Counter-Currents
1,069 words
Dear Dr. Hanson,
I will spare you the honest flattery and get straight to the point. Don’t you think it’s time you cut ties with National Review? Is your stomach not turned by the recent events in which your publication acted no differently than the social media lynch mob that is the Left? Did you not read Nicholas Frankovich’s unwarranted hit piece on the innocent boys from Covington High School? Did you not read his peevish non-apology for his “overheated” post and for his “high-handedness”? Really? “High-handedness”? How could this apology be any more out of touch with the suffering that has been inflicted on those poor boys and their families these past few days? I have a feeling that those Covington boys now have a lot more to worry about than your colleague’s “high-handedness.”
Frankovich piled on when these kids and their families were getting death threats from Leftist lunatics. Antifa terrorists are now showing up at their high school, thanks in part to people like Frankovich, who condemned those boys so comprehensively as to tacitly justify all sorts of abuse to be heaped upon them. And for what? Because they wore MAGA hats in public and smiled? This is tantamount to spitting on the cross?
As a principled and respected scholar, Dr. Hanson, couldn’t you see what a dishonest smear job Frankovich’s piece was? Are you not embarrassed to be associated with an outfit that produces such hysterical nonsense? Furthermore, Frankovich didn’t even wait for more information. He just reflexively lashed out. It’s as if the Duke Three hoax and the UVA rape hoax and the very recent Buzzfeed Trump-told-Cohen-to-lie hoax never even happened. Does Frankovich not work in the political media? Isn’t it his job to be aware of such tomfoolery from the Left?
Lashing out is what you do against enemies, not friends. Nick Frankovich revealed his true colors when he put on his high-handed brass knuckles and punched right with only the slightest provocation. These were conservative, Catholic, pro-life high school kids he vilified. How many of their parents read National Review? I don’t know the answer, but I have a feeling that if National Review even has a readership these days, it consists of conservative, Catholic, pro-life people – just like the moms and dads of those innocent boys. Please pardon the vulgarity here, Dr. Hanson, but why shit on your base? Furthermore, why write for an organization that shits on its base?
Did you not also read how your editors so lamely attempted to defuse the situation? A “more complicated picture has emerged”? Yeah, no. That is a lie. “Complicated” is the adjective a girl uses to describe her feelings for a boy when she wants to dump him. There is nothing complicated about that, and there was nothing complicated about what happened at the March for Life rally in Washington, DC last Saturday. Non-white adults were bullying and harassing white children, and got cover for it from the lying, anti-white Left. That’s it. That’s the story. Obviously so. Yet the editors of your publication either completely missed that like a bunch of clueless rubes, or are in fact part of the lying, anti-white Left themselves. Pick one.
And then your editors have the unmitigated gall to talk about errors being forgiven? Do you really think they will have a shred of credibility if they frame “the Covington Affair” as just another hiccup, and then continue writing about the government shutdown, the state of the economy, and the Mueller investigation like nothing ever happened? In order to be forgiven, one must demonstrate that one wants to be forgiven, yes? If Frankovich were really sorry, he would resign and start raising money for the physical protection those kids are going to need – probably for the rest of their lives. He would travel to their homes in Kentucky and profusely apologize to them and their families in person. He would do everything possible in the here and now to make it up to them. Then he would spend some much-needed time in the wilderness relearning what it means to be a writer, and reemerge a year or two later a better man. Is he going to do this? Those poor kids he maligned deserve nothing less. Wouldn’t you agree?
Further, if your editor Rich Lowry were really interested in forgiveness, he’d fire Frankovich (Lord knows, John Derbyshire got fired for a lot less) and then shutter the place for a month while he cleans house. The so-called “Covington Affair” was nothing less than a fiasco for your operation on multiple levels. It shows incompetence. It shows viciousness. And it shows a transparent lack of contrition. Further, it reveals something ugly about the character of the people who run National Review. Rich Lowry fired Derbyshire pretty quickly after being pressured by the Left. Yet the Right has been pressuring him about Frankovich for days now and he has done nothing but offer terse, insincere apologies.
