), and what we observe now reigning triumphant in Hollywood, what is constantly broadcast via the Mainstream Media, what permeates our politics, and, yes, in how our very language is being shaped, censored and abused.

It is, in short, a multifaceted Revolution against both God and Man, against the Divine Positive Law and against the very laws of God-given Nature. It is an advance panzer unit of the “rough beast” (to use William Butler Yeats’ poetic imagery), of the Anti-Christ, itself. And above all it must be met in spiritual battle, but it also must be opposed on every front resolutely, totally and to the very death.

Recall the lines from Robert Bolt’s “The Man for All Seasons,” when St. Thomas More was able to cross-examine Richard Rich (his lying accuser): “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?”

We weigh what is at stake; we cannot sacrifice our souls “for Wales.” We must stand against these minions of Evil and send them back to the lower reaches of Hell from whence they came.

And that means radical educational reform—small steps like gaining control of the Board of Governors at the UNC system are just small counter-revolutions.

My friend Dr. Clyde Wilson suggests that our public colleges (and probably many of our public schools) should be napalmed. Irrespective of that increasingly appealing solution, privatization of our public education and an ironclad insistence that our colleges return to their original mission (even if that means firing every professor on the faculty, before vetting and rehiring some of them back) should be de riguer a constant goal.

And foremost, we must at the beginning recognize that the very concept of “equality,” itself, the old classic liberal totem that has regulated much of American life and dictated American ideals since the conclusion of the War Between the States, is not what our country’s Founders envisaged, and that they understood that the liberal idea of “equality” (whether of result or opportunity) violated God-given human nature and the natural order of things. That idea easily gives way to the perversions of CRT.

In short, our politicians and leaders should be reading and quoting John C. Calhoun (and Robert Lewis Dabney), and avoiding Abe Lincoln like the plague….

The alternative is the end of our culture and of our civilization.

Now, let me turn this installment over to my friend’s items: first, his introduction (slightly edited), followed by Professor Biewen’s demonic screed (and then a few more comments by my friend), and then a critical essay from the independent Harvard Law Record (an excellent explanation).

Dr. Boyd D. Cathey


Dear friends, 

I attach an editorial by John Biewen, a Duke University documentary studies professor. I am sure that it will receive different reactions from you.  (....) Mr. Biewen clearly reflects the influence of "critical race theory" (CRT)--with its stereotypical concepts of "whiteness," "white privilege," and "structural racism." 

In the academy CRT is found in law, education, political science, and women's and ethnic studies. At UNC-CH, CRT is taught in the law school and in English and Comparative Literature.  Of course, academic freedom allows--as it should--CRT to be taught in the market place of ideas, but one must ask if those departments offer any intellectual viewpoints to the contrary? 

A quick primer on CRT can be found in Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 3rd. ed., New York University Press, 2017. it is an easy read. Basically, CRT rejects the classic liberalism of color blindness and promotes race conscious remediation against what is perceived to be pervasive white supremacy and racism throughout our society. Remedies include reparations, criminalization of "hate" speech, and affirmative action, and so forth.

Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals calls critical race theorists the "lunatic core" of "radical legal egalitarianism." He has further written:

What is most arresting about critical race theory is turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal—designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. (From a section on CRT with citations in Wikipedia.)  

In case Wikipedia is deemed to be too light weight, I attach an article from the Harvard Law Record on CRT. My question is whether CRT--as an instrument of anti-racism--is actually racist.



Raleigh News & Observer

Seeing White

BY JOHN BIEWEN  February 23, 2018 09:42 AM   Updated February 23, 2018 01:14 PM

San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich, asked the other day about the importance of marking Black History Month, noted that the National Basketball Association is “made up of a lot of black guys.” More importantly, he said, “we live in a racist country that hasn’t figured it out yet.”

This sort of candor has won Popovich deep respect among people of color while prompting consternation among some white folks. In another remark that went viral last fall, Popovich said, “We [white people] still have no clue of what being born white means.”

He’s right. Most of us white Americans have little understanding of whiteness. Where did it come from? Who invented the notion of being white, and why? How does whiteness function in the world?

In a seven-hour podcast series, “Seeing White”, I dove into those questions along with fellow journalist Chenjerai Kumanyika and with help from leading scholars of race.

