America was born in a climate of mutual respect. There were great differences, economic, cultural, racial and theological, among the States that founded the American Union. But the Fathers sat down and hammered out compromises in our Federal Constitution that men of good will could live with. And the United States, as we know them, took their place among the Nations of the earth.
That climate of mutual respect--and the good will that accompanied it--eroded during the 50 years between 1820 and 1870; at first gradually, by bits and pieces; latterly, in a deluge of contending rhetoric and invective. From 1861 to 1865, those States that remained in the Union fought a terrible war against the 11 Confederate States that had withdrawn after the Presidential election of 1860; the purpose to force the latter back into that Union by armed might. In the North and West, it was called the "Civil War"--and was indeed a civil war in Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and certain of the territories. For most, it was in truth a "War Between The States," as any regimental survey, North or South, will quickly attest.
While President Lincoln--before his assassination in the last days of the War--counselled reconciliation and a toleration for diversity; and the Union Commanding General, Ulysses S. Grant, displayed a profound respect for General Robert E. Lee and his men, refusing to accept the surrender of their personal weapons and horses at Appomattox; Congress in 1865 fell under the control of hate crazed zealots; men who wanted to punish the Southern States for daring to leave--and for political advantage. And in the next few years, the gathering storm of hatred that had led to disunion and war was exceeded by the vengeful hatred of those who had anointed themselves to put the Union back together. Yet hate begets hate, as ill will, malice. And the harvest of Reconstructive vengeance was three generations of sectional bitterness and hostility.
Still, little by little, Americans came again to respect one another; to fight side by side; to honor the brave men, on both sides, who had paid so dear a price for the loss of mutual respect after 1820. And thoughtful Northerners, no less than Southerners, came early in the process of reconciliation to honor the chivalric warriors of the old South; brave and honorable men who had fought gallantly--although terribly outnumbered and under-equipped--for their freedom and their way of life. Most Americans of any intellect understood, also, that the principles for which the South fought in the 1860s were not markedly different than those for which Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and General Robert E. Lee's own father and uncle had contended in the Revolution. And the rhetoric of our patriotic orators came to dwell equally on the valor of Blue and Grey.
In some places the healing did not take so long.
I remember, as a boy growing up in Cincinnati, a giant photograph of Robert E. Lee that dominated the study of a great uncle, born in our Ohio city a few years after that War. It was impressive both in size and in the nobility of the countenance. But it was not atypical. For generations, rooted southern Ohioans equally honored General Lee with General Grant--born the next county over. Yet as a role model, the universal choice would have been General Lee.
There was a 1999 "flap" in Richmond, Virginia, where a local Councilman with a strange sounding name compared Robert E. Lee to the German Socialist Adolph Hitler(!) and objected to a portrait of the former, intended to grace an historic walkway being developed to celebrate that City's rich and colorful past. Apparently desiring to be politically correct--a euphemism for the intellectually bereft--the sponsors agreed to remove the Lee portrait. Robert E. Lee was the most academically distinguished West Point graduate in the proud history of the Academy--a man whose conduct defined the term Christian Gentleman, North and South, for over a century. In a more chivalric time, someone would have invited the hate filled complainant to answer for his comments on the field of honor. But in a craven desire to avoid offending a would be bully, the sponsors offended all who honor heritage and duty across the length and breadth of America. If the object was to promote better feeling among Americans, it could not possibly have been more self-defeating.
The Lee portrait issue is but the tip of what has been going on across the South since the modern Scalawag W. J. Clinton took the oath as President. With the election of Grover Cleveland in 1884, the hate building era of Reconstruction came to an end. And while Northern "Liberal" politicians during the 1950s and 1960s used traditional white Southern society as a scapegoat for all sorts of social ills--much as the Socialist hatemongers and demagogues, Marx and Hitler, had used the Jews in Germany--American policy from Cleveland to Bush recognized that the Confederate Army had been brave and honorable men; men whose service to the South had been unique, but whose esteemed tradition had become also a treasured part of a common heritage, role models for the generations.