What does this tell you?
How can anyone pretend that National Review is at all conservative or Right-wing when it dances to the tune set by the Left?
You know this. You must know this.
Although I am writing to you from a White Nationalist platform, I am not asking you to become a White Nationalist (although I would fall on my knees and praise heaven with piercing cries if you did). I’m not even asking you to be a race-realist. I am simply asking you to recognize that your brand and your reputation are being tainted every day you stick with these dishonest losers. You are better than they are. Mexifornia is a good book. Carnage and Culture is a good book. I read you. I learn from you. No matter how far one is to the Right, if that person reads you, they will respect you for your knowledge, your equanimity, and your intellect. If VDARE publishes Michelle Malkin, they will definitely publish you, and the Right will love you for it forever.
Please live up to the high standards you have set for yourself and abandon the sinking ship that is National Review. Either that, or insist that the editors go full Patton on their candy-assed staff and insist that any writer who does not live up one hundred percent to the conservative, Right-wing, and anti-Left principles of National Review will be skinned.
Yours truly,
Spencer J. Quinn
Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.
23 comments
Has Hanson ever gotten around to admitting he was wrong about Iraq? Might be a good time to clear that up, too.
He might not like basketball-americans much, but he dislikes germans even more, and he has a mexican son in law, so I wouldn’t expect him to make any concessions soon, let alone bat for our team.
It would also help if he ceased cheerleading for every war the empire wants to fight.
“Further, it reveals something ugly about the character of the people who run National Review. Rich Lowry fired Derbyshire pretty quickly after being pressured by the Left. Yet the Right has been pressuring him about Frankovich for days now and he has done nothing but offer terse, insincere apologies.”
As Lawrence Auster perceptively noted during the 2012 Derbyshire kerfuffle: “If they do fire him, it will mean that NR had no problem with a contributor who violated fundamental tenets of conservatism, but that they do have a problem with a contributor who violates fundamental tenets of liberalism. Which would confirm what I’ve been saying about that ruined hulk of a once-important magazine for the last ten or 15 years.”
And — as is perfectly illustrated here — the converse is true, : If a National Review writer errs on the side of leftism, it will be forgiven or simply ignored.
Is there anyone who still believes that National Review is anything but a dessicated corpse of what was once an actual conservative journal?
Having reflexively anti-Catholic and anti-Christian garbage like Nicholas Frankovich on the editorial staff is a sign of the complete metamorphosis of the magazine into just another cuckservative whore for the mainstream Left.
Isn’t Nicholas Frankovich Jewish ? The name Frankovich does occur on Avotaynu, Consolidated Jewish Surname Index and his picture in Google Images looks very Jewish. So is this a case of a crypto-Jew having infiltrated and hi-jacked a conservative out-fit ?
National Review has been a philo-semitic publication since Buckley purged the last advocates of European identity in the 1960s. The remarkable thing is how they managed to keep such an enormous percentage of their goyische readership in the dark about this for so many decades.
Another great article Mr. Quinn,
As usual, I agree with almost everything you say, but in this article I agree with EVERYTHING you say.
NR should go the way of the Daily Standard, out of existence.
I am just angry at myself for not catching on to the fact that NR has been NEO-CON for a long time. I finally figured it out in 2005 with their David Frum cover story accusing the paleo-cons like Pat Buchanan of being untrue to the Conservative Cause for not supporting the Iraq War. Well, I am a slow learner but I did catch on. I no longer renewed my subscription to that magazine.
VDH is a tenured professor, I believe. He has a large farm in California, I believe. He should admit that he has been wrong about many things. I believe he defended Sherman’s march to the sea and the burning of Atlanta and all the rest of Lincoln’s war crimes.
VDH is a regular guest on Tucker Carlson and when he appears there he makes points that I think most of us agree with. My wife and I love Tucker and we understand his constraints. If he were to tell the truth about the race question and the JQ, he would be fired.
