Posted on August 8, 2011

A Defense of Frank Borzellieri

Jack Kerwick, BeliefNet, August 6, 2011

Until this past week, Frank Borzellieri was a principal of Catholic elementary school in the Bronx, New York. Once word was released that Borzellieri was a “white supremacist,” however, he was swiftly terminated.

As it turns out, Borzellieri was, at one time, at any rate, a bit friendlier with a certain organization–American Renaissance (AR)–than the self-appointed guardians of our politically correct orthodoxy believes he had a right to be. AR exists simply and solely for the unhindered promotion of the free exchange of ideas on matters pertaining to race. For this, it has been branded a “hate group” and purveyor of “white supremacy.”

I am affiliated with neither AR nor Frank Borzellieri. But no affiliation with either is necessary in order to recognize that both have been done a great injustice. I am not affiliated in any way with Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, yet this doesn’t preclude me from appreciating the fact that both men have been treated most unfairly by the very same “anti-anti-racists” that have set their sights on AR and Borzellieri: no sooner than he began his job as a football commentator on ESPN, many may recall, Limbaugh lost it for the allegedly “racist” remarks he made regarding Donavan McNabb, and in addition to being fired after a similarly short term career at MSNBC, Savage’s “hatred” also landed him on a list of disreputable types including terrorists and murderers that are prevented from entering England.

The difference, though, between the Limbaughs and Savages of the world, on the one hand, and the Borzellieris, on the other, is that if they live hundreds of years more, the former will never spend another moment worrying about their livelihoods; such, however, is far from the case with the latter. Not unlike yours truly, Borzellieri invested considerable resources in the way of time and money acquiring an education in a field that isn’t exactly known for being lucrative. Even less lucrative than the journalism career in which he evidently excelled in was the position of a Catholic school principal that he ultimately chose to pursue.

Yet now Borzellieri is out of a job for no other reason but that he dared, at one time, to express politically incorrect beliefs concerning race while maintaining an affiliation of a sort with AR.

The more one learns of both AR and Borzellieri, the more this episode becomes at once interesting and disturbing, for you see, if Borzellieri is a “white supremacist” because of his association with AR, then there are a whole lot of other popular media personalities and organizations that are guilty of “white supremacy” because of their association with it. Some of these have a relationship with Borzellieri as well. This is interesting. What is disturbing is that thus far, not one of these personalities or outlets has so much as mentioned the travesty that Borzellieri had visited upon him, much less defended him.

Let’s begin with AR by focusing specifically on its founder, Jared Taylor.

This “white supremacist” has contributed articles and essays to such publications as the Wall Street Journal; the Los Angeles Times; the Chicago Tribune; the Baltimore Sun; the San Francisco Chronicle; the Boston Globe; National Review; and the Washington Post. He has also spoken at the University of Pennsylvania, George Mason University, Temple University Law School, Hillsdale College, Howard University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Texas. He has taught Japanese at Harvard University and is the author of several books, including a couple that were met with critical acclaim upon their release: Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle and Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America.

Taylor made multiple appearances, not just on “conservative” talk radio, but as well in such left-leaning venues as Donahue, Chris Mathews’ Hard Ball, Joe Scarborough’s Scarborough Country, and Queen Latifah’s short lived daytime talk show. But there is more. As “Edward Bernays” notes in, “C-SPAN broadcast at least two of AR’s bi-annual conferences and also two press conferences where Taylor was a speaker.” It is precisely just these bi-annual conferences, not incidentally, that Borzellieri participated in–and it is his participation in them that supposedly establish his subscription to “white supremacy.” Bernays mentions that when “AR’s groundbreaking Color of Crime report” was released in 1999, it “was actually discussed on the Rush Limbaugh Show….” Interestingly, it wasn’t Limbaugh himself who actually discussed the report but guest host Walter E. Williams, a black economist who “summarized the report favorably to Limbaugh’s 20 million listeners.” Taylor even managed to hold “a press conference at the National Press Club to discuss the report” that “was widely attended and resulted in a CSPAN broadcast and national print coverage.” American Thinker’s Robert Weissberg and Pat Buchanan too are friendly with Taylor and AR.

However, it isn’t just the aforementioned figures and outlets that are guilty of “white supremacy” for lending legitimacy to Taylor and his ilk.

In 1999, seven radio talk show hosts spoke to Taylor’s American Renaissance magazine about their views on race, IQ, immigration, white racial consciousness, and the prospects of whites being reduced to a minority within the decades to come. It may shock some readers to discover this, but among those hosts were Michael Reagan (son of President Ronald Reagan), Michael Medved, talk radio legend Bob Grant, and two black radio personalities, Larry Elder (the “Sage from South Central” (Los Angeles)) and Ken Hamblin (“The Black Avenger”).

