Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Robert  Harper

What did WFB Jr. want removed about JFK?

Recommended Posts

I just finished reading a book of eulogies by William F. Buckley Jr., edited by James Rosen. It is - unfortunately - titled  A Torch Kept Lit which wouldn't normally grab my interest. However, I have long admired Mr. Buckley's style and I attended the service at Manhattan's Central Synagogue in 1980 for Allard Lowenstein, when he delivered one of his superb eulogies.  Ted Kennedy - himself no slouch when it came to eulogies - also delivered one that day. (I left the synagogue thinking to myself, 'well, it's the end of the sixties' and got on the subway.( Less than 9 months later, John Lennon would be killed a bit uptown.)
 
I read and liked a book written earlier about John Mitchell and Watergate by the editor Rosen, but I bought the Kindle because it was Buckley related. Rosen received  a grant from the Buckley Foundation to write it. Whatever one's political ideas might be, I'd suggest it difficult not to be impressed and moved emotionally and intellectually by some of Buckley's writings. He wrote of sailing and religion and friends; and he wrote beautifully.
 
As many of the readers of this forum know,  Howard Hunt and Buckley shared, at a young age, a year of employment, in Mexico City, with the CIA. As many may not know,  George de Mohrenschield - the buddy of  the then 24 year old Lee Oswald, worked for Buckley's Dad's oil company. He had Buckley's phone number, as he had that of George H.W. Bush, in his phone book , the day he was found dead with a shot to the head.(via bruce adamson--but that's for another thread) 
 
After that, Buckley went his way and Hunt stayed put. Each had a lot more to do during their lifetimes. Each authored spy fictions.
 
 Hunt was nearing death, and was writing about what he wanted history to know. He wanted the godfather of his kid and his best friend to write an intro to this last book. Best buddy Buckley replied to this request, according to Rosen, that he'd do so, after Howard removed some "grassy knoll" stuff. 
 
Now Rosen blithely skates over the details of Buckley's editorial excision, but my curiosity was piqued. 
 
Less than a dozen years after JFK's murder, Hunt was widowed by a questionable death of his wife - who also was employed by the CIA - in a plane crash while carrying a large amount of cash during the Watergate crisis. He told His. Only. Son. - whose mother died in this crash, that his employer was involved in executing a plan to eliminate JFK and that the same group - more or less- wanted to do the same to Castro. Hunt filmed himself while he told this to his son.
 
 John Rosselli told a similar story to Jack Anderson and ended up dismembered in a Florida Bay not long afterwards.  In the the same decade, a memo - or a fabrication of a memo, or a disinformation memo - surfaced that said the CIA had to Cover-Their-A- about Hunt being in Dallas. In the 1980's, Hunt was unable to explain his whereabouts on November 22,1963 during a libel trial described in Mark Lane's Plausible Denial.
 
So which is it:
 
  a) Hunt - facing death, started feeling that the same people who put him in prison, who didn't get funds to their families right away and who likely killed his wife, were set to throw him under the bus if Congress ever really looked into the JFK murder. He wanted and needed to confess. He knew that forgiveness might be delayed, but repentance was imperative.  Repentance required facing and acknowledging the truth. 
 
 Buckley didn't believe him; takes it as a version of what he heard Hunt told attorney (and active member here) Douglas Caddy -- that it was a UFO thing. WFB thinks this is yet another piece of disinformation, and doesn't want to be associated with such a topic.
 
  b)Buckley saw this as a confession - and as an attempt at redemption - and didn't feel qualified to comment on either. 
 
  c) Buckley saw this as the result of senility on the part of his friend, and spared him the embarrassment of publication.
 
  d ) Buckley and he had an understanding that national security propaganda depended on contradiction and deception.The loyalty they shared with their one time employer, trumped loyalty to their shared God and Church; their families and Country. Hunt, at it far longer than Bill, can't keep mum about some of the acts he was part of; Bill, at it only a year, doesn't want to know, or doesn't think it right, even if true, to publish it since they promised to keep mum.
 
  e) Rosen is unreliable as a source.
 
Any other alternatives?
 
