Who are the worst dead conservative writers?

William Buckley would be my choice. (I have long used the term “Buckleyite” to describe the various phalanges of his far flung array of “conservative” groups. It’s a term that has been in public usage since the 1960s.)

Robert Welch — not Ayn Rand — would be runner up.

Together, Buckley and Welch pretty much closed the door on any adult discussion of really serious matters like race and Jewish issues.

Buckley — a CIA agent — cornered the market on the more inhibited self-identified as “high brow” element.

Welch — surrounded by Jews and financed by them — worked a different market: people who were more gutsy and less constrained by published opinion.

The idea that Buckley as an agent of the System’s political police was going to “stop history in its tracks and tell it to turn around” (to use his self-description of National Review) is something only the hopelessly naive could entertain.

Re Mr. Welch, young people are probably too dismissive of the John Birch Society. JBS gobbled up and wasted probably well over 100 million dollars. In its heyday it was not what it later became — a collection of marginalized people of little influence.

Chief Justice Rehnquist was a John Birch Society member back in the early 60s. That this little factoid didn’t become an issue in his confirmation hearings or in the media tells you that the System had a soft spot in its heart for him. And wisely so. In one of his opinions as an aside he went out of his way to say that he thought Beauharhais vs. Illinois was good law. This was a Supreme Court decision in 1952 that upheld a Canada-style law in Illinois making it a crime to say something that exposed an ethnic group or race up public contempt. Beauharnais (that may not be the exact name) was convicted and jailed for publishing statistics on the differential venereal disease rates between Whites and Blacks. Read more

Prime Minister David Cameron on his visit to Amritsar’s Golden Temple

When is an apology not an apology? When it is the British government offering “deep regret” for the supposed misdeeds of its imperial forefathers. The latest mea culpa comes from Prime Minister David Cameron who has apologised to the Sikh community for Britain’s supposed role during the massacre at their holiest shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar during a hostage crisis in 1985.

This came as a surprise to everyone, including most Sikhs, who were unaware of any British involvement when the Indian army raided the temple during the clashes which took place nearly forty years after Indian independence.

But Prime Minister Cameron has insisted that yes indeed there is something to apologise over. His civil servants had been rooting through the archives and had come up with something suitably incriminating. It turns out that a single British officer was dispatched to the scene at the time of the stand-off and his advice was ignored. So that was the extent of our “colonial interference” on that occasion. Cue fulsome apology. Read more

Bill O’Reilly happens to be on while I’m at the gym (obviously I need an excuse to watch him), so I sometimes tune in  to make the time go by a little faster.  He is probably seen by most people as a conservative—which is why he is so poisonous. Right now he is plugging the immigration surge/amnesty bill as good politics (all those low-income, uneducated, benefits-hungry immigrants our economy so desperately needs can hardly wait to vote Republican out of gratitude for passing the bill), much to the delight of Sen. Marco Rubio. After all, he is looking out for you—never mind that it will add 30-40 million non-White Americans in the next ten years and who knows how many more given that, as in the past, whatever draconian enforcement provisions end up in the bill as sops to the Republicans will not be implemented, especially considering that the 90% apprehension requirement has been abandoned.  The Democrats would love to get the big surge in numbers by agreeing to stricter enforcement that they know full well will never happen.

(O’Reilly recently debated Laura Ingraham on immigration, Ingraham laughing at his naivete in supposing that the likes of Obama and Napolitano will secure the border no matter what the law says.  O’Reilly countered masterfully by saying he trusted Sen. John McCain[!]. )

O’Reilly does a much better job of looking after himself. The last part of his show is basically an infomercial plugging his books and personal appearances. He is nothing if not a money-making machine. His money-grubbing is so blatant that it always amazes me that he is so popular. Why aren’t people offended by his obvious greed?

A segment he  did on Salamishah Tillet (June 18) caught my attention because of what it says about the “conservative” mass media on race. Tillet is an Assistant Professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania who, in O’Reilly’s words, put on “an incredible display of racial hatred on national television.” Tillet talked about the “moral panic—a fear of the end of Whiteness” due to “a decreasing White majority.” The result is that Whites are circling the wagons by opposing late-term abortion. Apparently, her idea is that these Whites see late-term abortion as a way of attacking the embattled White race because the bodies of White women are “crucial”  in “reproducing Whiteness, White supremacy, White privilege.”

 O’Reilly’s guest, one Leslie Miller who is described as a “liberal talk show host,” rejects Tillet’s argument but says she is well aware that the “White Aryan Resistance, skinheads, etc.” are concerned about the end of majority  White America. O’Reilly makes no objection.
Read more