Time constraints prevent a fuller review of the exchanges that transpired between AR and these hosts. But suffice it to say, all seven of them had nothing but harsh words for the politically correct orthodoxy on these matters. Particularly surprising were Michael Medved’s comments on these matters. Concerning the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, he said that this issue demands that we make a choice as to whether we want to preserve “Anglo-Saxon culture” or dissolve it. Medved rhetorically asks: “Should Anglo-Saxon be dissipated or should it be respected?” As to whether IQ differences between the races are genetically based, Medved did not flat out reject this proposition but, rather, replied that the relationship between biology, IQ, and environment is “too complex” to speak given “the few lines” from which he would be quoted.

Yet the point in alluding to this is not to endorse or refute either AR’s or these radio personalities’ position(s) on these topics. It is solely to show that if AR is really “the white supremacist” organization that its critics make it out to be, and if Borzellieri is a “white supremacist” for having consorted with it, then Michael Reagan, Michael Medved, Bob Grant, Larry Elder, and Ken Hamblin must be “white supremacists” too.

As for Borzellieri, if he is a “white supremacist” because of his association with an allegedly “white supremacist” organization, then presumably those who associate with him must not be too terribly uncomfortable with “white supremacy,” if they don’t embrace it altogether.

This is relevant, for Borzellieri has contributed to, among other publications, Newsday, USA Today, and the New York Daily News. He has made appearances on Leeza Gibson’s, Geraldo Rivera’s, and Ricki Lake’s shows, Good Morning America, Fox Sunday, The Sean Hannity Show, and The Alan Colmes Show. In fact he counts Colmes, an avowed “liberal,” as among his “friends.” National Review and Human Events are among the “conservative” publications that have lavished praise upon Borzellieri.

Frank Borzellieri has been subjected to rank injustice and no one in either “the mainstream” or so-called “alternative” media has lifted a finger to come to his aid.

Given that the shots to assassinate his character were fired in the pages of the New York papers, the Fox News crowd especially must be aware of what he is being made to endure at this time. And yet there is silence.

If political correctness weakens as the “conservative” movement strengthens, then the abrupt reversal of fortunes that Borzellieri suffers and the refusal on the part of “conservatives” to defend him constitute a powerful commentary on the true condition of their movement.

18 responses to “A Defense of Frank Borzellieri”

  1. E Pluribus Pluribus says:

    “…the refusal on the part of ‘conservatives’ to defend him [Borzellieri] constitute a powerful commentary on the true condition of their movement.”


    It does. “Conservatives” let other conservatives “twist in the wind” when the PC crowd circles in for the kill over some deviation, however tenuous, from egalitarian orthodoxy. After all, livelilhoods are at stake.

    Such conservative cowardice is one reason the “conservative” Republican Party manages to regularly nominate destructive nitwits for president — such as George W. Bush and John McCain — invade-the-world, invite-the-world, in-hock-to-world dim bulbs.

    How has that governing strategy work out for America, for “conservatives”?

    We are in the financial and demographic-multicultural mess we’re in, in large measure, because of just such “conservatves”.

  2. Anonymous says:

    This is a good opportunity for those of us more enlightened in these matters to show solidarity and unwavering support to a great ally. Maybe some “direct action” should be organized?

  3. HH says:

    “Conservatives” don’t or won’t defend him because they are evey bit as liberal on the issue of race/ethnicity as their supposed arch-rivals on the left. In some ways, they are even WORSE! When it comes to race, Conservative cowardice is breathtaking to behold.

  4. Question Diversity says:

    Mr. Kerwick forgot to add two more entities to this vast hateful right wing conspiracy. Yale University, and the U.S. State Department.

  5. PT says:

    I have recently become a follower of AR..I believe that the discussions regarding the current infatuation with all thing “diverse” are worthy of serious intellectual inquiry..As a conservative (read reactionary) I am skeptical of any absolutes..I do not think that the extreme positions frequently expressed contribute anything towards the understanding required to properly deal with what is, in actuality, a fait accompli. Like it or not, our society is composed of all kinds of people..Some of our fellow citizens are great folks, some of them are a bunch of dirty dogs..What’re you gonna do? It takes all kinds…

    People want to talk about IQ? Let’s face it…you don’t have to be a genius to perform 99% of the activities required to be a decent citizen. Go to school, get a job, get married, buy a house, raise a family, come home in the evening, have a couple cold ones , watch the game, knock one off, go to sleep, wake up and repeat.