Not only do we learn that race is man-made, we tell the story of its invention in Europe and we name names. We explore how notions of whiteness and blackness were further refined in Colonial America as our strikingly cruel brand of chattel slavery took shape. We show how racial science reinforced racist ideas well into the 20th century.

“Seeing White” struck a chord. It got our modest, independent podcast on some Best-of-2017 lists, and downloads are approaching a million. It seems there’s a hunger in these troubling times for a deeper understanding of how we got here.

America’s default narrative on race goes roughly like this: The United States was the first nation founded not on tribalism but on universalist ideals, and that makes us exceptional.

True, we’ll acknowledge, our Euro-American forebears got off on the wrong foot with slavery and the coercive extraction of Native land. But everybody was racist back then. Our inevitable redemption was written into our national DNA in those founding documents: “All men are created equal.” And sure enough, we fixed slavery in the 1860s and Jim Crow a century later, and even elected a black president. We’ve still got a few stray bigots out there – backward Southerners, mostly – but racism isn’t much of a thing anymore so people should get over the past.

That’s our story and we’re sticking to it, apparently. The problem? It’s wrong.

In fact, overt white supremacy is painfully recent. For about 350 of our 400 years of U.S. and colonial history, white dominance was codified in law. Some black children attacked while integrating Southern schools are just now reaching retirement age. People who screamed hate at those children are alive and voting. There are black Americans alive today whose grandparents were born in bondage.

As for those “few” stray bigots? Turns out there are more than a few. Those chanting Nazis and Klansmen in Charlottesville; the string of white supremacist terrorists, including Dylann Roof; the many Trump supporters who, studies show, voted more on resentment toward people of color and immigrants than on “economic anxiety.”

Nor is racism a distinctly Southern problem. It’s an all-over-America thing. Anti-black racism was the default attitude of white Americans, North and South, before, during and after the Civil War. Today, the most segregated cities are mostly in the North.

White supremacy today is not mainly about the guys with Tiki torches. It’s about power, and systemic patterns of racial advantage that were baked into our institutions – institutions that we’ve never fundamentally reformed.

The first Congress decreed in 1790 that only white people need apply for naturalized citizenship. Ever since, government largesse directed mostly to white people – the Homestead Act, federally-backed home loans, the GI Bill – dwarfs the more recent Affirmative Action programs granting access to people of color (and white women).

The results prove we’ve never really changed: The deep, racialized inequities in our schools and criminal justice system. The studies that show racial bias by employers depending on whether the applicant’s name is Connor or Darnell. The dramatic wealth gap between white and black Americans.

Whiteness, like blackness and the other “races,” is a fiction, invented to justify and explain exploitation. That fiction and its outgrowth, white supremacy, were central organizing principles in the building of the United States.

If white Americans don’t work to overturn the racist structures that our forebears built, then white supremacy will keep reproducing itself and we’re effectively in collusion with it.

These truths are difficult for many of us to accept, as Gregg Popovich said. But they’re not hard to see if we’ll only open our eyes.


[A few online COMMENTS by my PhD/attorney friend:]

Wow, critical race theory is alive and well at Duke University!

One wishes that Mr. Biewen would have made some concrete suggestions on how to end “structural racism” beyond telling all whites to be ashamed of themselves and 'fess up. In any case, if "white supremacy is . . . about power, and systemic patterns of racial advantage,” its practitioners surely are doing a poor job of it—given the legions of whites who are unemployed, strung out on opioids, and mired in hopelessness.

One also wonders how this academic, who makes a study of everyday life and the conditions of ordinary folks, would not know that, as an ethnic group, whites do not enjoy the highest income, are not the most highly educated, do not have the lowest crime rates, and indeed constitute the largest group in poverty in the U.S.—albeit not proportionately. He needs to take his video camera and interview some of the many sunburnt, wispy, and ragged whites out begging at highway interchanges.

All people need to be treated on their own merits and not according to ancestry--even the white kid in poverty who is automatically denied a Gates Millennium Scholars grant (to help poor youths go to college) because of his or her "race." And should Harvard and other schools be denying young people of Asian ancestry admission because they are already over represented as high achievers (including being 20 percent of Harvard's entering class of 2015)?