I do not suggest that President Clinton set out deliberately to profane the symbols of better men. But his whole approach to military duty and traditional male honor is so totally antithetical to the Confederate tradition, it encourages the most loathsome among us to come out of the woodwork and strut across the public stage. It would be virtually impossible to imagine two men more totally opposite in character and performance--at every stage of development--than Robert E. Lee and William J. Clinton.
Can anyone imagine Robert E. Lee fleeing to a foreign land to avoid military service; sending young women into combat; referring to sexual deviants as gay and asking America to honor their lifestyle? Is there any report of Robert E. Lee ever telling a lie? Did he ever try to exploit human misery for personal gain? He will remain a role model for our sons--North and South--long after Bill Clinton has retired to a sorry footnote in the history of this continent. But in the moral cesspool, Clinton has encouraged, the once honored symbols of the brave never dishonored lost cause, are being removed from campuses and public structures; Confederate memorial days go unobserved; Confederate battle flags are banned from public events; even Dixie is seldom sung; the lovely sentimental Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny--actually written by a well educated New Jersey Negro, as a love song to his girl friend in Virginia--almost forgotten.
The usual justification for this gathering assault upon a proud and noble heritage is that the old symbols evoke images of slavery--and slavery, everyone knows, involved bad things--including the seizure of Negroes on the African Continent, and their forced importation to be held in involuntary servitude. Historic revisionists tell us that the War was really over slavery--not self-Government;--that the Plantation South used slave labor. They have no answer to the fact that no one in the Lincoln Administration ever said anything about freeing slaves--as an object of war--until we were well into it; that President Lincoln made it very clear in his campaign that he did not believe the Federal Government had any right to free the slaves; that tens of thousands of the slaves fought for the Confederacy; while millions more remained loyal to the system and Society at home--at a time when the able bodied White population were away at the front, and many of the women and children dependent upon the proven loyalty of their Negro servants.
The concept of rewriting history to accord with the social theories of a later era evokes interesting possibilities. If the traditional South may not celebrate its history and values because its former method of securing and allocating labor was undesirable, might not Clinton's buddy Tony Blair dismantle the symbols of British heroism? Can he, as champion of British Labor, allow Trafalgar Square and two centuries of near deification of Lord Nelson, as Britain's greatest hero, to stand in the face of the fact that many of the crews, at the naval battle that saved England from Napoleon, were there because of recruiting tactics very similar to those which brought the Negroes to America? The terminology between "Press Gang" and "Slave Raider" is different. But those seized and thrown onto ships, that they might serve others whom they did not even know, might not appreciate that difference.
By the same token, the Social Democrats in France should demand that she give up her adulation of Charlemagne and his heirs. The system of allocating labor had a different nomenclature. But one would have a difficult time explaining the differences to either French serf or Plantation slave. And one could go to almost any land, at some era in its history, and make the same absurd point.
While Lee's detractor may be a Negro, one suspects that very little of the onslaught against traditional Southern culture and symbols actually arises in the Negro community. Indeed, traditional Southern culture permeates the traditions of millions of American Negroes who prefer spiritually directed Churches to agitation; traditional Southern culinary methods to the trendy garbage that appeals to many white "yuppies"; and courteous discourse to the rage of the vocal few to which the media direct so much attention. One suspects that the real assault on Southern tradition reflects the hatred of a broader American tradition, which the White intellectual trash that surrounds the President vent upon many other institutions--our right to even acknowledge the Deity in school, our right to keep and bear arms, to decide with whom we will associate, whom we will employ; our right to insist that the Constitution means what was intended, not the wish list of usurpers; our expectation that Washington (the Capital) adhere to the wise counsel of Presidents Washington and Jefferson in dealing with the rest of mankind.
