Friday, January 11, 2019

The Gay Community's Racism Exposed -- Maybe This Is the Year

This article is worth bookmarking:

If you have not been made aware of what is happening, let me give you a recap. Ed Buck is a mega-donor to Hillary Clinton's campaign and also a leading light of the LGBT leadership. In 2017, police discovered a young black man dead in Buck's home. This month another dead black man was found in his home. Here is what I wrote in August 2017:

I commented on this above. Please take a listen. The racism in the gay community is rampant. I wrote three novels that explored my personal experience with gay racism (Johnson Park, Melville Affair, and Gay Wars). The gay community panned them as terribly written. Even if they were awfully written it is noteworthy that members of the gay community accused me of lying about the racial sex abuse that goes on in the community; they claimed repeatedly online that I authored "porn" or "erotica," to dismiss the problems I was highlighting then.

As early as the 1980s I was exposed to a gay subculture of racially themed BDSM, which went both ways. There were white men who fantasized about being sexual slaves to men of color. Then there were white men who had sick fantasies about tying up and sexually abusing men of color. 

Often when white men fantasized about abusing black or Latino men they combined these fantasies with a fetish for young men of color. Older white men typically had these tastes and wanted to abuse young, even underage, blacks and Latinos.

"Poppers" or amyl nitrates, and stronger drugs, like meth, became necessary sometimes to get young men of color to endure the abusive sex scenes. Often these scenes involved exchange of money between older white men and men of color. When I say this was rampant, I mean it. I saw this subculture in New York City, San Francisco, Miami, and many other cities.

For decades, if you even mentioned this was going on, the gay community closed ranks and accused you of homophobia to silence you.

Ed Buck did not act in a vacuum. His actions formed part of a subculture.

Now is the time to expose what has happened and discuss it openly. 

The gay community has been protected by the press and academia, coddled by gullible heterosexual allies, for far too long. They have been no less guilty than the Catholic community was, of encouraging a culture of secret abuse in their midst.

We need to clean house finally.

I find it repulsive that Ted Lieu, the Asian Democrat politician who recently touted himself as a good Catholic, received large donations from Ed Buck. To express his remorse for what Ed Buck did, he has donated $13,000 to gay causes and $5,000 to black causes.

So he rewarded the gay community for having been complicit in (even guilty of) causing two black men to die.

And then he gave $5,000 to the NAACP, which has been among the weakest when it comes to safeguarding the black civil rights legacy from co-optation by the LGBT lobby. 

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Life After the Conservative Label

I find writer Selwyn Duke relentlessly interesting. He commented to me a few years ago that he had stopped calling himself conservative. I have found others, some but not all tied to the alt-right, also rejecting the label conservative. Roosh of the famous Return of Kings even wrote an entire blog post entitled "Conservatives are losers."

I've wrestled with the question of whether "conservative" is a useful label anymore. During the last few years the question gained greater importance. My beliefs have not changed but my feelings about the notion of a conservative movement have changed. Much of what the conservative movement does fails to advance the conservative movement. Increasingly, the conservative movement has split into two problematic scenarios. 

Scenario 1: Some people under the conservative label lost sight of conservative principles and prioritize simply advancing the organizations they work for, or their own careers. Often they rationalize this by saying that they need to position themselves as spokespeople for conservatism. People in this scenario tend to have many verbal maneuvers that convince people that they are far more devoted to principles than they actually are. For instance, a lot of people I would class in this category vehemently oppose Trump and claim conservatives are abandoning their principles by supporting or even working with  Trump. Most so-called "fake" conservatives are actually more like Never Trumpers: they abandon principles of faith, tradition, and decency by engaging in ad hominem distractions about Trump, neglecting the value of policies that Trump can enact, which others cannot. Also, in many cases the Never Trumpers are not defending pure conservative ideals, but rather protecting conservative organizations against scrutiny and reform. The reality is that the Deep State got deep, in large part, because conservative leaders had hidden deals with liberal leaders. The Trump movement brought added scrutiny to all sides, which is healthy in general regardless of people's labels.