To assume that African Americans are helpless pawns in a cauldron of white racism is to look past their own capabilities and remarkable achievements throughout this nation as mayors, police chiefs, corporate CEOs, members of Congress, state legislators, governors, judges, educators, chief of staff of the armed forces, secretary of state, and even president of the United States…..


Racism, Justified: A Critical Look at Critical Race Theory

Posted by Bill Barlow on February 29, 2016 in Opinion

By now, most of you have heard of Critical Race Theory. Its narrative, ideology, and even vocabulary have become a familiar refrain. “Systemic oppression,” “institutional racism,” and “white privilege” have become common topics of debate. At Harvard Law, a group of protestors calls for $5 million and three tenure-track faculty to establish a program on Critical Race Theory at HLS. But, beneath the demands, there remains a lack of clarity about what Critical Race Theory actually means.

Critical Race Theory Calls for Permanent, Codified Racial Preferences

At the heart of Critical Race Theory lies the rejection of colorblind meritocracy. “Formal equality overlooks structural disadvantages and requires mere nondiscrimination or “equal treatment.”[1] Instead, Critical Race Theory calls for “aggressive, color conscious efforts to change the way things are.”[2] It contemplates, “race-conscious decision making as a routine, non-deviant mode, a more or less permanent norm”[3] to be used in distributing positions of wealth, prestige, and power.[4]

Critical Race Theorists wish to move beyond the narrow scope of current American affirmative action policies, “which strangles affirmative action principles by protecting the property interest of whiteness.”[5] Instead, Critical Race Theorists argue for a “conception of affirmative action where existing distributions of property will be modified by rectifying unjust loss and inequality.”[6] “Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute; rather, they will be considered against a societal requirement for affirmative action.”[7] “In essence this conception of affirmative action is moving towards reallocation of power.”[8]Race-conscious decision making is necessary to “deliberately structure institutions so that communities and social classes share wealth and power”[9] where race is seen as “a rough but adequate proxy for connection with a subordinated community.”[10]

Meanwhile, Critical Race Theory treats the idea of meritocracy—or the idea, in this context, that the law can and should treat all equally regardless of the color of their skin—as “a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege”[11] This “myth of meritocracy” is merely a tool to perpetuate the existing power structures that are based on white supremacy and white privilege. Thus, the myth of meritocracy marginalizes people of color.[12] The only alternative, then, is to use racial preferences to “delegitimize the property interest of whiteness—to dismantle the actual and expected privilege that has attended ‘white’ skin.”[13]

Critical Race Theory Rejects Liberalism

Along with meritocracy, Critical Race Theory “rejects the traditions of liberalism.”[14] As described by Critical Race theorist Richard Delgado, “[Critical Race theorists] are suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely rights.”[15] “Particularly some of the older, more radical Critical Race Theory scholars…believe that moral and legal rights are apt to do the right holder much less good than we like to think.”[16] “In our system, rights are almost always procedural (such as due process) rather than substantive (for example, to food, housing, or education).”[17] “Moreover, rights are said to be alienating. They separate people from each other ‘stay away, I’ve got my rights’—rather than encouraging them to form close, respectful communities.”[18]

As a result, Critical Race theorists tend to be less protective of traditional liberal rights, most notably those involving speech. Critical Race theorists have called for “tort remedies for racist speech[19] and some theorists believe that “formal criminal and administrative sanction—public as opposed to private prosecution—is also an appropriate response to racist speech.”[20] These debates, once academic in nature, have become increasingly salient with the recent wave of campus protests.[21] Concerns about free speech are interpreted by some Critical Race theorists as an expression of “white fragility,” which is “in and of itself an expression of white supremacy.”[22]

Critical Race Theory’s Narrative Approach to Truth

Critical Race Theory is uniquely reliant on narrative to substantiate its claims. “An essential tenant of Critical Race Theory is counter storytelling.”[23] Narrative analysis can be used “to reveal the circular, self-serving nature of particular legal doctrines or rules.”[24] “Most mainstream scholars embrace universalism over particularity, and abstract principles and ‘the rule of law’ over perspectivism.”[25] “Clashing with this more traditional view, Critical Race Theory emphasizes the opposite, in what has been termed the ‘call to context.’”