Consider in this context the much ballyhooed claim--even on C-SPAN which ought to know better--that DNA evidence has now proven the malicious 200 year old gossip, started by a political foe, that Thomas Jefferson fathered children by his daughter's mulatto house maid, Sally Hemings. On inspection, one will find that the only thing proven was that the claim of "proof" was fatuous--a public relations hoax. Examine for yourself, the principal arguments and evidence:
1. The alleged DNA trace involved a Y chromosome supposedly passed on in the male line, not from Thomas Jefferson or his father, but from his uncle Field Jefferson. This, on its face, would point not to Thomas Jefferson but to one of his numerous younger cousins--some of whom would have had frequent access to the household.
2. The method of the trace involved 19 DNA markers as opposed to the 200 usually used before DNA evidence is considered reliable enough to be offered in a Court of law. And even aside from the possibility of mutations during the generations since the alleged parentage, the trace found would only exclude 99 out of 100 people picked at random--leaving, for example, 30 non-Jefferson family prospective fathers among any 3000 mature males in Albemarle County at the time. (The usual exclusion factor, for DNA evidence used in a Court room, involves data running from a minimum of many times that level of exclusion to billions or trillions of times that level!)
3. In view of the above, it should surprise no one that when a respected newsman, John McLauglin--the one media personality who showed the common sense and common decency to look behind the claimed proof--called the FBI, he was advised that the claim would not hold up in Court. (As a trial lawyer, I can assure you that it would not!)
4. The DNA evidence used in the tests was not even taken from anyone in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries; rather from the present day descendants of Jefferson's uncle and the child (Eston) supposedly parented: The assumption being that the Y chromosome being matched was passed along unchanged from father to son. If somewhere in the intervening generations, anyone in either line had been fathered not by their mother's husband but as a result of an unholy liaison, the results would be totally invalid.
5. The DNA trace, which has been used to claim the Jefferson parentage, went to Sally Hemings last child Eston, born in 1808 when Jefferson was in his mid-60s. The same trace excluded Jefferson as a possible father for Sally's first son Thomas Woodson, born in 1790 when Jefferson was 47, and conceived at a time when she was with Jefferson and her mistress in Paris. It was the birth of this first son, which in fact led to the aspersion, in his own time, of Jefferson's involvement. If the evidence was valid to demonstrate that someone with the same genetic trace as the male line heirs of Jefferson's uncle fathered Sally's last boy, it must be just as valid to eliminate Jefferson family involvement with her first.
Truth and reality are not divisible into what you or I or any other may like or not like. One cannot pick and choose what is true. To accept the claimed proof of Thomas Jefferson's involvement with Sally Hemings, one must believe the following:
(a) That at a time when he would have been the only male Jefferson to have access to his daughter's maid and the claimed object of attention was fresh and unspoiled--a time when, given the realities of age and condition, he would have been far more vigorous with far more leisure time than later--Thomas Jefferson was not Sally's lover.
(b)That despite having been slandered in the interim for a liaison he denied; despite the ravages of time and six prior live deliveries on Sally under the less than ideal conditions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; despite the then President's being recognized for decades as one of the most eligible widowers on the face of the earth, with great appeal to women who would have shared at least some of his vast array of interests; at a time when he had all the demands of the Presidency upon his shoulders and his somewhat dissolute younger brother Randolph was known to be hanging around the slaves at Monticello--"used to play the fiddle and dance half the night with them," according to one eye witness--and Randolph's son Isham may have actually lived at Monticello, and Jefferson cousins and nephews frequently visited; any Jefferson DNA in Sally's son had to have come from the sixty-five year old President of the United States! (We are asked to believe that the girl the 46 year old Jefferson could resist very well in Paris, was irresistible to the 64 year old President, when he was far more occupied with other matters.)
(c) That the author of the Declaration of Independence, who denied the allegation of involvement--and who like the other Founding Fathers had put his life and personal honor on the line that we might all be free--was less worthy of belief than his daughters maid!
Will any sober, dispassionate person tell me that the above will scan!
6. Randolph's male capacity at the time of Eston Hemings birth, in 1808, is attested by the fact that he married his second wife the following year, and sired a son soon after.