Scenario 2: A second camp of problematic conservatives are the babes in the woods. These are people who genuinely believe in conservative principles and have sincere faith in conservative spokespeople. They just have no realistic plan of how to fight back against the left and think, somehow, that conservatives who get smeared and blacklisted have taken the wrong approach and brought harm upon themselves by making bad choices. This camp of people means well but is simply too gullible to be anything other than a hindrance. They constitute a significant "opportunity cost" in the movement because they place their financial support and work time in the hands of people who abuse them and exploit them, with the result that people who want to champion conservative values and put them into practice do not have the help they need to get things done. 

For many years I perceived these problems in the conservative movement as side issues, minor glitches that did not pose an existential problem. Now I have realized that these are not exceptions to the conservative movement or flaws in it--these are the conservative movement.

The "conservative" label has gradually lost its meaning because in public discussion we hear it so often defined by these two groups.

A massive chasm opens up between the challenges conservatives deal with in their life, typically consisting of cultural intrusions into their family's ability to live out traditional values, and the discussion of the conservative movement, typically consisting of abstract debates about conservative ideas or about policy ideals that nobody believes will ever be put in place. 

We need a new label. Much like shedding the word "gay," a decision to shed the "conservative" label might free us from the implicit suggestion that we have to protect leaders who used the conservative label to enrich themselves at our expense, or policy ideas that have been tried for thirty years and are seemingly destined to fail. 

Saturday, January 5, 2019

David French says Tucker Carlson Gets It Wrong. David French Got It Wrong.

Someone forwarded this to me, by David French:

David French wrote some great articles in the past but increasingly his work has grown tone-deaf. He just doesn't get it.

Here's the short version: Tucker Carlson has gained a lot of attention by pointing to the deeper spiritual crisis in America. Which is so important! At Politicon 2018, the best panel I was on dealt with precisely this. The high suicide rate, spread of marijuana, high amounts of autism and behavioral problems, psychotropic drugs, depression, pornography addiction, and sexual dissatisfaction all point to a reality that only the most sheltered people can miss:

It is not about the economy, stupid. People in America are miserable. The statistics don't mean anything if people are miserable. We saw that during the Obama years so clearly. The statistics said the economy was recovering while we, in our personal lives, found ourselves feeling more desperate, nervous, and alone. The statistics say that children raised by gay couples do splendidly, and then when Brittany Klein and I go out and interview people who had gay parents, we find that they're miserable.

The statistics say that everyone supports trans and gay rights, and then you go out and you talk to people, and they feel freaked out and rejected by people close to them because they can see that sexual radicalism causes harm to individuals and those who care about them. The statistics say that women are making more progress than ever before, and yet you talk to women and they want decent stable men to marry and support them. The statistics say men have all these advantages and then you talk to men and you find them constantly besieged by two weighty pressures: all the old manly obligations to protect people around them, and new obligations to atone for centuries of patriarchy.

The statistics say that colleges are doing well, and then you talk to people and everyone hates everything colleges are doing. Liberals hate colleges for costing so much and being so racist. Conservatives hate colleges for being biased and discriminatory.

White people feel angry. Black people feel angry. Latinos wonder why the heck everyone is screaming at each other.

We're miserable. Tucker Carlson got it right. So what does David French do in response? He quotes statistics at Tucker to say we need to stop complaining. In summary, David French thinks we need to keep electing the same establishment politicians who have kept the policies in place that got us to this misery. We're supposed to focus on vague cultural changes that nobody can take responsibility for, and console ourselves by looking at statistics that deny us the reality of what we experience.

David French's article reminds me of 2015, when my friend Heather Barwick published an article, "Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting" about how painful it was to be raised in a gay home. Sarah Elizabeth Williams in Salon responded in a rebuttal saying Barwick was wrong because the statistics show kids in gay homes are totally happy.

To the devil with statistics. We know what's going on with our lives. This is why Bernie and Donald rose in power and stature. They heard us whereas Hillary and the Republican robots kept giving us statistics.