( fwiw: I think b; I think Rosen suggested c) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Robert Harper
hit wrong key

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 9:00 PM, Robert Harper said:
So which is it:
 
  a) Hunt - facing death, started feeling that the same people who put him in prison, who didn't get funds to their families right away and who likely killed his wife, were set to throw him under the bus if Congress ever really looked into the JFK murder. He wanted and needed to confess. He knew that forgiveness might be delayed, but repentance was imperative.  Repentance required facing and acknowledging the truth. 
 
 Buckley didn't believe him; takes it as a version of what he heard Hunt told attorney (and active member here) Douglas Caddy -- that it was a UFO thing. WFB thinks this is yet another piece of disinformation, and doesn't want to be associated with such a topic.
 
  b)Buckley saw this as a confession - and as an attempt at redemption - and didn't feel qualified to comment on either. 
 
  c) Buckley saw this as the result of senility on the part of his friend, and spared him the embarrassment of publication.
 
  d ) Buckley and he had an understanding that national security propaganda depended on contradiction and deception.The loyalty they shared with their one time employer, trumped loyalty to their shared God and Church; their families and Country. Hunt, at it far longer than Bill, can't keep mum about some of the acts he was part of; Bill, at it only a year, doesn't want to know, or doesn't think it right, even if true, to publish it since they promised to keep mum.
 
  e) Rosen is unreliable as a source.
 
Any other alternatives?
 
( fwiw: I think b; I think Rosen suggested c) 

This from an earlier thread might belong here as well.

I might add another category- (f)  Buckley and Hunt agreed that the "best truth" survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niENNHFHpWM

 

This lecture by Sheehan I just recently watched,  connects the dots as well as anything else I've read or seen, about understanding why the office of O'Brien was raided at Watergate.

Peter Dale Scott wrote about the Dallas/Watergate link but until hearing this: F. Lee Bailey as CIA lawyer AND lawyer for Santos Trafficante; and O'Brien as PR guy for Howard Hughes who was also CIA link, and who funded assassination squads in Mexico where one of the Watergate burglers held a check to cash in Mexico City. I always felt that the 18 minute gap HAD to be about JFK, but I couldn't figure out how it fit at this point in time. The "other" tape gap - the LBJ & Hoover talk the weekend of the murder -  was also about JFK. They had to erase the MOST damaging material. The Oswald note to the FBI is another of those things "erased."Maybe he left a message about an upcoming assassination attempt on JFK.

 

Edited by Robert Harper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, I was always drawn to watching WFB's TV program "Firing Line."
Even as a teenager.

I still regularly and quite often re-watch many of these interview/debates via You Tube.

It's fascinating to me to see and hear E.Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, Mark Lane and others connected to the JFK assassination,Watergate and other related nefarious historical events interviewed on Buckley's show in the context of 40 to 50 years of later revealed facts that weren't revealed back then.  Many facts that were purposely kept secret by those that knew of them at the time, including WFB, and that now exposed shed more light on the lies and or truths of these show's interviewees and their statements on the program. 

I am not a serious student of WFB's greater life story and his books and other writings. Any reflections on my part on WFB in this regard would be unworthy.  However, I have always wanted to see a thread here specific to Buckley's TV show Firing Line and the interview/debates presented there with JFK/Watergate related guests. I do feel informed enough in this specific subject area to add something of interest I believe.

For example, when watching Buckley trying to undermine Mark Lane and his critical review of the Warren Commission and their lone gunman finding as significantly based on Lane's extreme leftist political ideology and championing socialist causes as much as any non-biased objective analysis, what would Buckley have said if Mark Lane (in defense of the bias Buckley was inferring upon him as a champion of socialist / commie causes ) had exposed to the national TV audience Buckley's own 3 letter agency employment in Mexico City and who worked so closely and directly with someone of E.Howard Hunt's high covert status and whose personal friendship with Hunt was so strong that he ( Buckley) was chosen to be Hunt's son's Godfather?

Lane could have justifiably stated that WFB was in a no less biased political ideology and highly placed covert activity associations to defend his debate view than Lane himself was.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from post that opened this thread: "Buckley didn't believe him; takes it as a version of what he heard Hunt told attorney (and active member here) Douglas Caddy -- that it was a UFO thing. WFB thinks this is yet another piece of disinformation, and doesn't want to be associated with such a topic."

