|
|
|
When people complain about Clinton lying, liberals
look at them with a bemused expression. When was
lying not a legitimate thing to do for any Liberal
Cause? Clinton is a piker, an amateur.
We all know that Nixon taped people in the Oval
Office. We know that Lyndon Johnson taped people
in the Oval Office, and that the god of Modern Politics,
John F. Kennedy Himself, taped conversations in
the Oval Office.
As for extramarital affairs, Clinton is once again
a piker compared to our popular god, John F. Kennedy.
No respectable conservative is going to complain
about John F. Kennedy! Every respectable conservative
will join in the attack on the Evil Nixon for taping!
In a couple of decades, every respectable conservative
will be worshipping Clinton, and we all know it.
If a conservative is to be respectable, he has to
worship and praise the liberals of yesterday. He
must have nothing but praise for Kennedy, Truman,
Roosevelt, and all the rest. Liberal programs of
the past were good, liberal leaders of the past
were good. If your favorite politician of the past
was not a liberal, you cannot be a respectable conservative.
By the same token, no respectable Southerner can
object to integration. No respectable Southerner
can do anything but worship those who imposed it.
The result is that both respectable conservatives
and Southerners look silly objecting to what liberals
are doing to them today. They yell and scream at
what liberals are doing, but everybody knows that
tomorrow they and their successors will declare
they were wrong and the liberals were right. What
everyone can see is that they are doing a ritual
dance, a dance they get paid to do.
One leading example of this ritual worship of liberal
icons is the case of Eleanor Roosevelt. She was
pushing racial integration long before other liberals
even considered it. So now she is Saint Eleanor,
and no one will light more candles to her than a
respectable conservative Southerner.
If he doesn't, he won't stay respectable long.
Just a couple of weeks ago I saw a clip of Saint
Eleanor on television, presented by the host of
Meet The Press. She was criticizing Nixon in the
1950s. Eleanor the Beloved, you see, was being presented
by this supposedly neutral host as the judge of
True Veracity.
Actually, when it came to brazen lying, Saint Eleanor
outdid both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton! With
one big lie, she destroyed the presidential prospects
of South Carolina's James F. Byrnes, and made Harry
Truman president!
James F. Byrnes of South Carolina gave up a lifetime
seat on the United States Supreme Court at Franklin
Roosevelt's request in 1942. Roosevelt asked Byrnes
to resign so that he could keep Byrnes with him
at all times. Roosevelt did not even give Byrnes
a cabinet post. He made him "Assistant President."
Nobody, but nobody, gives up his lifetime appointment
to the Supreme Court for anything that is not enormous.
Everybody knew that Roosevelt was grooming Byrnes
to be his successor.
All this, oddly enough, has been ignored by historians.
But in 1944, when he was desperately ill, Roosevelt
informed the Democratic Convention, through his
wife, that he wanted Harry Truman for his vice presidential
nominee. As Truman pointed out later, he had scarcely
met Roosevelt.
What happened?
In his autobiography, the former Doorkeeper William
"Fishbait" Miller, who knew ALL the secrets,
tells us what happened in 1944:
"But what the public doesn't know is that it
was Eleanor Roosevelt who changed the course of
history..." Miller explains that several liberals
had called Eleanor and told her how upset they were
by the fact -- WHICH EVERYBODY KNEW -- that Roosevelt
wanted Byrnes as his Vice President in 1944.
Eleanor asked who they liked, and they said Truman
might do, being not too obviously liberal and being
"from an acceptable state," i.e., not
South Carolina. "Without waking up the President,
the first lady gave the word to the powers that
be at the convention that FDR HAD CHANGED HIS MIND
and wanted Harry Truman." I capitalized those
words to make it clear that everybody knew Byrnes
was to be nominated.
"When FDR found out what his wife had done,
he almost had a stroke then and there."
Truman was stunned by this nomination out of the
blue. He had come to the convention to support Byrnes.
There has never been any explanation of how this
person, whom Roosevelt had scarcely met, was chosen
by him to be vice president. Every other decision
of this sort has been discussed in detail, all the
maneuvering over the nomination for president and
vice president. Especially when the vice presidential
candidate chosen went on to become president. When
the choice of the vice presidential nominee determined
the next president, you would think a detailed discussion
would have taken place, and everybody would know
the answer.
But in Truman's case, nobody knew nothin'. Have
you ever seen a discussion in the general media
about how Truman got the nomination that made him
president?
Me neither.
And why did Eleanor's lie work? Why was FDR justified
in violating the promise by which he had lured Byrnes
from his lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?
Because Roosevelt could not repudiate Truman and
declare publicly that his wife was a bald-faced
liar.
In other words, his situation was a lot like that
of Democrats today in dealing with Clinton. Any
liberal today would have done just what Saint Eleanor
did. But he will also deny that she did it. He knows
better, of course. But, as I said, truth is not
what liberalism is all about.
|
|
I was watching a report on the Council of Conservative
Citizens on CNN. The representative of the Anti-Defamation
League said that the group was "racist and
anti-Semitic." I have not heard anyone even
imply that they have said anything anti-Semitic.
What the ADL was calling "anti-Semitic"
was the fact that the CCC was worried about the
disappearance of the white race.
So what the ADL is saying is that anyone who is
concerned about the disappearance of the white race
is THEREFORE anti-Semitic.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you use your
Jewish identity to fight for the destruction of
another group, that group is going to hate you.