So David thinks that Tucker is encouraging victimhood because Tucker is putting politicians on notice that people are fed up and want real change. David thinks things don't need to change except incrementally, and barely at all, on some personal level. David is like the Washington DC people whom I reached out to, for help, when the academy was driving me from my tenured job, and they told me I should be patient and see if I might find allies in the professoriate. I remember telling one such bright light bulb about the knife marks on my office door and he said, "have you tried inviting your liberal colleagues to lunch?"

David thinks Tucker is just projecting people's personal problems on public policy. No, David. That's now how this works. Tucker is right. Lots of people on the right and left and in between no longer want to play this William F. Buckley, Oxford debate game where we all post hyperlinks and block quotes and beat each other up over statistics. We want to stop being so miserable. Some of this is our personal choices.

But we also live in a country run by a government. And we need the government to do its part too.

We need our taxes to go to decent schools and colleges. We need to fire massive numbers of bureaucrats who run countless agencies that affect our lives, and who run them badly and wastefully with a negative impact on us. 

We need the government to stop kowtowing to special interests and start doing the job they are supposed to do. We need the political parties to stop sending up cynical warmed-over hacks who spew the same proposals we have heard for 40 years. 

Tucker hit the mark. Listen to what he says.

How conservatives wasted two years of Trump's presidency when it came to education

Here is an email chain I sent to a conservative friend. Part of me just wants to give up the whole education fight but I know that we have to keep moving forward with it even if it's just me and five other people. The left and the right's "doe in the headlights" naïve ones are entrenching the left in the superstructure of higher ed more and more each day, even as they keep us constantly outraged over Trigglypuff and students who try to stop people from wearing Halloween costumes. We've got to move!

Dear -------,

Just one more thing I just found:
The membership and funding for the MLA kept dropping until suddenly this fund popped up:

It raised a lot of money and turned the MLA's fundraising balance from a drop of 24.6% one year to an increase of about 30% the next year. 

They list this as part of their activities:


  • Grants to help departments expand career development services for graduate students
  • Convention travel grants for students, adjunct faculty members, and independent scholars
  • MLA internships for students interested in careers at nonprofit organizations 
[This sounds good but remember that all these non-profit humanities departments that say who gets into grad school or gets hired are dominated by liberals and they are not tolerant of dissent.]


  • Departmental consultancy visits to promote best practices and uniform standards for hiring, supporting, and mentoring graduate students and adjunct faculty members
  • Professional development grants to help part-time faculty members pay for research and conference travel, continuing education, new technology, and more
  • Preconvention workshops for graduate students on humanities careers outside the academy  
[NOTE: All of these positions are pretexts trying to protect the tenure system, which is a systematically abusive labor system.]


  • Online advocacy campaigns  and lobbying efforts in Washington, DC, to rally support for humanities education
  • Course development grants for faculty members to develop courses that build enrollments and revitalize student interest in the humanities 
  • Trainings in op-ed writing to increase the range and quality of voices advocating for the humanities and language study


The MLA held its second annual Benefit for the Humanities during the 2018 convention in New York City to raise funds for the Paving the Way campaign. Special guests included Jon Parish Peede, the Senior Deputy Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and three renowned journalists: David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker; Amy Goodman, host and executive producer of Democracy Now!; and Lydia Polgreen, editor in chief of HuffPost. They joined Paula Krebs for a discussion of cultural coverage in the media and the importance of a free press. The event raised over $109,000 from donors and sponsors, surpassing the amount raised at the inaugural benefit in Philadelphia in 2017.


The MLA thanks the following sponsors for their generous support of the 2018 Benefit for the Humanities.
Organizations and Corporations
Alexander Street, a ProQuest Company 
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
Cigna Healthcare
EisnerAmper LLP 
Humanities New York 
JDM Benefits 
Kerber Gost Agency 
New Jersey Council for the Humanities 
Spherical Cow Group

From what I can gather, these folks are using 501c-3 money to advance a liberal agenda and Republicans in Congress are handing them millions of dollars to do it. Their goal is to lobby Congress to allow higher-ed institutions to keep their gravy train of tax exemptions, subsidies, grants, and student loan certifications intact. 