Too bad that my close friend, William F. Buckley, Jr., with whom I founded the Conservative Movement in the 1950s and 60s, did not live long enough to see credible persons and entities embrace the idea of the possibility of UFOs and the Alien Presence. I feel certain that Buckley would have enjoyed talking with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii about their arranging for the Pentagon to open up a research project into the subject. Then there are the front page articles in The New York Times in the past year that injects credibility into the topic of UFOs and the Alien Presence. Now comes along The New Yorker magazine with an interview of a Harvard University astronomer who talks about the possibility that Earth was recently visited by an Alien object.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/have-aliens-found-us-a-harvard-astronomer-on-the-mysterious-interstellar-object-oumuamua?fbclid=IwAR1vL22HpzWn_Axtsa7KzOcM7qMSp56GP_VUpjQ4ee06TT2cZsDGehXQbqY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i have to rain on this parade. 

I never liked Buckley as either a person or a writer.

The man was a racist and also a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior who would make good pals with Angleton.

Buckley actually backed the writings of the Virginia newspaper racist James Kilpatrick into the sixties when JFK was breaking down Jim Crow in the south.  

As late as the eighties, he was pushing for extending the Cold War and criticizing the telefilm The Day After because it showed the dangers of atomic fallout.

He and his brother James then did what they could to pull the Repubican party to the right by running against the moderate and liberal wings e.g. Goodell and Lindsay.  This was picked up by Gingrich and Delay and that is why the GOP today is a bunch of rightwing nuts.

So, please, I will not weep for Buckley.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day, I too like Robert Harper and Joe Bauer, admired Buckley's style and erudition.  I watched Firing Line with the other Sunday political shows, and religiously; it was my church.  I figured that with WFB I was getting "the other side."  Then in the Reagan years I had a major epiphany that was also a return to the anti-war epiphany of the late sixties, early seventies.  The Repubs lambasted Carter and the Dems for allowing a 900 billion national debt to accrue.  (Can you say Vietnam?)  Then RWR proceeded to triple that debt, and GHWB quadrupled it, by the official numbers.  (It was actually worse than that.)  My epiphany: the entire nation, esp. the media, will listen blithely while the Pugs criticize everyone to the left of Attila the Hun, and then proceed to be much worse on those exact same issues; I realized then that the American military complex takes every spare shekel, and some that aren't spare, and makes them all disappear into that black magic maw that we ridiculously call "defense."   Reagan's Star Wars ambition was when I absolutely Lost It.  Americans are the most absolutely politically STUPID creatures who ever existed and who will ever exist.

And it's a one-sided, selective stupidity.  The right wing can and do get away with anything.  When the putsch of generals and robber barons against FDR was exposed, coprocephalic, coprophagic America collectively said, "Aw, 'at's jus' baws bein' baws.  No damage done, nothing to see here."  And on and on. The American far-right can rob and murder with impunity.

Then in 2005, I started investigating the Kennedy and King killings.  That was epiphany number three.  It was, maddeningly, much worse than I imagined.  Around 2007, having built an impressive JFK library, I came across a Best of National Review volume, the fifties and sixties, at a used bookstore.  It was dirt cheap, so I thought i'd check it out to see what Billy Bugeye had to say about the events centered around 11/22/63.  You may find this hard to believe, but there was not one word about it.  I realized what a filthy, pretentious rag was The Nat Rev.  The American brand of "conservatism" (which is the opposite of historic conservatism which believed in CONSERVATion and only absolutely necessary wars) may be fiscally dumb as a fence post, but they are bloody geniuses at knowing when and how to ignore.  That old saw "The sins of omission are as bad as the sins of commission" means nothing to idiot America anymore.

Billy (Crazy-as-Bed-) Bugs, dripping with snot, was the chief mouthpiece and whore for America's high-class thieves and killers. And Billy Bugs was godfather to all but one of E. Howard Hunt's children.  They had a little mutual admiration society going, EHH for WFB's Old Money patrician entree, and WFB for EHH's cloak-and-dagger, James Bond, non-existent fantasy.

Of the two, only E. Howard had the guts and integrity to make amends.  Every word of his "Confessions" to St. John Hunt may not be absolutely perfect, scientific history.  That's due to compartmentalization.  But it's an honest effort and probably the best we'll ever have from one of the major players.