“For Critical Race Theorists, general laws may be appropriate in some contexts (such as, perhaps, trusts and estates, or highway speed limits), but political and moral discourse is not one of them.”[26] Narratives need not necessarily be true to prove their point. “In order to appraise the contradictions and inconsistencies that pervade the all too real world of racial oppression, I have chosen in this book the tools not only of reason but of unreason, of fantasy.”[27]

Narratives are employed to shore up other basic premises of Critical Race Theory, such as the notion that “racism is a permanent component of American life” and that racism continues to play a “dominant role” in American society.[28] For instance, Critical Race Theorists use individual narratives of hate crime incidents to explore the import and impact as hate speech in order to argue for the inadequacy of current punishment.[29] Salient to the current campus debate, campus protestors often employ narratives to argue that Harvard today engages in “systemic racism and exclusion.”[30]

A Brief Critique

Critical Race theory offers a potent mix: rejecting racial neutrality in the law, rejecting the liberal emphasis on individual rights, rejecting the possibility of objectively neutral legal analysis and embracing “the tools not only of reason but of unreason.”[31] It is an unusual combination for a theory originating on the far left.

If Critical Race theory were just about affirmative action, perhaps we could let such indulgences slide. But Critical Race theory not only directs how to structure the university, but also how to structure the relation of the individual to the state. Racially-based taxes, racially-based employment quotas, racially-based redistributions of wealth: none would be beyond the theoretical horizon of Critical Race theory. All are justified by an appeal to inadequate racial justice, an appeal that can neither be proved nor disproved, an appeal that can just as easily be used for naked racial subordination. All fall within a context where speech labeled as “hurtful” and “racist” could be punishable by law, and opponents of the racial regime would be silenced.

To teach Critical Race Theory is to teach the latest in a sad line of theoretical justifications for legally-codified racism. As a proponent of academic freedom, I have no problem with this, just as I would have no problem for studying the legal justifications for other regimes that have codified race into law. But let’s not pretend that we are doing anything else, and let’s certainly not mandate the teaching of any such ideology.

Bill Barlow is 3rd year Law.

[1] Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 289

[2] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: an introduction (2012), 49

[3] Kennedy, Duncan, “A Cultural Pluralist Case for Affirmative Action in Legal Academia.Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 164

[4] Guinier, Lani, “Groups, Representation, and Race-Conscious Districting: A Case of the Emperor’s Clothes”. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 215, making the case that “race is as effective as geography in functioning as a political proxy.” The article defends certain principles behind race-conscious districting. This article does not, however, call for explicit transfer of political power on the basis of race, only race conscious decision making in districting.

[5] Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290

[6] Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290

[7] Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290

[8] Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290

[9] Kennedy, Duncan, “A Cultural Pluralist Case for Affirmative Action in Legal Academia.Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 162

[10] Kennedy, Duncan, “A Cultural Pluralist Case for Affirmative Action in Legal Academia.Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 162

[11] “What is Critical Race Theory?” Form the UCLA School of Public Affairs, see

[12] See “What is Critical Race Theory?” Form the UCLA School of Public Affairs, see See also Godsey, Mark A., “The Myth of Meritocracy, and the Silencing of Minority Voices: The Need for Diversity on America’s Law Reviews” (1995). Faculty Articles and Other Publications. Paper 84.

[13] Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness As Property”. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 288

[14] See “What is Critical Race Theory?” Form the UCLA School of Public Affairs, see See also Anthology, xix-xx, on the divide between Critical Race Theory and traditional liberalism.

[15] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: an introduction (2012),50

[16] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: an introduction (2012),50

[17] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: an introduction (2012),50

[18] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: an introduction (2012),51

[19] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: an introduction (2012),47

[20] Mari J. Matsuda, Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2321 (1989).

[21] For a short review of some recent conflicts between protestors on issues of free speech, see “Fascism at Yale”

[22] “Free speech, Black lives, and white fragility” by Bennett Carpenter, Duke Chronicle, January 19, 2016.

[23] “DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D.. (2004). “So When It Comes out, They Aren’t That Surprised That It Is There”: Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis of Race and Racism in Education. Educational Researcher33(5), 27.

[24]Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: THE CUTTING EDGE (2000) xvii

[25] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: THE CUTTING EDGE (2000) xvii

[26] Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory: THE CUTTING EDGE (2000) xvii

[27] Derrick Bell, And we are not saved: the elusive quest for racial justice (1987). 5.