Why aren't we lobbying to shake up the accreditation agencies?
Will anyone on our side ask Congress to stop this insanity?
In Christ,

Dear ______

I came across this in my research into the Modern Language Association:

The MLA supported the event by paying transportation expenses for members from states whose legislators represented key votes on support for humanities funding. MLA member Jessica Winston, professor of English and chair of the Department of History at Idaho State University, kindly agreed to fly out to meet with the Idaho delegation. I met with staffers from the offices of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) as well as accompanying the Pennsylvania team on their visits. Winston met with staffers from the offices of Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Representatives Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Raúl Labrador (R-ID). In addition, she and other advocates met with Senator James Risch (R-ID).

It comes from the 2019 annual report. How on earth did the academic left get these Republicans to sign on to a $2 million increase in NEH funding the same year Trump called for its defunding? And there have been no efforts to compel them to fix their political bias because every time we talk about the bias in these organizations, we get another speech in Congress from Ben Shapiro or Robbie George about how we need to refrain from telling these taxpayer-funded entities what to do.

------, is there anyone out there who might want to form a task force that is serious about forcing the Republican-controlled Senate and Trump's Dept. of Education to start defunding these people?

It is so infuriating sometimes I do not even want to read about this but I think it's crucial we do something during Trump's last 2 years. I admire a lot of the conservative activists but we have to face the fact that they are not getting anywhere with the model of activism we have been using. (See here: ).

I was one of the 140 scholars who signed the support of Trump. I have gotten into the large meetings of the faith in education group under the White House. If we don't act now we're missing a huge chance.

Do you know anyone who thinks the way I do who might want to do something?

Let me know.

God bless,

Mitt Romney, King of Disappointment

One of the most painful things I had to do during my years as a conservative was vote for Mitt Romney in 2012. I liked John McCain and really liked Sarah Palin a lot. But in 2012? Mitt came across as a rich jerk and his running mate, Paul Ryan, didn't exactly give me many reasons to get enthusiastic about him.

One thing I recall about the 2012 election was that I disagreed with Ann Coulter a lot back then, something that rarely happens. She loved Mitt and that he was a phenomenal candidate, then she expressed puzzlement when he lost miserably.

Well, Mitt Romney left the public eye for a while and then reappeared to run for the Senate as a replacement for Orrin Hatch. None of these people instill much enthusiasm in me. As a social conservative I heard them talk the talk about abortion and marriage for years and then miraculously, every time the Republicans had the government, Planned Parenthood kept getting funded and the LGBT movement continued its Bataan Death March. 

Anyhow, now Romney is authoring op-eds in the Washington Post calling into question Trump's fitness for the presidency. This serves zero purpose other than to primp for some future stage rush or revenge over some petty grievance in the past. Pushback came and then Romney started backtracking. Whatever!

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Keep Pushing for Abolition of Tenure

I have long maintained that tenure is a major system of labor abuse. This article came out in Chronicle, one of several that has surfaced in the last few days:

Here Liz McMillen talks about the tragedy that tenure-track faculty at universities never formed an effective allegiance with "adjuncts," the temporary instructors who get paid per class and have zero job security.

When I abandoned tenure in 2016, I spoke sincerely about my conviction that tenure is not something that a Christian should seek or hold. Tenure is an earthly vanity, and fundamentally unjust. If you participate in the tenure system, you abet the many people on the tenure-track who demonstrate such constant inhumanity in the way they deal with people.

Liz McMillen, who I believe was the one who fired Naomi Schafer-Riley seven years ago, shocks me by now naming the tenure-track faculty and calling them out. Those of you who do not work in academia may or may not have experienced the work environment of the tenure-track world. It is truly barbaric. 

Rather than guarantee you academic freedom (a lie that academics constantly regurgitate), tenure binds you to a system of flattery and obsequy, in which you have to prove to people who have tenure that you are just like them, think like them, and will protect them from scrutiny once they let you into their club. 