WFB, Jr. wanted EVERYTHING removed about JFK that was good and true.  There is no hatred like internecine religious hatred.  Billy Bugeye was a different kind of Catholic than the JFK kind.  No one hated JFK as much as the secretive, right-wing, money-worshiping wing of Romish Catholicism.  Billy Bugs was their leader.

Edited by Roy Wieselquist
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Quote from post that opened this thread: "Buckley didn't believe him; takes it as a version of what he heard Hunt told attorney (and active member here) Douglas Caddy -- that it was a UFO thing. WFB thinks this is yet another piece of disinformation, and doesn't want to be associated with such a topic."

Too bad that my close friend, William F. Buckley, Jr., with whom I founded the Conservative Movement in the 1950s and 60s, did not live long enough to see credible persons and entities embrace the idea of the possibility of UFOs and the Alien Presence. I feel certain that Buckley would have enjoyed talking with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii about their arranging for the Pentagon to open up a research project into the subject. Then there are the front page articles in The New York Times in the past year that injects credibility into the topic of UFOs and the Alien Presence. Now comes along The New Yorker magazine with an interview of a Harvard University astronomer who talks about the possibility that Earth was recently visited by an Alien object.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/have-aliens-found-us-a-harvard-astronomer-on-the-mysterious-interstellar-object-oumuamua?fbclid=IwAR1vL22HpzWn_Axtsa7KzOcM7qMSp56GP_VUpjQ4ee06TT2cZsDGehXQbqY

Avi Loeb, chair of Harvard's astronomy department, finds himself having to admit, for the purposes of full consideration, the scientific possibility that the anomalously shaped, unusually surfaced asteroid named ‘Oumuamua may have entered our galaxy from interstellar space as an object sent by an intelligent civilization. 

One wonders whether Loeb's publication of this possibility indicates the desire to drum up more funding.  In the New Yorker article cited, Loeb does a great deal of walking back the more sensational aspects of his possibility, at one point making the CYA postulate that the civilization that sent the 'Oumuamua "probe" is probably long dead. 

Here is Loeb on previous evidence of UFOs contacting our civilization:

I don’t enjoy science fiction because there are things in science fiction that violate the laws of physics. I like science and I like fiction separately. The main argument against any of the U.F.O. stories that you may have heard about is that the technology of detection have improved dramatically over the past few decades. We have cameras that are far better than we used to have, and nevertheless the evidence remains marginal. And so that is why there is no scientific credibility to U.F.O.s.

Also, what the article characterizes "as a strange object travelling through our solar system" is not conceptually the same as "the possibility that Earth was recently visited by an Alien object."  I, for one, was not contacted.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

o bad that my close friend, William F. Buckley, Jr., with whom I founded the Conservative Movement in the 1950s and 60s, did not live long enough to see credible persons and entities embrace the idea of the possibility of UFOs and the Alien Presence. I feel certain that Buckley would have enjoyed talking with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii about their arranging for the Pentagon to open up a research project into the subject

Mr. Caddy:


I think that the Buckley legacy can easily withstand any dribble of rain sprayed by Mr DiEugenio.


For starters, he was one of the premiere debaters on the American stage easily moving from political to cultural to philosophical and religious thought. He would never – for instance – refer to a book as a “tome of disinfo” without detailing reasons for referencing such; he would never not complete his role as spokesman for the affirmative in a debate about his usage of a term; and, although an author of scores of books and thousands of columns, he wouldn’t answer a debate query by saying “doesn’t anyone read my books?”


He was responsible for finding and publishing two of the finer intellects of the past 50 years—Garry Wills and Renata Adler and two of its best writers in Tom Wolfe and Joan Didion. His range of guests, invited to debate with him, is unapparelled in American history. How many people can you name who could discuss issues – with informed grace for an hour - with Norman Mailer, Kurt Vonnegut, Allen Ginsburg, Jack Kerouac, Harold MacMillan, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, George McGovern, Timothy Leary John Kenneth Galbraith, Allard Lowenstein, Rosalyn Tureck, Rebecca West and Muhammad Ali, to name just a few? One could have a good grasp of the major issues of the 20th century by watching - or reading the transcripts of - his Firing Line show. 


