|
|
|
In politics, the money starts coming in AFTER you
need it most. You have to prove yourself first.
By the time you have proven yourself, you are over
the big hump, and the money you needed so desperately
is less important.
So much of the really groundbreaking political activity
is run in a back room on a shoestring.
The most effective group I ever ran consisted of
three people and no bank account. It was called
the Populist Forum, and it provided press conferences
and other representation to genuine grassroots protests.
Independent trucks, anti-busing protesters, and
textbook protesters, among others, were working
people who were fighting well-organized forces.
We would call up and ask if they needed someone
to do their writing for them. In the case of a real,
grassroots movement, it was just what they needed.
They were new to the political wars, and all the
experts and wordsmiths were on the other side.
Once the money starts coming in, your purposes become
more and more perverted to the wishes of the money
people. Finally, the cause becomes largely a means
of employment.
It is often said that people who contribute money
tell you what to do. But what is more important
is that, when you accept money, there are things
you CAN'T do. When the independent truckers began
their protest against oil rationing, they pulled
their trucks up in the middle of a Washington, DC
rush hour and left them there. If we had any big-money
contributors, we would have been prohibited from
speaking for this kind of costly anarchy.
But that tactic sure got the government's attention
in a way no other approach would have. Monied interests
would not have allowed us to participate in many
of the activities we got into on a shoestring.
Whitaker's Corollary on Political Financing says
that groups with lavish funding will often be those
which have nothing or, being in the way, less than
nothing, to contribute.
|
|
NBC television gave a surprisingly positive report
on the January 8 march for the Confederate flag
in Columbia. It showed the thousands marching, the
Confederate uniforms, the thousands of Confederate
flags being carried. But at the end, they said,
"The business community in South Carolina is
afraid of this image of the state."
"This image" was the Confederate flag.
"This image" was Southerners parading
their own heritage. I cannot think of a better testimony
to what this struggle is really all about. The business
community wants an end to everything that smacks
of the Confederacy or of genuine Southern history.
So we know where the money interests in South Carolina
stand. If there was any doubt, Bob Jones' blatant
betrayal of the traditionalist position made it
very clear indeed. He went where the money went.
That is where the money is going, but is that where
the future of politics is going? That depends on
us. So far, interstate leftist boycotts have never
failed to force a state into line. Money has enormous
power, and money is ranged against us. But money
can't go it alone.
There is no grassroots support at all for the campaign
AGAINST the Confederate flag. There is certainly
no evidence that blacks rank that flag as one of
the main concerns they have in political life. It
is, as I indicated on October 30, 1999, in "What
the Flag Boycott Really Means," strictly
a product of white business and its wholly-owned
black "leadership."
The battle against the flag is all money. The battle
for it is all grassroots.
I doubt that any real people were shocked by seeing
thousands of South Carolinians marching behind Confederate
flags and wearing Confederate uniforms. People expect
Southerners to be Southern. NBC's dire warning is
purely a product of money people talking to each
other.
But a mass march is not everything. The question
that I asked last time still remains: what are all
our people going to do after they go home? Are they
going to shed their uniforms and become good little
obedient conservative servants of the business establishment?
Is their bottom-line loyalty to the Republican Party,
which dances to the tune the South Carolina business
establishment plays?
While we are all being good little Republicans and
good little followers of other conservative "leaders,"
who is going to WATCH our "leaders?" When
we are suddenly informed one day that a "deal"
has been worked out in the state legislature, how
are we going to find out who sold us out? Are we
still going to care?
Let me warn you once again: if you do not have a
MEMORY, you are going to be betrayed again and again.
And most conservatives have no memory at all, as
I have demonstrated over and over in these columns.
Leftists never forgive a betrayal until those who
betrayed them do something to make up for it. Rightists
just go back to being loyal.
For example, no liberal would ever forgive a betrayal
like that of Bob Jones against us until he APOLOGIZED
for it. Now, can anyone imagine any conservative
leader ever apologizing to us for any betrayal?
Of course not. They never apologize because we forget
the betrayal. No one has anything to LOSE by refusing
to apologize to us, because we never demand it.
The money men have won in all their interstate boycotts.
Then our leaders apologize for not selling us out
quickly enough. Liberals won't stand for anything
less than a groveling right, and we never object
when our leaders do the groveling.
I have done a lot of marching in my time. I have
been in many marches larger than the one in Columbia,
and I have seen some of those movements fail.
Movements that defy money fail because money has
a built-in memory. Watching the NAACP leader interviewed
by NBC, the same thought occurred to me that I have
each time I see one of these professional leftist
activists: "If it weren't for his 'movement,'
where could this guy get a job?" Unlike the
thousands of people who spend their time and work
and money to get to a march, this guy has nothing
in the world to do but push the cause his masters
pay him to push.
He'd damn well better. Otherwise he'd have to find
real work.
Long after the few months it takes for conservatives
to go back to whatever is in the papers, those paid
"leaders" on the left will have nothing
to do for their pay but stay on their masters' issues.
That is what defeats grassroots movements.
It is the failure of MEMORY that destroys the grassroots
movements. The one overwhelming danger is that we
will go back to the old groove and let our enemies
come up with a fait accompli, a "compromise,"
a sellout that nobody is exactly responsible for.
|
|
|
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|