It is easy when you work in academia to think this is the way it has to be, because it's been that way since you went to college. The truth is, tenure is a completely illegitimate system. It harms people, as you can see from the reports of serious mental illness among people in graduate school. Associate professors have high rates of depression--the people who just got tenure! Why? Because tenure is a world. It is a distorted world, where people are mean and petty. 

When I think back on my days at Northridge, for instance, I get the chills. To be in a system like that, like you are inside the bowels of a monster, watching all your colleagues bloviate, preen, and abuse each other, constantly holding each other hostage with the threat of sabbatical reviews, promotion panels, committee assignments. They all protected their turf and behaved in ways that would have never been tolerated in any other field. They cover for each other's incompetence. And they waste inordinate amounts of money. They spend their junior years thinking only about research (and their research is garbage), then they get tenure and strut around like small gods. Very small gods. 

Meanwhile, an enormous army of temporary workers does the heavy lifting in our field. They come, teach huge workloads of classes, and frankly do a better job for the students because they know they cannot take their job for granted. And the tenured people act like the vast inequality between themselves and the people who are doing all the big work is righteous, fully deserved, and the way things must be, because the profession says so. 

I find myself getting better each semester as a teacher, scholar, and service to the community, because I don't have tenure. Tenure is anti-Christian. Tenure causes you to rely upon an earthly institution, and one based on vanity, flattery, and snobbery at that. 

As the academy claims to want a real fight against racism in academia, they have to face the tough fact of tenure. Tenure will always be a racist system because it is arbitrary and an old boys network. You get ahead in the system by playing to the mannerisms and sensibilities of the egotistical white liberals who run the whole system. If you are ethnic you have two choices. Tap-dance and fetch things for the white liberals, so you can get tenure and be left alone for a life of self-humiliating servitude to condescending people who swear they are not racist. Or, if that does not interest you, you can be yourself, speak honestly, and expect to be driven out the way I was. Tenure is a world in which people in power delude themselves to justify the scam they are pulling off on the world. They have to convince themselves that their personal discomforts and defensiveness around people who refuse to play along with their games are not petty vindictive responses from people trying to cover up their own incompetence--no, they must convince themselves that if they feel uncomfortable, that's because there is something wrong with the person who makes them uncomfortable.

I don't care how many Toni Morrison conferences these people have presented at or how many books they have written on W.E.B. DuBois. Academics will get very uncomfortable if you are ethnic, well trained, confident, and willing to walk through the front door with your head held high. They don't like people of color who have degrees in Greek. They like people of color who kiss up to them and tell them that their disgusting, disjointed poetry is great art. They like people of color who will beg them for approval and backing all week and then go disappear.

I was on the tenure track and fully competent. I spoke up at meetings and posted my thoughts on the listserv. One by one the white folks in the tenure-track department where I worked flipped out until I had no friends left. It didn't matter how nice I tried to sound or how softly I phrased things. I was brown and not somebody they could condescend to. So they pushed me around. When that didn't work, they just coached students to make up crazy accusations about me, and they dragged a knife across the Army decals on my door. And then they bullied the university administrators to make sure they did not investigate it.

The adjuncts probably have it worse. I am not sure. I left and love working in a place where the tenure system does not exist. We all cover the full range of courses taught in our college from freshman intro classes to senior seminars. We don't use adjuncts almost at all. It is far more humane and we do a better job. You live with job insecurity, but remember, Jesus wanted you not to put your faith in the treasures of this world. He did not want you to become a pharisee with long tassels seated in the place of honor at the banquets. He wanted you to think of the lilies in the field. They neither spin nor sew, yet Solomon never dressed as well as they do.

Remember that. 

MeToo becomes more of a political weapon each day

Here's a life lesson--when you are rising to the top, expect your enemies to orchestrate a sexual harassment claim against you. Bernie Sanders does well in polls and boom, the Clintonistas go out and find sexual harassment accusers. As usual, the allegations have no evidence other than lots of hearsay and accusers "corroborating" each other.