    To me,the sabot in this machine of civilization is the rise of an entrenched elite whose livelihood depends on the exploitation of every real or perceived difference between us as citizens…They have made it unacceptable for those of us who go to school, get a job, etc., etc., to notice that there are degrees of disfunction abroad in the land which produce unproductive outcomes vis a vis just being, you know, a regular person. These elites, of all parties and persuations, are cementing into our society an “anything goes” mentality…do whatever you want, and if things don’t go so well, don’t worry…the rest of us will pick up the slack you have created…”It’s all good”.

    Which brings me to the case of our principal in question. He has been by all accounts a well-liked, effective and efficient school administrator. His crime (right out of 1984) apparently asking , on occasion, “the question that must not be asked”. Which is “What’s going on here?”..

    I hardly profess to have all, or even one, answer to the question. But I do know that if we are prohibited from even asking the question, we are not a society that is even worth saving.

    Which brings to mind the soothing words of that sweet, familiar, and rockin’ old song: “I hope I die before I get old”…

  6. Anonymous says:

    The question is not whether he is a ‘white supermacist’ or

    not, but should a person who believes that some minority students cannot perform as well (or once believed so) as whites be the principal of a school which has mostly black and hispanic students when there is a direct relationship between an educator ‘s expectation and student achievement.

    What happens when a class of black and hispanic students doesnot perform well or just average? Would he blame the students(only) instead of also examining more thoroughly the teacher’s performance or the curriculum?

    Would his staff get the message that these students could do much better and just as well as any other racial group , or would they get the message that only certain percentage need to pass the class?

  7. SNAviatrix says:

    #5 PT, you said…

    “People want to talk about IQ? Let’s face it…you don’t have to be a genius to perform 99% of the activities required to be a decent citizen. Go to school, get a job, get married, buy a house, raise a family, come home in the evening, have a couple cold ones, watch the game, knock one off, go to sleep, wake up and repeat.”

    The problem with that is, whether it’s because of their IQ or not, a large majority of blacks and a significant plurality of Hispanics are unable or unwilling to do many of the things in your list. Go to school, get a job? Black dropout and unemployment rates are sky-high. Get married and raise a family? The black out-of-wedlock birth rate is over 70%, and the black father who actually takes care of his kids is an endangered species. Buy a house? Don’t even get me started on subprime lending. There is nothing “extremist” or “absolutist” in acknowledging these basic facts.

    You seem like a well-meaning person who just wants people to get along, but to answer Rodney King’s question, no, we can’t all just get along. Black and brown inability or unwillingness to do even the basic things necessary to live in a civilized society make getting along impossible.

  8. Anonymous says:

    And liberals go on all high and mighty about ‘mccarthyism’. This sums up the state of the country. For 60 years the left have been tainting people, frightening people, and having them fired, all the while going on about ‘mccarthyism’ and painting the right as the bad guys. No doubt they’ll continue to go on about mccarthyism, while they and they alone practice it, for another 60 years if allowed to.

  9. (AWG) Average White Guy says:

    If we’re discussing hockey, I’m would be white supremacist.

    If we’re discussing basketball, I’m would be black supremacist.

  10. Sardonicus says:

    Frank Borzellieri is another martyr for the cause of equal justice for whites. In a free country, people are allowed opinions outside the mainstream, but as most of us on this site realize, this is not the case for most of contemporary America. I wish Frank Borzellieri well. He is a courageous and just man.

  11. Bill Harzia says:

    “A White Nationalist is someone who wants to save his race. A ‘conservative’ is someone who wants to save his money.”

    Anyone know who wrote that? Because he’s right. And “conservatives” are some of the worst when it comes to turning away from a fellow White in need of help. This tendency of other Whites to turn away, while pretending not to see, has GOT TO STOP. Character is the main impediment to Whites regaing their birthright in America.

  12. Fr. John says:

    PT- It goes much deeper and narrower than your observations, but that is not only the ‘sabot dans la machine,’ it is also the elephant in the living room of ALL American discourse.

    Which can be summed up in two Latin Words:

    Cui bono? – Who benefits?

    Once your eagle eye gets to that point, the clarity of vision that enables one to see who would WANT Borzellieri (as a European Catholic) fired in one of the LEAST ‘catholic’ cities in the world, is, as they say, “as plain as the nose on your face.”

  13. Anonymous says:

    Good on Mr. Kerwick for noticing the injustice and unfairness. Outrage against wrongs done to whites is good to hear. We need to hear more of that.

    Unfortunately, trying to fix the problem through appeals to fairness and justice show that he still doesn’t really get it, why these things are being done to white people.

    Reference to “anti-anti-racists” also shows he doesn’t quite get it yet, for they are not anti-racists who are mistaken or misled, they are simply anti-white.

    That’s why they attack whites. Those who refuse to see or admit this will endlessly and fruitlessly ask “Why the inconsistency? Why the hypocrisy?”, when in fact, there isn’t any.