[28] “DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D.. (2004). “So When It Comes out, They Aren’t That Surprised That It Is There”: Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis of Race and Racism in Education. Educational Researcher33(5), 27

[29] “DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D.. (2004). “So When It Comes out, They Aren’t That Surprised That It Is There”: Using Critical Race Theory as a Tool of Analysis of Race and Racism in Education. Educational Researcher33(5), 28

[30]See for the point that Reclaim Harvard Law believes that Harvard engages in systemic racism and exclusion. The import of personal narratives to this conclusion is evident in the community meetings as well as personal discussions with members of the protest movement.

[31] Derrick Bell, And we are not saved: the elusive quest for racial justice (1987). 5.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

February 22, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

The School Shooting “Publicity Fraud” and Gun-Banning Ideology: Establishment Conservatism’s AWOL Attitude


Two seemingly unrelated stories intersect this morning:

First, there is the very curious role of a student at that high school in Broward County, Florida, where the recent tragic shootings took place: one David Hogg. If you viewed any television after the massacre, you would have seen Hogg, eloquently describing the situation and appealing for strict gun control…and on CNN, bashing President Trump and staunchly defending the FBI for its handling of the Nikolas Cruz case.

But that wasn’t all. Come to find out that there was video footage of Hogg, prior to his on camera appearances on CNN and elsewhere, practicing his lines—and not just trying to remember what he was going to say (that many of us would do), but repeating exact wording and phrases, as if he had been instructed on what to repeat. As I watched that short video clip, instantly I thought: “He’s been coached—he’s acting. Look at his movements, the way he holds his head, how he practices placing emphasis on certain words and phrases…It’s like he’s preparing to go on stage in some theatrical production.”

The right wing Internet site Gateway Pundit thought so as well, and on Monday they placed the video clip online, and it “went viral,” as the current descriptive term is applied.

And then, all Hell broke loose.

Gateway Pundit, like other right wing and conservative organizations, had been scheduled to have a presence at the national meeting of CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, currently happening in the Washington DC area. But on Wednesday, Gateway Pundit’s head, Jim Hoft, received news that his organization was “disinvited” to CPAC.

“We posted this article on Monday evening and received national headlines.

Chelsea Clinton disapproved of the post. And on Wednesday I learned that I was kicked out of CPAC [Conservative Political Conference, which is having its national meeting this week] because my writer Lucian Wintrich posted this article.

I must clear something up though. I actually know about the earlier discussions that were going on at CPAC. I know they did not want Gateway Pundit to participate in any panel at the conference. They believed some awful lies from GOP elites (and the liberal media) that The Gateway Pundit was a hate site that supported racism and white supremacism. I spoke directly with the person today who was helping to spread that lie.

I do think it is important to note once again, since the CPAC organizers have NO IDEA who we are, that the during election The Gateway Pundit was the fourth most influential conservative news source in America.

Following the 2016 election Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review funded research (with money from the Soros Open Society) to find out what happened to their dear Hillary. They discovered that our website packed a punch.

Since that time The Gateway Pundit has been shadow-banned, blocked, smeared, sued and abused by liberals as well as GOP elites. And our audience continues to grow despite the constant attacks. I was willing to share my story to CPAC panel but they did not want me to attend their annual convention.”

But by no means was that the end of it. The video was still “out there,” and the incriminating video evidence that might raise questions had been viewed by over 200,00o viewers on YouTube. Something had to be done…and, sure enough, the operators of YouTube (one more adjunct of the Deep State, no less) decided to pull the video and ban it [I am listing the Web site, but it may not be available now]. No need to raise uncomfortable questions and divert attention from the ongoing narrative that “guns must be banned” and “Trump is the devil incarnate.”