He burst on the stage of authors with a book about his undergraduate years at Yale. He ran for Mayor of NYC and wrote a great book about the experience; his running spurred Norman Mailer to do the same and they – at opposite ends of the political spectrum in many ways – always had respectful and mutually engaging conversations. Although a prolific writer of spy novels which became best sellers, his writing on sailing and ocean crossing and his writings on religion are sublime products of a crystal-clear intelligence with a superb writing style.
I doubt he used words like “racist” or “sexist” or “anti-Semitic” to brand someone because of their beliefs. He was much more comfortable asking questions and providing context than in summing up a person – or an idea – with pejorative dismissals. He always provided a Constitutional answer to a question about the Constitution; he accepted another’s views for what they were—good faith articulations of an affiliation. His positions on issues weren’t those of what was termed “liberal,” but his thinking was libertarian in principle, and inclusive of dialectic thought.


On a personal level, I “liked” Gore Vidal more, and approved of his take on many issues.  I generally voted opposite to the way Buckley suggested. On the early evening of the Simpson murders on Rockingham Avenue, in Los Angeles, I was hosting an ACLU event a few houses down the street—certainly not WFB’s favorite group. But like Coleridge, Buckley felt that the best way to advance an idea was to face the best that the other side had to offer and that by doing so, one could come to an informed conclusion.


Mr Caddy, my guess is that he was a superb friend. I hope readers of this “education” forum are not put off by any suggestion that he was a “racist” or that he didn’t write well. Either of those propositions are, imho, unsupportable if one is acquainted with him or his works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Jim Garrison ever invited to appear on Buckley's Firing Line?

When I was young, I was drawn to TV shows that featured well spoken intellectuals, especially in debate with each other regards any number of subjects.

I'd actually keep a dictionary handy to quickly reference some of the higher planed verbiage to try to keep up with the discussions.

Some intellectuals are less than good or even bad speakers.  

However, some are as stylishly interesting and charismatic in their speaking as top Shakespearean actors like John Gielgud, Lawrence Olivier, Guinness, Coward, Richard Burton.

Orson Wells was a favorite and entertaining in this way.

But over a lifetime, one learns to separate what's really important regards the so-called eloquence of a speaker in polished stage actor style and manner versus the honest and moral value content and truth of what they present in their speaking engagements.

I know, the interpretation of such is highly subjective. 

However, in regards to the JFK event and any input and evaluations of such by intellectuals, I find at least as much value listening to the comments expressed in interviews of common working class and often less articulate men and women who shared their JFK event witness observations, feelings and views when asked despite perhaps many having some self-conscious insecurities about doing this in a publicly shared format.

Being honest in such an endeavor would seem to make it easier to risk sounding less than articulate.

Buell Wesley Frazier, Sam Holland, James Simmons, Lee Bowers, Richard Dodd, Roger Craig, some of Ruby's dancers and others like them come to mind. Even deaf mute witness Ed Hoffman!

The greater eloquence in speaking is simply telling the honest truth.

Regards Robert Harper's original thread questions about who was telling the truth about EHH and his end of life JFK assassination claims...Buckley's contradictions and omissions regards his great friend's taped JFK "Big Event" comments just adds to the suspicion of truth prevarication.

And again, if the " FIRING LINE" television audience knew of Buckley's agency employment history ahead of his interviews with Mark Lane, Liddy and Hunt and who knows what other JFK and Watergate connected characters they would have known that Buckley was seriously biased by his true biographical background activity.

When you watch the Liddy and Hunt interviews you can so easily see this bias in Buckley's framing his comments and questions to them in a way that gave these two convicted criminals a podium to redeem themselves and actually present themselves as true patriots who were wronged by weak politically motivated cowards or even traitors.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

The greater eloquence in speaking is simply telling the honest truth.