7. Advocates of the Thomas Jefferson-Hemings hypothesis have claimed support in an assertion that Sally got pregnant only at times when Jefferson would have been in residence. But the times when Jefferson was present at Monticello would have been the times when most of the younger male Jeffersons would also have been in attendance--if for no other reason than to confer with the Master or to attend the social events that would have coincided. Moreover, with that attendance there would have been personal servants in attendance also. The male carried Y-chromosomal trace--the claimed new evidence--could just as well have come from a mulatto house servant with Jeffersonian blood from an earlier cross. No one denies that there had been miscegenation in the 18th Century. We may not condone it; but we cannot deny it. Sally was hardly the only product.
8. That Sally Hemings might have told her children that their father was the greatest American of the nineteenth century has very little evidentiary value. Throughout history, young women in a dependent role have "set their caps" for the most eligible man around. One suspects that many have fantasized seductions that were never achieved--as others have boasted conquests never made. It is little different with our teenaged sons; almost all of whom at some time fantasize the conquest of some beautiful creature, they have no prospect of ever knowing. Considering all the personality factors, it would not be surprising if Sally wanted to make her children feel good about their parentage. Claiming Thomas would have been far more useful than acknowledging Randolph (who would dance all night with the field hands), or a lecherous cousin or nephew--or perhaps another cross-bred servant.
9. The final point, claimed in support for the alleged liaison, is that Jefferson freed Sally Hemings and her children upon his death. Considering that she had been the personal maid, first of his beloved daughter and then his granddaughter Ellen Randolph since Sally had been very young, it would not be surprising if he had at least considered manumission. Considering that there was a common belief that Sally's white blood may have come from a close relative to Jefferson's adored wife, it would have been surprising if he had not considered her manumission, if that had been in fact his choice. The problem is that it was not! Sally had been the property of Jefferson's granddaughter Ellen Randolph for the last 16 years of his life; and it was Ellen Randolph (Mrs. Joseph Coolidge, at the time) and her brother Thomas Jefferson Randoloph who provided for Sally.
Why, if the case is so spurious, has such currency been given an unsupported conclusion? It has been charged that James Carville--President Clinton's hatchet man--broke the story to the press just before the last election to divert attention from his boss. While that would certainly explain the motive of those pushing the issue, it does not explain why those as varied as C-SPAN and a Monticello based group would dignify it as reasonable supposition, much less accept the dubious conclusion. The real issue is what motivates people, claiming to be objective, to scandalize and denigrate America's role models, when they have no evidence that would even be admissible in a Court of Law?
Since Reconstruction, egalitarian collectivists have been preaching a situational ethic: that what was decided at Appomattox was that the Jeffersonian heritage (limited Government, States Rights and individual responsibility)--watchwords to the South, but accepted by the American mainstream, North and South--no longer applied. As the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s; the Reconstructionists, in the late 1860s, and the politically correct zealots of modern America proclaim a utilitarian might makes right ethic that was and is supposed to end debate on the nature and morality of a political society. The assault on Jefferson--who postulated a moral basis for Government--and on traditional States Rights, Confederate icons, and traditional white Southern ethnic values; serves precisely the same cynical function as did the Nazi attack on States Rights, Jews and traditional ethnic values in Germany in the 1930s. That the present day utilitarians claim that they are doing just the opposite, professing to be promoting understanding in a diverse culture, demonstrates only their willingness to say and do almost anything to accomplish their agenda.
Let them be judged by their acts, not their words:
In 1865, at War's end in the deep South, the great majority of those skilled in the crafts and trades necessary for construction on both land and water were Negroes, trained on the great plantations for any and every manual task required in an advanced Society. By the 1890s, the percentages had fallen below a third, in some cases almost off the chart, as the older generation died off. A study by the chief Actuary for the Prudential Insurance Company in the early 1890s showed that at that time there was no bias among White Southern employers against hiring Negroes--indeed many preferred Negroes over the more contentious Southern Whites.
