Cathy Young

As many of you might know, I’m not a fan of Cathy Young. Over the last year, I’ve noticed her drifting further and further towards SJW style thinking. In fact, I think a good descriptor for her now would be SJW-lite. I should have read things clearly after her attacks on Mike Cernovich, but I gave her a pass since we were supposed to be “on the same side.” Now, she’s revealing herself even more with a recent hit piece on Ann Coulter that tries to smear the prolific provocateur as antisemitic. Ann certainly doesn’t need any help from me, but I wanted to talk about the post a little bit.

First off, I just noted that Ms. Coulter has been saying offensive shit for decades now but it was her shots against Jews and the “Israel-First” mentality that finally got Cathy Young’s attention. Apparently, this was enough to make me a Nazi in some rando’s eyes…

Yes, my National Socialism and stance on racial purity is well-known….


You don’t see me talking about race mixing or anything like that. Obviously, I have no problem with it. On the other hand, I also have no issue with white people taking pride in their own race. Why shouldn’t we? And if you feel like race mixing isn’t for you? Then that’s also fine with me! You shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed because you want to marry and procreate with someone who looks like you. It’s not racist. Black people, including President Obama (who is famously half-white, by the way), talk about being proud of their blackness all the time. Why should white people be made to feel ashamed when we’ve contributed so much to the world?

I know I don’t feel ashamed. I’m quite proud, actually.

I’ve sort of gotten off on a tangent here, even though it’s related to the issues at hand. Let me get back to Cathy Young’s piece itself. In it, she portrays Coulter as some sort of Jew-hater because she tweeted out something snarky during one of the early GOP debates. Ann questioned how many Jews people think live in the United States. It wasn’t an attack on Jews themselves, but rather a bluntly worded critique about how much we have to hear about Israel every single day and during every single debate.

The fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of people in this country, Israel doesn’t come into the equation. It’s not that they hate Israel. The just figure that Israelis should handle their own country and we should handle ours. We have a ton of problems and concerns with our nation. Why should every debate turn into “Who loves Israel the most?”

It’s about America, first and foremost.

Oh, and the problem for Cathy is, she can’t really pin any true antisemitism on Coulter. So, she has to talk about people that retweet he, or how Coulter herself retweeted Ricky Vaughn this one time, or a links on her blog. Is the same sort of lame guilt by association that we see from some social justice warriors and those with weak arguments in general. I don’t know that anyone is completely above it, but when your article is titled Ann Coulter’s Anti-Semitism Runs Deeper Than You Know, you would think there would be a little more hard evidence.

Sadly, for Cathy young at least, there isn’t. The only thing hard is how Ms. Young is taking Trump’s nomination triumph.

This is her main argument in a rambling and bitter post…

Those familiar with the alt-right will recognize one of its favorite talking points: Israel supporters—particularly Jews—are hypocritical if they support immigration into the U.S., since they don’t advocate large-scale non-Jewish immigration into Israel or the Palestinian right of return. (It is invoked, for example, in an unabashedly anti-Semitic primer on “How to Argue with Neocons” on an alt-right blog.) Regardless of what one thinks of immigration to the United States, or of Israeli policies, this is a remarkably bad analogy.

Israel was founded as an ethno-state (though it is worth noting that a quarter of its citizens are not Jewish); the United States of America was not. Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors; the United States is not. A Palestinian right of return would mean forcing a nation of eight million to accept as many as four to five million immigrants many of whom are hostile to its statehood; proportionately, that would be analogous to an influx of 150 million into the U.S. If such a proposal were on the table, Coulter and Trump certainly wouldn’t be the only ones to oppose it.

Well, they pretty much are hypocritical. But even if you agree with Young, how is that antisemitic? THAT’S YOUR SMOKING GUN? Jesus, I know you’ve done a lot of solid work in the past (even if I don’t care for you personally), but Trump and Coulter have turned you into a raving lunatic. She even admits that she has nothing later on in the post!

At the end of the day, Cernovich is right:

This isn’t the first time she’s sold someone up the river, as he well knows. And it won’t be the last. If you check Twitter, you can see all the usual progressive headcases passing this around like it was some kind of hot-take. That should tell you more than I ever could. It’s pathetic and frankly I would have expected better from Ms. Young.

I guess age catches up to us all, though.


More on this topic from Vox Day


UPDATE: I wasn’t even going to go into this side issue originally, but since Cathy wants to go there, why not? Social Autopsy’s Candace Owens (who I’ve interviewed twice) has accused Ms. Young of gearing up to write another hit piece on her. She obtained a direct message from a third party where Cathy says Owens is either a loon or a scam artist…


Cathy rather snarkily tried to turn this against Candace…

The only problem for her is, she’s made a career off leaking private correspondence. In fact, one of her most high-profile articles was full of leaked messages (it concerned Mattress Girl)…

On Oct. 3, Sulkowicz’s birthday, Nungesser sent her an effusive greeting; she responded the next morning with, “I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!” Nungesser claims that these exchanges represent only a small portion of their friendly communications, which also included numerous text messages. But he also says that during those weeks, they were starting to drift apart; they saw each other at meetings and parties, but plans for one-on-one get-togethers always seemed to end in “missed connections.” Nungesser says that he assumed it was simply a matter of hanging out with a new crowd and, in Sulkowicz’s case, being in a new relationship. He says that “it was very amiable; nothing was changed or different or weird or anything in her behavior.” (To be sure, many rape victims’ advocates would argue that women traumatized by sexual violence, especially by someone they trusted and cared about, may deal with trauma in ways that don’t make sense to an observer.)

After the winter break, in early 2013, Nungesser sent Sulkowicz two brief Facebook messages (one of them saying, ‘tu me manques’—French for ‘I miss you’) to which she did not respond. Then, he says, she texted him in March and suggested getting together, and they made tentative plans on which she did not follow up. Nungesser says he was not unduly alarmed, since such things had happened before.

Ah, I love the sweet smell of hypocrisy! As of now, she has refused to address me on this subject. I highly doubt that will change anytime soon.