Here is how the Far Left AOL and The New York Daily News recounted this process of “protecting us” from information that might raise even the slightest questions or doubts about David Hogg or the spinning gun-control narrative []:

“A top trending video on YouTube suggesting an outspoken survivor of the Parkland school shooting is actually a “crisis actor” has been taken off the video platform. “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on harassment and bullying,” a note replacing the clip read Wednesday afternoon.  In the days after suspected gunman Nikolas Cruz opened fire in the halls of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, David Hogg has demanded government officials consider stricter gun laws. The 17-year-old student’s candid critiques of the U.S. gun violence epidemic landed him at the center of a smear campaign, sparked in part by a YouTube video titled, “DAVID HOGG THE ACTOR”…. Still, conspiracy theorists held up the interview as well as clips of Hogg practicing lines for a television appearance to suggest the teen is a “crisis actor” — or a person who follows tragedies and high-profile situations as they happen.”

But in defending Hogg AOL and The Daily News were also forced to admit that this was not the first time that Hogg had been involved in “newsworthy publicity” events. There was an earlier situation when Hogg was interviewed after an incident on a California beach, a confrontation between a lifeguard and beachgoers. “We felt threatened,” Hogg said of their encounter with the lifeguard. “He seemed unpredictable.” And then, “The Eagle Eye [his high school newspaper] contains several mentions of the teen, who interviewed Rep. Ted Deutsch last month in his quest to become a professional journalist. He and [Emma] Gonzalez [who always seems to appear with him!] are also mentioned in an article from last December about a weather balloon project and both students have also served as leaders in several capacities at the Parkland school.”

And additionally, we find that Hogg’s father is…an FBI agent!

Here is how Gateway Pundit unraveled the account:

“Immediately, these students-turned-activists threw up some red flags.

In what was initially as an incredibly odd move for a high school student, Hogg vehemently defended the FBI and placed the blame squarely on the President’s shoulders…. before admitting that his father was in the FBI.

Two survivors of the Florida school shooting slam politicians' responses to the massacre, calling them "disgusting" and "pathetic" 

“I think it’s disgusting, personally. My father’s a retired FBI agent and the FBI are some of the hardest working individuals I have ever seen in my life,” proclaimed David Hogg to CNN. “It’s wrong that the president is blaming them for this.”

David Hogg, one of the acting students recruited by the same minds behind the anti-Trump Women's March, is having trouble reciting his lines:

— Lucian B. Wintrich (@lucianwintrich) February 21, 2018

Continuing, Hogg demonstrated his complete lack of American civics knowledge. A clueless Hogg appeared unaware of the fact that the President is not ‘in control’ of each department and branch of government, but must work and negotiate with them. Regardless, Hogg pushed the notion that Trump is in charge of the FBI.

“He can’t put that off on them. He is in charge of them and these people, what they love to do is push this off on bureaucracy and say it’s not them,” he said. “He is in charge of the FBI … the executive branch is supposed to enforce laws and as such, President Trump is in charge of that and the FBI.”

Anyone who has been following the news could tell you that many in the FBI have been working against the president from the start, with the most notable case involving collusion between the FBI, Obama Administration, and the Clinton campaign to push the false ‘verification’ of the junk Steele Dossier. It has also been widely reported that the FBI received tips well in advance of the Florida school shooting and decided, for whatever reason, not to act.

The fault for this tragedy lies squarely on the shoulders of the FBI, who could have prevented this back in January.

Adding to the “credibility” of Hogg, in a recently uncovered early cut from one of his interviews it appears he was heavily coached on lines and is merely reciting a script. Frequently seen in the footage mouthing the lines he should be reciting. Hogg becomes flustered multiple times, is seen apologizing, and asking for re-takes.

Why would the child of an FBI agent be used as a pawn for anti-Trump rhetoric and anti-gun legislation? Because the FBI is only looking to curb YOUR Constitutional rights and INCREASE their power. We’ve seen similar moves by them many times over. This is just another disgusting example of it.”

And this is where our second item intersects with this first story. For although CPAC’s organizers have disinvited Gateway Pundit from attending—due to the unleashed insanity over “gun violence” and the frantic desire to “do something,” with thousands of traumatized and brain-corrupted (by their teachers and parental neglect or malfeasance) students marching in the streets, they did invite to the conference this year Nigel Farage, leader of the BREXIT effort in Great Britain (and former leader of the UK Independence Party) and Marion-Marechal Le Pen, niece of Marine Le Pen, who heads the anti-immigrant, anti-EU National Front Party in France.