But one need look no further than the egalitarian demagoguery of Reconstruction to understand why skills, ordinarily passed from father to son, were not being passed on. The promise of "something for nothing" then--of equality decreed by Government--proved no more beneficial to the newly freed Southern Negro than it would a little later to the freed heirs of Russian Serfs.
With the loss of skill came a rise in disease and crime, as well as a breakdown in the family. It was in the midst of this moral morass, that the great Negro educator Booker T. Washington stepped forward to appeal to our better natures; for an end to the policies of confrontation: To his fellow Negroes, that they follow the uplifting path that others had followed, to learn and develop skills that would make them indispensable to the American economy. To his White neighbors, that they recognize the fundamental conservatism of the Negro people, and accord their loyalty (proven in the darkest days of war and Reconstruction) the respect deserved. And Americans of all races saw in the approach a chance for a better future--a future based upon mutual respect rather than confrontation, jealousy and hate.
During the era when Booker T. Washington stood as the foremost spokesman for Black America, the social statistics of the Negro showed marked improvement. While real progress was sometimes masked by regional poverty; there was a definite stabilization in the Negro family; a definite fall in Negro crime; an increasing emphasis on Negro education. Had the process continued to the present, there is little doubt but that the average American Negro would have been incalculably better off. But the apostles of hatred and discontent--the voices of discord and social upheaval--could not allow that.
In 1909, a group of known white Fabian Socialists with one show Negro W.E.B. DuBois (later identified as a Communist) founded the NAACP, largely for the purpose of returning to the policies of confrontation; of demanding, not achieving; of looking to Government, not self. While the Booker T. Washington school continued to dominate for a time, the new group began to make far more noise. And with the advent of the New Deal and Welfare State policies including ADC in the 1930s, millions were diverted from the path of real progress to become the political pawns of "Liberal" politicians. By the time the Civil Rights Movement came into its own in the late 1950s with a general acceptance--whether or not ever really true--that the NAACP and other confrontational groups (some actually founded by American Negroes) spoke for the Negro, all of the destructive forces of Reconstruction came back into play.
In Booker T. Washington's day, 80% of Negro births were in wedlock; the family structure was improving, the crime rate falling. Today--decades after the NAACP agenda was adopted in Washington--only about 1/3 of Negro births are legitimate (which means that only a third are in families with the means to pass on any present gain), while the crime rate is geometrically higher. For millions, living on Welfare as wards of the Government has become a multi-generational way of life. Yet, despite all legal concessions, confrontational groups continue to look for new issues; new means to keep antagonism alive; contributions flowing, with no possibility of peace. Until you understand these phenomena, you will never really appreciate the attack on Confederate symbols, nor why the NAACP suddenly attacks the gun industry.
I do not mean to imply that the politics of confrontation--of creating hatred, while claiming to promote understanding--is limited to those trying to exploit the Negro for Socialistic purposes. The essay on Leftist Word Games & ...Religious Freedom, at this web site, discusses how the ACLU infringes on religious freedom while pretending to defend it. That its tactics have been very similar should surprise no one. It, too, was founded by white Fabian Socialists in the early days of this Century.
Another group that has distinguished itself for just as long by a similar methodology--of pretending to be a force for tolerance and enlightenment while it undermines toleration and promotes confrontation and hatred--is the ADL (the Anti-Defamation League). It has worked with the NAACP and ACLU on countless projects over its 86 year history. It has enjoyed a better press than its leftwing bed partners, because it claims to be protecting Jews from the sort of hatred that was whipped up in Nazi Germany; and many have been willing to give it leeway on the theory that it is only reacting to the excesses of others. However, a closer inspection will reveal only another snake in sheep's clothing. The last thing that the ADL has tried to do is to protect Jews from the hatred of others--or to prevent a Nazi type movement in America. Consider:
Using a formula it could almost patent, the ADL will expose some outrageous statement by someone on the Conservative side of a social, racial or religious controversy, and use that statement to impugn the motives and the intellectual respectability of anyone associated with that person or any organization of which he is a member. They will also keep a dossier on both that person and organization, ever after. While they claim they are only counteracting hatred and bigotry, they seem to only find hatred among those who would defend a tradition, not those who would destroy it. This is more than passing strange, as it requires more hatred and venom to attack a tradition than to defend it. Thus in the conflict in the old South between those who would advance the Negro through conciliation and time proven paths to progress and those who sought confrontation, the ADL always lined up with the latter.