Absolutely agree with that sentiment. The great playwrights also understood that eloquence or a position of power could cloud, rather than clear the air, and that the working class could unclear the cloud. The Fool in King Lear is one example;  the gravedigger in Hamlet, the jailer in Macbeth and Big Daddy in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or Charley in Death of a Salesman are other examples. Using eloquence for nefarious purposes is  exhibited in Julius Caesar - Brutus and Mark Anthony are each skilled in rhetoric; each presents a different take on the murder of Caesar. It is not that eloquence obscures the truth, it is that it can do so. One has to be alert to who is speaking and why. Buckley had an agenda the same way Vidal did or Lowenstein did. It might not be the same agenda that one would prefer, but it is not based on unsubstantiated material, but rather focuses on the angle at which one can view material. The best way to untangle any "gate" in politics is to get the best representative from each side to  articulate their point of view. Whatever one thinks of the polemical Buckley,  he usually did just that.He never had Garrison on and he wasn't particularly interested in any of the political killings of the 1960's. Such disregard was one of his faults as a commentator. Whether that makes him  a "racist" or a lousy writer are separate issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

Absolutely agree with that sentiment. The great playwrights also understood that eloquence or a position of power could cloud, rather than clear the air, and that the working class could unclear the cloud. The Fool in King Lear is one example;  the gravedigger in Hamlet, the jailer in Macbeth and Big Daddy in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or Charley in Death of a Salesman are other examples. Using eloquence for nefarious purposes is  exhibited in Julius Caesar - Brutus and Mark Anthony are each skilled in rhetoric; each presents a different take on the murder of Caesar. It is not that eloquence obscures the truth, it is that it can do so. One has to be alert to who is speaking and why. Buckley had an agenda the same way Vidal did or Lowenstein did. It might not be the same agenda that one would prefer, but it is not based on unsubstantiated material, but rather focuses on the angle at which one can view material. The best way to untangle any "gate" in politics is to get the best representative from each side to  articulate their point of view. Whatever one thinks of the polemical Buckley,  he usually did just that.He never had Garrison on and he wasn't particularly interested in any of the political killings of the 1960's. Such disregard was one of his faults as a commentator. Whether that makes him  a "racist" or a lousy writer are separate issues. 

I would say it makes him a fraud. I’m not taking sides on Harper vs DiEugenio. I’d talk with you about it privately if you’d like. I have respect for both of you, which makes this difficult.

but my point is that Buckley was in fact CIA, provably. Being ‘uninterested’ in the 1960’s assassinations makes him something other than a racist or a lousy writer, doesn’t it? Could we perhaps see him as fair and balanced except when it came to truth vs power? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I study things differently through Secret Societies:

William F Buckley Jr.:   Knight of Malta, Skull and Bonesman, Papal Knight of Eulogia,  Bilderberger, Council on Foreign Relations Member, and CIA. 

That's a mouth full, isn't it?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I see the word 'racist' thrown about everywhere.  You can find it through all forms of the media all day, every day.  It's actually lost its meaning.  The problem is, there's no such thing as stand alone racism, and if you do find it, it's found in an obscure way.

'Racism' is a result of MULTICULTURALISM, and multiculturalism doesn't work.  Without MC, there is virtually no racism, like where I live in Colombia, South America.  People here like and help everyone, everyone is friendly to one another, it's beautiful.   Now let's take the most miserable hellhole of hate, New York City.   The hate there is frightening, and  these are big liberals.  It's that way because of the many cultures and 200 races and religions represented there.  They're now throwing Islam into the mix in a very big way, and Sharia Law, which is totally contradictory to the U.S. Constitution, (btw, the greatest document ever written.) 

In the 1960's a massive amount of people from India entered Fiji in the South Pacific.  There has been nothing but trouble, and riots in that country, even a breakdown of a couple of govts, and racial hate directed both ways, between the Indians and the Fijans is massive.   Are you going to tell me that the people of Fiji are 'racists'?  Isn't it better to understand that it's a conflict between two different cultures, that should not have been put together, unassimilated?

You just can't believe how great the human race is, like in Colombia where there's no MC.  I can sit anywhere outside, and someone will come up and start talking to me.   I was once struggling with some heavy bags, and about 5 really rough looking black teenagers came up to me and greeted me, and then carried the bags for  me.  The respect for everyone is amazing, and especially the respect for the elderly is unbelievable compared to the U.S.