Some years back, New York rabbis put a full-page
ad in the New York Times which read, "Jews,
Be Jewish!" They were worried about the disappearance
of Jews.
According to the ADL, Jews have a right to an identity,
but whites don't. And they are willing to crush
all opposition to that position.
And, as always, respectable conservatives are the
very first to want to join the lynch mob.
The day after Don Kennedy appeared on "Politically
Incorrect With Bill Maher" for the League of
the South, Maher made an interesting comment.
That show the next night was about Jews and Jewish
identity. Maher began by saying that the discussion
about Jews was the continuation of a theme: he was
dealing with important identity groups. He said
he had had Southerners on the night before, and
this one was about Jews. This was a very, very strong
boost to Southern identity, since Jewish identity
is absolutely holy to liberals and therefore to
respectable conservatives. Maher said that Southerners
have an identity as important as that of Jews!
You know this is true. I know this is true. But
what liberal or respectable conservative would DARE
say that? That was a brave thing for Maher to say,
because it is a statement liberal Jewish groups
would declare to be Evil. After all, it is still
traditional for a real Southerner to be proud of
it if he is white. Turncoat Southerners deny this,
but everybody knows it is true. To the ADL, if you
are proud to be white, you are anti-Semitic. The
New York-based ADL promotes the idea that Jewish
identity is at war with Southern identity, just
as it is with white identity.
In the history of the South, exactly the opposite
was the case. Bernard Baruch was born and raised
in Camden, South Carolina. His father was Deputy
Surgeon General of the Confederate States of America.
After the War, his father was a member in good standing
of the Kershaw County Ku Klux Klan in the 1870s.
When they lived in New York as wealthy, highly respectable
people, Bernard could never keep his father from
jumping up and shrieking the Rebel Yell whenever
"Dixie" was played.
Bernard Baruch said the first time he ever even
heard of anti-Semitism was his first day in New
York City, when someone called him a "dirty
Jew." The story of loyal Southern Jews goes
on and on. Both of the first Jewish senators in
the United States were from the South, and the first
Jewish cabinet member in America was Confederate
Treasury Secretary Judah P. Benjamin. When I was
coming up in the 1950s in South Carolina, the Speaker
of the State House of Representatives was Solomon
K. Blatt, of Barnwell County.
Down through the years, dealing with hundreds of
Northern Jews, I have thought of all this as their
militant hatred of the South and white people in
general boiled out. The most recent example of this
was a comment by feminist leader Betty Friedan,
blaming the impeachment of Clinton on "dirty
old white men." The hatred of white people,
the hatred of the South, all this is routine and
accepted rhetoric among leftist Jews. Nobody, but
NOBODY objects to it, least of all respectable conservatives.
As I say, their only comment is to demand a lead
place in the lynch mob when a white gentile gets
out of line.
One Jewish man years ago said to me, "Other
Jews can't believe it, but I actually LIKE the South."
It never occurred to him that this might just lower
my opinion of his Jewish friends. I wonder what
he would have thought of the South if I had said,
"Other Southerners can't believe it, but I
actually LIKE Jews!" But then again, white
gentiles don't have feelings, do they? So when Maher
compared Southern and Jewish identities, he was
saying something very important. Historically, Southern
Jews have been proud to be white and proud to be
Southern.
But for a New York Jewess, it is routine to blame
"dirty old white men." I wonder how liberals
-- and therefore respectable conservatives -- would
have reacted if someone had blamed ANYTHING on "dirty
old Jews"? This statement is typical of Friedan,
and Friedan is typical of the ADL mentality. Friedan
is a member of a group which is referred to by pretty
well everybody else -- privately -- as "New
York Jews." By this is not meant people like
Bernard Baruch and his father who tried to bring
civilization to that city from the South. It refers
to a group of people which, using its Jewishness
as an excuse, are rude and nasty and openly hate
and insult other groups. The group that brought
over this ugly "New York"-type Jewishness
was the millions of Eastern European Jews who came
over in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century. They brought with them every grudge they
ever got in Europe. They brought over their far
leftism. They made it fashionable for New Yorkers
to glory in their rudeness. Not all of them, of
course, but the ones who didn't have that attitude
were obviously overwhelmed by those who did.
Today, a major heritage of this wave of immigrants
is an attitude of pure hatred for those around them,
the hatred demonstrated by the Friedans and the
Dershowitzes and a legion of others. They keep alive
the spirit of the pogroms their ancestors suffered,
and they are determined to make Americans suffer
for nineteenth-century Russian anti-Semitism. Not
surprisingly, their gentile neighbors soon got to
really hate Jews. Then Hitler came along and gave
them a fresh justification for their nastiness and
hatred. Anybody who talks back to them now is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
Friedan continues this horrible tradition of "New
York City Jews." Today, due to the New York
Jewish tradition -- with a little help from their
liberal friends in the North -- the old Czarist
idea that Jews don't have feelings still rules.
It just rules IN REVERSE: Modern America insists
that it is white gentiles who are without feelings.
Jews who worry about the survival of Israel are
just being patriotic. Whites who worry about the
survival of their race are being naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.
I cannot imagine a policy better guaranteed to promote
anti-Semitism. This is why I appreciated Maher's
offhand -- and unintended -- comment on Southern
identity being comparable to Jewish identity. Maher
says we Southerners not only have feelings, we even
have a right to an identity. Just like humans do.
|
|
|
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|