    Anti-whites are being perfectly consistent and true to their mission whenever they attack whites.

  14. Allisio Rex says:

    Frank Borzellieri is a man with principle and moral values in a fast disintegrating, federally engineered and imposed inter-racial way of life leading to our total demise.

    Your article eloquently exposes the double standards by those who should at least be impartial but remain silent in view of the overwhelming evidence to stand up for fairness.

    Just look a few more years down the road and see how many more friends we will have and how many of today’s “friends” will jump the wagon and turn against us in order be to able to make a living.

    I have a feeling that many,if not all, of those who oppose Frank know in their heart that he’s right but,for political correctness,which has now infested Religion, just cannot say it.

  15. Mr.White says:

    Lets see if I understand this correctly. Being “affiliated” with AR get you branded as a “white supremacist” and ultimately results in the loss of your career.

    Being a member of La Raza (the race – who the catholic church also supports) is not only celebrated, but gets you appointed to the highest court in the land.

    I guess I’m still confused…..

  16. Steven Broiles says:

    Thank You, Mr. Kerwick, for elucidating us on both Mr. Borzerelli and American Renaissance. I taught English in NYC until I was fired in a political hatchet job in 1996. Now let me state that I deserved to be fired for the following reasons: 1) I did not earn a Master’s Degree in time (State Law), and, 2) My performance was, regrettably, sub-par. (This will become clear as I progress). In no way did I break the law. But this is my point: First, education is an enterprise that is piquantly sensitive to all things politically correct; The system is designed to weed out people and opinions that are politically and/or socially and/or religiously conservative or libertarian. Aside from the various cliques of colleagues who can triangulate anybody (and they pressure students and parents in different ways) there remains a colossal educational-development maze of courses to complete. The brainwashing is relentless. I was not in an environment friendly to anyone raised with a knowledge of the Natural Law. Secondly, I witnessed a lot of criminal activity in education. I was fired in 1996, before Mayor Guiliani was able to get the NYPD to head school security. I witnessed criminal activity on the part of teachers, security guards and at least one administrator. The fact that NYPD could not enter the building without the Prinicpal’s consent provided some cover for this activity. Third, NYS intended to take over the school for underperformance. So they hired a principal who drove all the faculty and staff out. So close were the faculty and staff to mutiny, the Superintendent felt it necessary to come and hear our grievances which, given her inaction, did not stop. This is my point: Despite this, the Stockholm Syndrome took over. Every faction was slandering and fighting the other. I was personally persecuted because I was fairly conservative, but so what? I was persecuted because I witnessed criminal activity. So vicious were these people, it would not have mattered if my performance suffered or not (although it did).

    I still cannot understand why or how the Stockholm Syndrome takes over, but it does. And this happens in schools, universities and politics. No one came to my aid–even the Union failed in its contractual obligations. It is the same everywhere. A simple definition of justice I once heard was that justice consists in giving each man his due. Mr. Borzellieri was not given his due–due respect, or, I suspect, due process, either. The fact that a Catholic school fired him does not surprise me. Did I deserve to be let go? For not having a Master’s? Check. For sub-par performance? NO: Not only did they wear me down, they lied anyway. This is the point: That’s how they got Mr. B: Even if his performance was adequate, they would have lied, anyway.

    Now here’s where the Stockholm Syndrome jumps off the rails: The word goes out, somehow, that if ANYONE says ONE WORD in Mr. B’s defense, THEY ARE TOAST. This is not about racialism or supremacy: It is about political correctness and the Stockholm Syndrome being used as a tool to intimidate, character assassinate and career terminate people, and it goes on all the time. And it is the raging wildfire that will tear Civilization apart.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Mr. White #15: There was an article in the Austrian Times about Father Angelo Idi, an Italian Priest, who wore a Nazi Swastika armband on his Cassock.

    When Father Idi was asked about the armband by the Reporter, and what his Parishioners might think he replied, “People should not be concerned over my politics, but over how good a Priest I am.”

  18. jamesup says:

    I believe Frank Borzellieri is receiving the treatment that minorities have been receiving in the past. The political elite and media through which they communicate don’t wish to have the presence in their midst persons with Mr. Borzellieri’s viewpoints. From the Daily News perspective what they say about him is truthful and correct. He. of course disagrees. It is unfortunate that today there is so great ill willed focus on racial subjects. Perhaps in the future persons will have associations with races of their preference without the distressing objections that arise today. To imagine that there will be some explicit agreement about which race a person should most prefer for close association and marriage is misguided. Hopefully, in the future people will freely make these choices without receiving ill will and will not be professionally discriminated against. James