It would be very odd, if an organization impugning motives and labeling others with nasty epithets like "bigot" and "hatemonger," did not draw some venom back. But any comments provoked were only grist to the ADL mill. Yet this is an organization that claims to act for the Jewish people. Why, then, did it line up against the heritage of the old South, the region in America where Jews were first accepted in the American mainstream? The Secretary of State during the 1860s who was Jewish, was the Secretary of State for the Confederacy. The two United States Senators who were Jewish in 1860 were both from States that seceded. Did the ADL even care when it allied itself with organizations bent upon forcing Socialist doctrines on the Southern people; bent upon manipulating the media to prevent the Southern side of the ongoing debate from even being heard?
Is the ADL concerned that its usual ally, the ACLU, is making an anti-Jewish (and anti-Christian) statement when it fights to keep the Ten Commandments off public grounds? No rational person seriously believes that posting the Ten Commandments amounts to an Establishment of Religion, but I suspect that we will wait a very long time to see the ADL address the ACLU's "bigotry" on that one. Meanwhile, they repeatedly call for Federal "hate crime" legislation; urge parents to install something they label a HateFilter to make certain that youth are not exposed to certain controversial ideas on the Web; and demand legislation that would make it a crime to fire--or even fail to promote-- an employee based upon his sexual orientation--making it very clear that they mean those whom they call gay. Are they fighting anti-Semitism or fighting for the same Fabian Agenda as the NAACP and the ACLU?!
Have the Fabians in the ADL ever even read Chapter 19 of the Book of Genesis; Leviticus, Chapter 18, Verse 22; Chapter 20, Verse 13; Deuteronomy, Chapter 22, Verse 5; Chapter 23, Verse 18? Of course the ADL does not represent Jews when it seeks to criminalize them for refusing to hire and promote practicing homosexuals; any more than the NAACP represents Negroes, when it seeks to deny law-abiding Negro property owners ready access to firearms for protection of life and property.
The real proof of where the ADL stands is in their treatment of the Nazi question. While their ACLU ally brings well publicized cases to protect the "rights" of self-styled American "Nazis" and kindred movements to invade Jewish neighborhoods as "Free Speech" or "Free Assembly," the ADL harvests the fear caused by such hoopla to raise money and smear Conservatives. The ADL parades as the self-anointed watch dog against a neo-Nazi revival, claiming a unique expertise. And yet the ADL perpetuates one of the great lies of the 20th Century--a lie started by the Nazis themselves--that National Socialism was a movement on the Right; despite the chosen name, a party of angry Conservatives. It was never so!
The Nazis were a movement of the Left--to the right of Communists & some fellow Socialists, but of no one else! Consider:
In Europe, the Right have always been the parties of Monarchy and Established Religion: Those who look to a Divine plan and origin--a moral basis--for the social order. In America, we rejected the idea that the King and Established Church were ordained by God, postulating a different formula for a political society, yet one no less justified in a divine origin and moral bases. This grounding on a Natural Order--Natural Law--not subject to the whims of man, is essential to all movements on the Right, to all Conservatives. We seek to find truth, not make it! And this clearly distinguishes us from the great mass utilitarian and secular humanistic movements. (This is not to say that there are not those on the Left who also seek a theological or metaphysical base. Those who seek to change the social order may approach from almost any direction--grounded or windborne. But those who seek to defend enduring principles, must assert enduring truth.)