He was on Hannity last night, first up, and was treated as some kinda Wise Elder. No hint of any apology for anything.
I have exchanged many emails with the publisher of National Review, Gareth Bewkes (email address: [email protected] ). He believes NR is the gold standard of conservatism, (though such actual conservatives as Pat Buchanan or John Derbyshire aren’t allowed a word.)
Mr, Bewkes HAS been willing to talk with me, but changed his mind when I offered my feelings about the odious French and Goldberg. French was the neocon that the subhuman Bill Kristol was promoting for the anti-Trump GOP nomination. Goldberg? His name reveals all. Except he’s even more despicable than that.
As an elder of the WASP Nation, it’s not often I’ll go into bat for the Papist Tribe, but in light of the war we’re in, and when Christ is being culturally appropriated by the people who would crucify him again, my ecumenical spirit is revived.
Frankovich: “For some of us, the gospel stories of Jesus’s [sic] passion and death are so familiar we no longer hear them.” For Frankovich, Nathan Phillips is Christ and the Covington schoolboys are Roman soldiers. Never mind that Phillips is a professional liar and Christ is Truth itself. Frankovich doesn’t include the Jews in his analogy.
Frankovich invokes “muh human rights” and references the boys’ own elders denouncing them in the name of the same idol. Christ, the eternally pre-existent second person of the Trinity is anything but a great respecter of human rights. You can read a full account of his anti-human rights work in the Old Testament.
But there are many tasty morsels in the NT as well. In Mark 7 he calls an alien woman a dog. He took a whip to the (((money changers))). He regularly told people to shut up. He had zero respect for other “faith traditions.” And as for the likes of those who manufactured this controversy, “the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars”, Christ promises that “their part will be in the lake that burns with fire” (Rev 21:8).
To these cucks, Christ died for the free market, so that everybody can live in America. And salvation is won through submission to emotional blackmail. Frankovich says that for sake of moral consistency, Pro-Lifers ought to be anti-wall. When Christ himself commanded Israel to build one in the book of Nehemiah. God is very much pro-wall. Indeed, there will be a big beautiful wall in heaven (Rev 21). Anyone who is pro-life is pro-wall.
Frankovich asks us to believe that the Indian, who worships Mammon, is more pleasing to Christ than “his mockers”, who worship Christ, on account of his rotten teeth and bad liver. By not getting pwned by this serial pest, the boys (who will be boys) “have just spit on the cross.” Nah, we’ll hold off spitting on the cross until Judeo-Christ is nailed to it.
Talk about flipping the script: “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). Tell us again, Nick, who was more Christlike in this story? We know who Judas is.
For a journalist, Frankovich’s apology seems adequate. Of course, I’m not the injured party, I know. But his saying anything at all to acknowledge wrongdoing is quite a miracle even though it was undoubtedly done with gritted teeth, to put it mildly.
The suffering of the boys and their families is hardly the work of this one man. Everyone had their mind made up already; we are in occupied territory.
About the National Review – it was bought and paid for from Day One.
Wrong. The fact that because other outlets spewed the same vile garbage DOES not dilute Frankovich or NRs guilt. A murder is a murder is a murder whether it is committed by one or 10 assailants.
If anything, NR should receive a disproportionately GREATER share of the blame since they are among the ones who should have rushed to the Covington boys DEFENSE, not piled on!
Et Tu, Brute?
Why would you think that the NR “are among the ones who should have rushed to the Covington boys DEFENSE”? Everybody and his dog knows that the NR is simply the right wing of the worst kind of liberalism and has been so for decades. That, under present conditions, their writer issued any kind of apology at all (no matter how grudging and insincere) is really some kind of achievement.
I stand corrected on that point.
But I stand by the first point in my post.
And the recent random white guy shoots black toddler hoax.
Wait. You’re saying there’s still a writer at The National Review that’s worth reading?
