|
|
| |
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WAS ANAZIWHOWANTEDTOKILLSIXMILLIONJEWS!!
|
|
"The number of purely white
people in the world is proportionately very small....
I would wish their numbers were increased.... but
perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my country,
for such partiality is natural to mankind."
---Benjamin Franklin
|
MEMORIAL
DAY: DIDN'T AMERICA EVER FIGHT COMMUNISTS?
|
|
I watched the television coverage
of Memorial Day. For over half a century, American
soldiers died in Korea and Vietnam and elsewhere
holding back the Communists. The Communists killed
tens of millions of people, both before and after
World War II, and mostly in peacetime. But all I
ever see about Communists on television is how bad
the anti-Communists were in the McCarthy era.
So what do we see on Memorial Day? Channel after
channel presented hours on the Holocaust. Not a
word about Communist massacres. The Holocaust is
useful to the political left, so the evil of the
Nazis is all we hear about.
Honest leftists refer to World War II as "the
last good war." Americans who died in that
war thought they were fighting against dictatorship.
But it turns out they were fighting to open Europe
to third world immigration. The official doctrine
now is that Americans were in World War II to do
away with the white race. They were fighting to
open ALL white majority countries, and ONLY white
majority countries to immigration and integration.
So that is now what Memorial Day is all about.
Anyone who opposes any of this is "ignoring
the Holocaust." Anyone who questions the race
policy of liberals and respectable conservative
policy is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
Leftists never hesitate to use other people's tragedies
for their own purposes. The moment the shooting
stopped in Littleton, Colorado, Clinton was using
it to push his gun control agenda. No respectable
conservative said a word about this incredible callousness.
The Jews who died in Nazi Germany are useful to
the left, so the left exploits them.
If you are waiting for respectable conservatives
to protest even the most extreme use of human tragedy
by the left, don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
HOW
THE PURITANS CAME FROM MOHAMMED
|
|
In the eighth century, the swelling tide
of Islam had conquered all of North Africa and spilled
over into Europe. The legions of Mohammed came across
Spain and surged into the very heart of Europe. They went
all the way across France and were only stopped at the
battle of Tours, in what is now Belgium.
After the Battle of Tours, the forces of Islam were driven
out of what is now France. But they held onto Iberia,
the Peninsula which now contains Spain and Portugal. While
the rest of Europe was free of the Mohammedan threat,
Spain began a long, agonizing war to free itself of Mohammedan
rule. This war lasted for over SEVEN CENTURIES, from the
eighth century until 1492.
The slow, horrible process of taking Spain back from Islam
was called the "reconquista," the Reconquest.
Like later religious wars, it was fought without mercy.
As always, the war between two forces that claimed to
bring Love and Brotherhood to All Mankind was brutal beyond
imagination (See May 15 article, "Wordism").
No one is more totally merciless than Communists and self-styled
"Christians" who think they are battling for
The Only True Faith.
Finally, after three-quarters of a thousand years of torture
and mass killing, the last Mohammedan outpost in Spain
was conquered. By this time, the Spaniards were religious
extremists to an extent other Europeans found hard to
imagine. Naturally, all those generations of war had caused
Spain to become unbendingly devoted to its religion.
In 1492, the reconquista ended, and the Spaniards were
fanatical Catholics. Then, only twenty-five years later,
the Protestant Reformation began. To fight the Reformation,
each Catholic country set up an Inquisition. But the Spanish
Inquisition was far more ruthless and brutal than any
other.
Spain was by far the most powerful Catholic country. It
had just taken over the New World, and gold was pouring
into Spain. As a result, the extremism of Spain became
the standard for battling Protestantism.
While Catholic powers like Austria tried to some extent
to reason with Protestants, Spain demanded they be burned
alive as quickly as possible. Because of the long, long
war Spain had fought to free herself from the grip of
Islam, Protestantism was met with pure repression in Catholic
lands.
The result of Catholic fanaticism was the rise of an equally
fanatical form of Protestantism. In countries where Catholic
princes ruled and a Protestant revolt developed, that
Protestant revolt was always Calvinist. John Calvin was
an absolutely unbending religious extremist who wrote
his own theology and ruled Geneva as a religious dictator.
He regarded every other form of Protestantism as too soft,
and he preached that practically everybody but the few
who belonged to his church were damned to Hell. In fact,
he even preached that most of the people IN his church
were also damned!
In most countries, only the Calvinist kind of Protestant
viciousness could fight against Spanish-led Catholic extremism.