Nazis used ceremony and slogan to manipulate German conservatives; but their actions from the first reflected the same amoral, secular utilitarian, anti-traditional mindset that characterizes every major totalitarian movement of the Left. From intimidating political opponents with uniformed homosexual thugs, to coercing Anthropologists and other academics who sought truth rather than propaganda about the racially diverse peoples of Central Europe, before Hitler came to power; to blocking attempts to restore Monarchy in Bavaria and Austria; to letting the old Kaiser die in exile in Holland; to their destruction of the ancient rights & traditions of the German States, confiscation of firearms, regimentation of the factors of production and killing Jews (suggested to Socialists of the world by Karl Marx, a century earlier), all of their major actions reflect the same ideological origin & direction.
But enough of the ADL. One could cite others on the larger constellation of the Left to prove the same point--or comment on the "politically correct" mindset in the media and academia; on the hatred vented when the late Reggie White spoke words of love and respect from his Christian perspective for the diversity he saw, coupled with a compassionate ministry to the fallen. Why do the self-anointed white apostles of "brotherhood" so hate the Booker T. Washingtons and Reggie Whites? Can it be that they fear that a message of reconciliation and mutual respect may yet prove more potent than the climate of resentment, jealousy and hate, they have spent 90 years promoting?
The one thing certain, is that those who have been leading the attack on tradition have shown no interest in the individual American's pursuit of happiness. At every turn they have chosen the politics of confrontation. Whether the issue was race relations, religious freedom, free speech or our respect for the past, they have seized every opportunity to attack something near and dear to others. In the process, they have repeatedly shown contempt for private property, the right to bear arms, freedom of association and traditional religious beliefs. They speak of conciliation, to be sure; as Hitler spoke of German patriotism. But they, as he, must be judged by actions, not by words.
I do not mean to suggest that there are not individuals--many even in positions of local leadership--in the NAACP, who are sincerely interested in the Negro's welfare; in the ACLU, who really believe in civil liberties (even the property rights and gun rights that the national leadership has yet to discover); in the ADL, who actually care about their fellow Jews. The life-blood of the Left from Marx, through Lenin and Hitler, on to Bill Clinton and others today, has been in an ability to attract and hold the loyalty of dupes. That remains a given.
The Fifth Commandment, to Honor thy father and thy mother is coupled with a specified motivation beyond the obvious filial duty. In honoring our parents, we are told, we extend, prolong, our own earthly horizon. This coupling of forward vision with respect for past achievement is basic to all aspects of positive human orientation. Social progress is a building step by step on past development. In learning to honor the past, we begin to see how we may build a better future. In perceiving what is honorable in the past and how it in turn is honored, we learn the enduring importance of what we do now.
It is in this process of looking back that we may look forward to maximum effect; of putting the future in perspective by a true appreciation of the past; of measuring up to the highest aspirations of our heritage, both racial and cultural, as means to define the significance of our own lives; that we derive the incentive to be all that we can be. In recognizing the importance of those who have come before in our own lives, we realize our own potential importance in the lives of those who are yet to come.
It is no accident that those who would tear apart the social fabric, continuously seek to undermine respect for ties of heritage and consanguinity. These are the bases for our perception of the future. Without them, we are intellectually adrift, subject to endless change without rational direction; defenseless against those with less honorable agendas. This phenomenon, alone, would be sufficient to explain the contrived contention of the past ninety years.
While all aspects of the American tradition have come under attack, the defenders of that tradition have never really worked in concert. We have groups that have fought to defend the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms; others, the right of free association and local determination on ethnic issues; groups that have fought to keep alive our pride in heritage and race; groups that have fought to reverse the judicially legislated acceptance of abortion, and Federal interference with local law enforcement; groups which have fought for the right of enterprise to enjoy and retain the fruits of enterprise; and groups which have fought to allow prayer again in public places, and to defend non-denominational Biblical values. Unfortunately, these groups have seldom given effective assistance to one another. It is as though we were all blind to the reality that the attack on each of us is coming from the same direction, for the same motive.