We should teach better reactions to anti-white aggressions. My spontaneous idea: yell “anti-white hate anti-white hate”, “You are an anti-white hater”. That´s better than the smirk.
The smirk pissed them off a lot more than cries of victimization, which would have been immediately countered with any number of tired liberal talking points.
Realistically, there’s really very little good that can come from actively engaging with someone invading your personal space. White children should be taught to defend themselves physically and to help their peers, particularly when confronted by angry blacks, as they are often merely sizing you up for a sucker-punch when they get in your face like this.
Just happening upon this clip from a TDS show “Jason from No White Guilt talk about effective discourse” : his single most effective weapon in discussion is plain and simply: the term “anti-white”.
I feel well confirmed in my initial statement.
Non-white adults were bullying and harassing white children…
That’s what _we_ saw, but both leftists and mainstream conservatives saw something much different.
We could look at the Covington Affair as a Rorschach test whose inkblot image was a young white man facing an Indian. Most of the commentary about the event, and all of the weird outrage, was based on that single image.
For MSM leftists, and for NR writers, an image of a white man facing an Indian demands that they take sides against the white man. Context doesn’t matter, and no further research is necessary.
An image of a knight facing a dragon suggests strongly that the knight is good and the dragon is bad. The same structure now applies, in the real world, to confrontations between whites and nonwhites. The former are reflexively identified as aggressive monsters, while the latter become good by contrast. Young whites, and especially young white men, must grow up today in an environment in which their evil is often presumed.
The only ideological location where that anti-white structure is actively opposed is here on the Far Right.
How can anyone pretend that National Review is at all conservative or Right-wing when it dances to the tune set by the Left?
I don’t think “dancing to the Left’s tune” is the best metaphor. We need something to suggest that conservatives help write the tune, and then making moralizing demands that all right-thinking people must dance to it.
***
“The images of those red-hat kids surrounding and mocking that old Indian are unbearable. Absolutely unbearable. An American disgrace” (Jay Nordlinger).
“Frankovich piled on when these kids and their families were getting death threats from Leftist lunatics. Antifa terrorists are now showing up at their high school, thanks in part to people like Frankovich, who condemned those boys so comprehensively as to tacitly justify all sorts of abuse to be heaped upon them. ”
You will pardon me for fixating on the above passage, but I’m far more alarmed by lawless mobs subsidized by foreign Communists than I am by the rhetorical excesses of bitter old hacks…particularly when those lawless mobs are ignored as per prior agreement by the domestic sorts of Communists who now constitute our, cough, “free press”.
Covington Catholic School is located in Kentucky. Is there no state remaining in our union – no jurisdiction, no ZIP CODE even – in which a robustly-enforced zero tolerance policy to Bolshevik terror waged from behind ski-masks and impromptu weaponry even exists? I’ve long felt that Trump’s first and most fatal mistake was not to prioritize the arrest, trial and conviction of these Soros hand-puppets above all other domestic issues. God knows Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had enough sand in their shorts to risk the wrath of our Fifth Column by engaging this enemy in terms it could not help but fully understand. (Even Wilson Goode had that much steel in his spine, for God’s sake!) That most antifa are the worthless children of our chattering classes – Hillary’s own running mate Tim Kaine had spawned one such ‘freedom fighter’ – hardly justifies such a suicidal hands-off policy.
There should be no kid gloves, no benign neglect, nor any sweeping post-Trump blanket amnesty towards these uberprivileged scum. Better a dozen quisling NR op-eds that nobody will read than one single further reference to innocent families (or any law-abiding American) requiring protection from leftist thugs “probably for the rest of their lives” uttered without a shred of exaggeration or hyperbole.
“Yet the editors of your publication either completely missed that like a bunch of clueless rubes, or are in fact part of the lying, anti-white Left themselves. Pick one.”
O.K. the lying, anti-White Left.
I’ve finally just accepted that all these people going all the way back to the late forties were engaged in disarming any resistance to the Left’s agenda.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.