Well, this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for the Neoconservative National Review, in particular the pot-smoking, pot-bellied Jonah Goldberg, who thundered his disapproval in a series of messages to CPAC organizer, Matt Schlapp [ ]. And Goldberg was joined by others of the Establishment, “respectable” “conservative movement,” including various Fox pundits (e.g., former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen), who supported the socialist-statist-globalist Emmanual Macron during the last French presidential election.

The logic for Goldberg et al is so—so—very profound: “Those Le Pen women represent a political party, the National Front, that is…shudder!...nationalist, populist, anti-European Union, anti-immigrant and insufficiently ‘capitalist,’ and thus not ‘conservative,’ so, therefore, we reject it and supported the socialist globalist Macron in the last French election!”

Does it not remind you of the same kind of “reasoning” that Never Trumpers Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, and David French (all at the pseudo-conservative National Review) vomited up in the lead up to the 2016 elections? And that were echoed by The Weekly Standard, various GOP “establishment” slime creatures, and others, anxious to maintain their seats at the Deep State table and sucking at the Deep State hind tits?

This is the kind of ersatz “conservatism” that is being passed off today (by the dominant Neocons) as “conservative gospel” but that only confirms the power of the Potomac swamp. I’ve written about this previously, and my good friend Paul Gottfried has authored three significant volumes which examine the subject in detail (i.e., After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, and The Strange Death of Marxism), and above all, Conservatism in America (2007)…and I should mention other scholarly offerings, including studies by Drs. Claes Ryn and Gary Dorrien.

CPAC director Matt Schlapp’s defense of inviting Le Pen, fascinatingly, was rather tepid. Unwilling to actually defend the revival of a truly traditionalist and nationalist “conservatism” in France (as exemplified by the National Front), he was compelled to dissimulate and declare that Marion Le Pen was a “fresh neo-liberal voice” that CPAC needed to hear—an obvious dodge, an attempt to stave off furious establishment Neocons like Goldberg, still licking their wounds over the rejection of the flaccid and intellectually corrupt and the ever-sliding-to-the-left “conservative movement” in the 2016 primaries. (Goldberg, by the way, embraces same sex marriage, transgenderism, etc., but is presented as one of “America’s leading conservative voices.”)

And that brings us back again to the first story. CPAC is, apparently, trying—as it has done in the past—to steer something of a “middle course,” a trajectory to not upset (most of) its donor base, mostly fat cat GOP-types who favor open borders and don’t give a hoot about who marries whom, as long as the dollars and cheap labor keep flowing in—while not scaring off newer, more Trumpian folks whom it hopes to inveigle in its web.

Inviting “nationalist conservatives” like Le Pen and Farage is okay, as long as their appearances are pitched—disguised, if you will—as “broadening CPAC’s reach.”

But that “broadening” has limits…and questioning the actors—like David Hogg—in the current gun hysteria goes too far for them.

The “conservative movement,” as we see it and know it today, is rotten to its core. Four decades of infiltration into the movement by those ex-Trotskyite Marxists, the Neoconservatives (who brought with them a Trotskyite praxis and intellectual framework on “equality,” “racism,” and “feminism”), and who displaced an earlier genuinely traditional, anti-egalitarian Right wing (with figures like my mentor, Russell Kirk; Southern conservative Mel Bradford; sociologist Robert Nisbet; Catholic traditionalist Frederick Wilhelmsen; and political leaders like Jesse Helms, and, yes, Barry Goldwater), has had incalculably  disastrous results: Primarily, continued advance of the “farther Left,” enabled by a miserably inept conservatism that in many ways shares presumptions about equality, race, gender, and globalism that its supposed enemies also possess.

You don’t win political AND cultural wars basing your action on postulates also undergirding the philosophy of your enemy, or by compromising or by banning real opposition to the Deep State and its zealous globalist minions and the managerial class.

This, indeed, is what “draining the swamp” is all about—and we aren’t talking about just a few buckets full of fetid water.  

Politically, it’s time to “clean out the Augean stables,” as the hero Hercules was directed to do in Greek mythology. Or, as they say down in Johnston County: “Time to show the bastards the door!” Dump the Establishment GOPers, cancel your National Review subscriptions, and support “Deplorable” candidates who will change this nation’s course and who will, yes, “make American great again.”

Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

                                                May 7, 2024     MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey   NEOCONSERVATISM: A SECULARIZED GLOBAL...