On the surface, the objectives of the NAACP, ACLU and ADL--the examples of Fabian tactics cited--would seem to conflict. Their respective constituencies would appear to have quite different goals. But while they frequently attack on different fronts; they attack in tandem whenever needed. For example, the essay on the ACLU and First Amendment issues, mentioned above and a click away below, which details the ACLU involvement with a clandestine conference of Leftist organizations attempting to rig the public debate on race in the late 1950s. Its two most prominent allies in that conference were the NAACP and the ADL.
The ease with which diverse groups on the Left work in tandem to a perceived advantage is well demonstrated in the almost instant acceptance of favored terminology. Virtually overnight, nearly every "Liberal" in the media, academia, public "education" and politics, began using the misleading, non-descriptive geographic terms "Afro-American" and "Native American" in place of any racial designation for Negroes and Amerindians. While labeled "politically correct," this obviously serves to diminish pride in heritage and group identity among those so denominated. It ignores the reality of race and consanguinity. Is this intended to make those who accept the imposition of such nomenclature less able to resist other direct and subliminal attempts at manipulation by White "Liberals?"
A similar exercise, in the 1960s, was used to try to strip away the local and ethnic pride of those suddenly converted into "Appalachians." Other examples of the almost immediate acceptance of language distorted for manipulative purposes ("gay," "gender," "sexual orientation," etc.), are many. Such sudden shifts in usage are only possible because of the ease with which Leftists in the fields of verbal communication pull together.
The Founding Fathers differed among themselves on many questions, religious, social and political. It had not been very long before that High Church adherents and Puritans had been at each other's throats, while both had attacked the Quakers; there were already very different economic interests between the great agrarian proprietors and the urban merchants; very different perspectives between those who employed slave labor and those who met pay rolls; between the English and Scotch-Irish. Yet each made his commitment--a total commitment--to the values we are asked to defend today. And each understood, that if they did not "hang together," they would surely "hang apart."
At any time in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, that Conservatives had been willing to take up each others' causes, we could have broken the back of the Judicial Activism that has led to Federal and secular humanist control of everything in sight, simply by limiting the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. But we were so sensitive to the propaganda of those who hate us all, that Northern Conservatives were afraid to stand by their Southern brethren in racial controversies; the business interests were afraid to stand against the legalized slaughter of the innocent; many anti-abortionists, not only afraid to stand with the South, but with the defenders of the right to keep and bear arms, or those who want to preserve traditional sex-roles or the rights of children to pray in school. It is as though we have all been mesmerized by the rhetoric of contention and hatred, levelled at each of us but with common design.
When Reggie White raised again the flag of Christian love and reconciliation for which Booker T. Washington had stood a century before, every White conservative in this land should have applauded and extended the hand of friendship. As it was, most of our public spokesmen ran like so many terrified rats leaving a sinking ship; trying to make certain that no one would think that they agreed with a "racist" message. Had any of these whipped curs ever even bothered to look at the so called case against racial identification?
Reggie may not have been a scientist; only a God fearing athlete and honest man. His conclusions may not be precise; they are, nevertheless, more scientific than anything his detractors have been able to demonstrate in a century and a half of trying to deny the importance of heredity, of blood lines and consanguinity. There is absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever for denying the importance of racial difference. The claimed case is an insult to each of us, Caucasian, Negro, Amerindian or Mongoloid--a denial of some of the qualities that make each of us unique; a denial of a right to be comfortable in those differences. How much kinder and more respectful, Reggie's celebration of the design and purpose of our Maker.
We have the same choice as the Fathers. We can hang together, or we will surely hang apart. To recur to the present moment, we in the North can support our Southern allies against the assault on their heritage--and ask their support in return--or we can stand aloof and watch everything that we & they most value in this life, slowly picked apart. Our enemies are not kindly intentioned. They are persistent!
History will judge each of us by our actions, not our words.