The man behind this gas station is not a racist, he's just a victim of multiculturalism, and before you write back to me, I think this hatred is abhorrent.  I'm glad I'm going to be dead soon, so I no longer have to view the victims of MC.

https://ibb.co/PMgD2HC

 

Aristotle:

https://ibb.co/CwcQC78

 

Instead of calling someone a racist, it's more accurate to call them victims of multiculturalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold it.  Do we need a history lesson here?

Kilpatrick was a columnist for a major newspaper in Richmond in the late fifties and early sixties.  This was well after Brown v Board. One of the cases included in that decision was the Prince Edward school system in Virginia, where the state deliberately deprived that school system of funding because of the Brown v Board case.  

Well Kilpatrick, in his best John Calhoun style, screamed "States Rights" to defend that decision to keep those kids without schools or teachers. Thereby ignoring the Civil War amendments and the Brown v Board decision.

And Buckley backed him and had him write columns like this in NR!  In fact, Buckley himself wrote columns echoing that attitude.

As Mark Lane wrote in his  book Citizen Lane, Buckley  opposed voting rights for black citizens in the south even if they paid the poll tax. ( p. 321)  How about this for Buckley's John Calhoun impression: "The central question that emerges is whether the White community in the south is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail politically and culturally in areas where it does not predominate numerically.  The sobering answer is yes.  The White community is so entitled because for the time being is the advanced race." (ibid)  So much for America being a melting pot of different ethnic and racial groups, and also so much for majority rule/ minority rights.

As per his Cold Warrior aspects, Buckley attacked Eisenhower for going to Geneva to just talk about nuclear controls in 1958. (ibid)

Buckley had one goal in life: to purify the GOP of its wild and crazy John Birch society strain which sunk Goldwater, and to rid it of its moderate to liberal wing (Javits, Cooper, Goodell, Lindsay).  He achieved that aim and paved the way for Reagan, Gingrich, and DeLay.  And that is why the Republican Party is what it is today.

BTW, let us never forget where Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign.  The Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi. Seven miles from where Cheney, Schwerner and Goodman's bodies were recovered.  And what was Reagan's theme that day? States Rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Card said:

You know I study things differently through Secret Societies:

William F Buckley Jr.:   Knight of Malta, Skull and Bonesman, Papal Knight of Eulogia,  Bilderberger, Council on Foreign Relations Member, and CIA. 

That's a mouth full, isn't it?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I see the word 'racist' thrown about everywhere.  You can find it through all forms of the media all day, every day.  It's actually lost its meaning.  The problem is, there's no such thing as stand alone racism, and if you do find it, it's found in an obscure way.

'Racism' is a result of MULTICULTURALISM, and multiculturalism doesn't work.  Without MC, there is virtually no racism, like where I live in Colombia, South America.  People here like and help everyone, everyone is friendly to one another, it's beautiful.   Now let's take the most miserable hellhole of hate, New York City.   The hate there is frightening, and  these are big liberals.  It's that way because of the many cultures and 200 races and religions represented there.  They're now throwing Islam into the mix in a very big way, and Sharia Law, which is totally contradictory to the U.S. Constitution, (btw, the greatest document ever written.) 

In the 1960's a massive amount of people from India entered Fiji in the South Pacific.  There has been nothing but trouble, and riots in that country, even a breakdown of a couple of govts, and racial hate directed both ways, between the Indians and the Fijans is massive.   Are you going to tell me that the people of Fiji are 'racists'?  Isn't it better to understand that it's a conflict between two different cultures, that should not have been put together, unassimilated?

You just can't believe how great the human race is, like in Colombia where there's no MC.  I can sit anywhere outside, and someone will come up and start talking to me.   I was once struggling with some heavy bags, and about 5 really rough looking black teenagers came up to me and greeted me, and then carried the bags for  me.  The respect for everyone is amazing, and especially the respect for the elderly is unbelievable compared to the U.S.

The man behind this gas station is not a racist, he's just a victim of multiculturalism, and before you write back to me, I think this hatred is abhorrent.  I'm glad I'm going to be dead soon, so I no longer have to view the victims of MC.

https://ibb.co/PMgD2HC

 

Aristotle:

https://ibb.co/CwcQC78

 

Instead of calling someone a racist, it's more accurate to call them victims of multiculturalism.

If only people who look, speak and worship differently would just go the f&$^ away, then all would be well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...