In France, in Scotland, in the Netherlands (which was
rebelling against Spain at the time), the grassroots Protestant
revolt was Calvinist.
Mohammed had conquered Spain, and the Spanish Inquisition
was a direct result of Spain's long and merciless struggle
against its Moslem conquerors. The power of Calvinism
was, in turn, the direct result of the Spanish Inquisition.
In England, the Puritans were Calvinists. They were extremists
who wanted to clean out every trace of what they called
"Papism" from the English Church. These were
the Puritans who came to New England.
Let us get one thing straight. The Puritans were entirely
different from the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims who landed at
Plymouth Rock were NOT theocratic Puritans. Our post-Civil
War history likes to confuse the small band of Pilgrims
who came here for religious freedom with the Puritans,
who came here to stamp out every trace of religious freedom
within their territory.
Puritans banned every other church from their territory
until 1690, when the British Government forced them to
allow other forms of worship. Dissenters like Roger Williams
and Hutchinson were thrown out. The spirit of Europe's
religious wars had come to America. It would be the basis
of the later New England outlook that led to fanatical
abolitionism, the Civil War, and the totalitarian tendencies
of today's American left.
We see this pattern repeated throughout history. Fanaticism
leads to fanaticism. The later fanatics always claim that
what they are doing is all right, because of what the
earlier fanatics did. Lenin and Stalin claimed that what
they did was all right because the Czar had been so evil.
The Nazis claimed that what they did was all right because
they were fighting the Communists. Today, the antiracists
claim that their suppression of all opposition is all
right because they are fighting Nazism.
England spent centuries developing freedom of speech.
Now they are going back the other way, all in the name
of fighting racism (See "Poisoned
Fruit," October 24). In America, anti-white fanaticism
is justified in the name of fighting Nazism and bigotry
(See January 30, "Dirty Old
White Men,").
Just as the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition lived on
in the Puritans who claimed to be its worst enemies, the
spirit of Adolph Hitler lives on today in those who claim
to represent Love, Brotherhood, and Racial Tolerance.
|
|
BLIND
LOYALTY IS THE REAL TREASON
|
|
There are lots of pictures on television
about refugees crying in the Balkans. It reminds me of
the 1970s when I was doing press conferences for the antibusing
movement.
In Louisville, thousands of AMERICAN children were forced
to wait in the dark and cold at dawn so they could spend
HOURS on the bus so they could end up in dangerous ghetto
schools as an outnumbered white minority.
There were LOTS of tears there. Lots of children were
crying. But, despite everything we could do, not a single
newsman was there to report it, much less to PHOTOGRAPH
it. It wasn't their issue, you understand. When a single
black man is brutally murdered by a racist in Texas, the
entire national press is there with the FBI. Every night,
black criminals brutalize hundreds of whites, but no one
even mentions that.
It isn't THEIR issue.
As I said before, the Communist Pol Pot ruled a country
about the size of the one Milosevic rules. He murdered
over a million people in that country during the 1970s,
but the anti-Vietnam Love Generation didn't say a word.
Why was that? Well, Pol Pot was a Communist, and mass
murder in the name of Communism is NEVER the stuff of
which War Crimes are made. Communists have killed far,
far more people in this century than everybody else put
together, but no one has ever suggested that any Communist
be tried for War Crimes.
After all, the media says, that's not THEIR issue.
But the Serbian War IS their issue.
So I would like an answer to a very simple question: Why
am I supposed to blindly support a war that is being fought
because it IS their issue?
The answer is that if the United States does it, conservatives
will back it, no matter what it is.
This is the history of the American right, and how it
has ruined America. Conservatives are always blindly loyal
to the institutions liberals have taken over.
Leftists took over the Methodist Church and the Episcopal
Church and all the mainline churches, and conservatives
kept giving their money to those churches. Conservatives
kept leaving money in their wills to those churches. Leftist
professors rule on campus, and conservatives give more
money to them. For every dollar donated to any conservative
cause, conservatives give a hundred dollars to institutions
liberals rule. In the case of blind loyalty to institutions,
liberals have the superior MORALITY!
The minute any institution stops serving their principles,
liberals dump it.
When the Boy Scouts opposed homosexuality, liberals stopped
giving them money. If a church starts performing homosexual
marriages, it might lose one percent of conservative donations,
and that will be TEMPORARY.
My first experience with this immoral conservative loyalty
was when I got into politics in the middle 1950s. I immediately
saw why conservative voters had lost all influence over
presidential policy. Conservative Midwesterners blindly
voted for anything that had the Republican label on it.
In the Solid South, conservative Southerners always voted
for anything that had the Democratic label on it, no matter
what they did to us.
Conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans did
not have the slightest loyalty to their principles. The
institution, the political party, was everything to them.
Not liberals. Liberals voted for the party that did the
most for liberalism. They backed liberal Democrats, but
they also voted for Republican liberals like Jacob Javits
in New York and Earl Warren in California. It paid off,
big time.
Meanwhile, conservatives voted for anything with the right
party label on it, including Warren and Javits and all
the Republican liberals like them.
Because of this blind and immoral loyalty to their parties,
conservatives lost all power over party policy. Each party
ignored conservatives when they nominated a presidential
candidate and wrote a platform. The Democrats nominated
liberals and wrote a hard civil rights platform. All but
a handful of TEMPORARY Dixiecrats remained blindly loyal.
Republicans repeatedly nominated Dewey over the conservative
Taft. It was clear to everybody that a majority of Republicans
wanted the conservative Midwesterner Robert Taft. But
the Party nominated Dewey. Party leaders said that conservatives
would vote for the Party candidate no matter what. They
needed to nominate the more liberal Dewey, who was from
New York, in order to get more liberal votes.
In other words, everybody knew liberals were not blindly
loyal to anybody, so the parties had to be loyal to them.
In 1960, conservatives wrote Nixon's Republican platform.
But Governor Rockefeller of New York was a liberal, and
he wouldn't stand for it. He was for his principles, so
he had no blind loyalty to the Republican Party.
So Governor Rockefeller of New York called Nixon and said
he wouldn't support Nixon unless Nixon rewrote that platform
to suit the liberals. They spent hours on the phone, and
Nixon presented the Republican Convention with the platform
Rockefeller wanted for his support. According to Theodore
White's, "Making of the President, 1960," that
cost Nixon the election. He lost by only a few electoral
votes, and he got 49% of the vote in South Carolina and
Texas, and he got 49.9% in Missouri. Just a few more conservative
Democrats would have won for him.
In 1964, all the liberal Republicans refused to support
Goldwater when he won the nomination. As soon as Goldwater
was defeated, he turned the party back over to the moderates.
And what if Rockefeller won the nomination in 1964? Every
conservative Republican would have CRAWLED to him, begging
for the privilege of supporting him.
Droolingly loyal people get exactly what they deserve.
They get ignored. Their cause gets ignored. But all liberals
have to do to get conservatives to do what they want is
to wave the right flag. Liberals want a war in Serbia?
They just have to point to the uniforms Americans soldiers
are wearing, and most conservatives will drop to their
knees and BEG for the privilege of supporting the liberals.
When did conservatives finally begin to get some control
over national policy? It was when they stopped being blindly
loyal. In 1964, conservative Democrats in the South started
leaving the Democratic Party -- At last! -- and the Republican
Southern Strategy was born!
In 1968, George Wallace ran on a ticket that pulled a
major portion of the Democratic base out of the party.
Wallace said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference
between the two parties." The road to Reagan began,
because there was a real hope of Republicans getting conservative
votes by going conservative.
Meanwhile, Republican conservatives remained loyal to
Nixon, and we all know the result of that.
When Nixon took over in 1969, he went out of his way to
kick conservatives in the teeth, as they deserved. He
appointed a pro-busing Commissioner of Education. He demanded
a national welfare program with a minimum guaranteed income,
and took other steps even the DEMOCRATS were afraid to
propose. When Nixon got kicked out of office, he appointed
Ford as his successor. Ford appointed ROCKEFELLER as his
vice president!
And year after weary year, throughout the '50s, the '60s,and
the '70s, I kept asking, "Is anybody tired of this
yet?" Conservatives would say they were tired of
it, and then they would go back and support anything with
a Republican label on it. Lake High quoted a line from
Kipling which might have been the conservatives' motto:
"And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling
back to the fire."
Or, as another friend of mine put it, "Every four
years, conservatives go to the Republican Convention,
get kicked in the teeth, and come up smiling." So
when someone tells me I am not being "loyal"
to the United States because I am a Southern Nationalist,
or I am not being "loyal" because I am not supporting
the Republican Party or some other institution, I tell
them this:
Blind loyalty to any institution is treason
to one's principles.
|
|
|
| |
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|