When Donald Trump announced his candidacy
for the presidential nomination on the Reform Party
ticket, he denounced Pat Buchanan as a "Hitler
lover." He repeated all the wildest nonsense
about Buchanan's book criticizing Neville Chamberlain's
1939 policy towards Hitler.
It turned out that criticizing Chamberlain was suddenly
being pro-Hitler.
McCain said the same thing, of course.
And when Jesse Ventura announced his withdrawal
from the Reform Party, he, too, had an attack to
make on Buchanan. He said that Buchanan was evil
because David Duke had endorsed him.
Ventura did not say that Buchanan had any control
over what David Duke did. He simply said Buchanan
was evil for having gotten his "endorsement."
Actually, I saw the interview. It wasn't an endorsement.
What Duke said was that, as an elected chairman
of very large Republican Party unit, he might decide
to support Buchanan instead of the Republican nominee.
Several hundred thousand of the rest of us previous
Republicans have said the same thing.
Back when McCain was being tortured in the Hanoi
Hilton, there was a presidential race going on.
The government that was torturing McCain and his
buddies made it perfectly clear that it preferred
McGovern over Nixon. Nobody, but nobody, blamed
McGovern for the fact that the Communists supported
him. The media wouldn't allow it.
But when Ventura, who is a media hero for being
"honest," uses the same tactic against
Buchanan, not one single media outlet made a murmur
of protest.
|
In New York City recently, eighteen
Klansmen got a permit to demonstrate, and nine thousand
New Yorkers turned out to protest it. The Klansmen
were denied the right to use a loudspeaker so the
demonstration consisted of their standing there
silent while the crowd raged.
One woman in the crowd pointed to the Klansmen and
said, "They're American citizens, let them
speak!" She was immediately attacked by the
mob, many of whom were carrying American flags,
and beaten seriously.
If those eighteen Klansmen had been, instead, Communists
carrying red flags, everyone in the crowd would
have agreed with the woman. They would have protested
the lack of loudspeakers. Liberal freedom of speech
means freedom of speech for leftists only.
The September 4, 1999 article, "Only
Nationalism Can Allow Freedom of Thought,"
explained why.
A union based on nothing but words cannot tolerate
any serious diversity of opinion. A union, by definition,
must be united by
something. It can be united by common ancestry as
stated in the Preamble to the United States Constitution:
"To Secure the Blessing of Liberty TO OURSELVES
AND OUR POSTERITY."
Or a union can be based entirely on "principles."
The problem is, "principles" are OPINIONS.
All principles are opinions. A union that is based
entirely on "principles" is based entirely
on OPINION.
It is absolutely impossible for a union that is
based entirely on common opinions to allow any real
FREEDOM of opinion. You can only be a citizen of
such a country if you have the right opinions. Eventually,
that means that if you don't think right, you are
a traitor.
A natural nation, based on a common heritage, is
going to have principles in common. They will flow
from the common heritage and they will dominate
naturally. But such a natural set of common ideas
can tolerate dissent, even extreme dissent. It does
not have to constantly force people to "talk
right" and "think right." This is
because the union of such a people does not depend
on their having the same opinions.
Such a nation is like a family. Since they are all
members of the same family, they have more in common
than some opinions. So even if you disagree, you're
still part of the family. But if all you have in
common are some "principles," no differences
of opinion can be allowed.
It is not accidental that the Civil War was fought
under a new president who said that America was
based, not on the preamble to the Constitution,
but on the words, "All men are created equal."
If "all men are created equal" are the
words America was founded on, isn't it odd that
the Founding Fathers neglected to put any mention
of "all men are created equal" in the
Constitution?
Actually, "All men are created equal"
was part of the propaganda document called the Declaration
of Independence, and it was an appeal to the French
liberals for support. It expresses their kind of
thinking, the kind of French liberal thinking that
led to the French Revolution and the Terror and
Napoleon.
As for our own Founding Fathers, anyone who suggested
a piece of nonsense like "All men are created
equal" be put into our Constitution would have
been LAUGHED out of public affairs!
Think about it. Can you imagine any delegate to
the serious 1787 constitutional convention getting
up and saying "All men are created equal"
should be in a document under which we would actually
be GOVERNED?
Lincoln's position on "all men are created
equal" is also the doctrine of official respectable
conservatives. In its bicentennial edition, National
Review's official historian, Henry Jaffe, declared
that the Founding Fathers conception of America
was based entirely on "All men are created
equal."
So the establishment position is that America is
not a nation dedicated to "Ourselves and Our
Posterity." America, according to the official
doctrine, is a melting pot based on the words "all
men are created equal."
Those who say that America's Founders were multicultural
depend entirely on the ignorance of their listeners.
America was not only founded on a specifically English
governmental system, but the Founders were in every
case people who came from the common Western European
culture. It was a culture in which, only a short
time before, all literate people wrote in a common
Latin language. There was, in reality, very little
multiculturalism among the Founders, even those
who came from different countries in Western Europe.
The result was a Constitution voluntarily arrived
at among all the different states with their widely
different interests.
The result was also a union that could tolerate
a huge diversity of opinions, because that union
was not based on a single, centrally enforced set
of opinions (See May 15, 1999 article, "Wordism").
When Lincoln substituted "all men are created
equal" for the Preamble to our actual Constitution,
it was the beginning of the end of a nation based
on a common culture that could allow diversity of
opinion. With Lincoln, French liberalism began to
replace the ideas of the Founding Fathers of this
country.
As I pointed out last week in "Europe
Gets Two Hundred Years of Constitutional 'Progress'
in One Fell Swoop," the Lincoln philosophy
has been adopted in Europe. So now the European
Union enforces the same "principles" on
every European nation. They cannot allow some countries
to permit parents to spank, because that would violate
a "principle" of nonviolence. They cannot
allow Britain to keep homosexuals out of its armed
forces, because that violates the universal principle
of inclusion. Women must be allowed into the German
armed forces, because you cannot allow different
countries to have different versions of the universal
principles of sexual equality.
In a society which is based entirely on opinion,
any difference of opinion is treason.
The Clinton-McCain policy of enforcing multiculturalism
and multiracialism in Europe is in line with the
same doctrine. The many different European nationalities
must be crushed, snuffed, made nonexistent.
European nations are based on bloodlines and culture,
things people are born into. They are a threat to
the only allowable kind of union, that based on
common "principles," which, in English,
means common opinions.
From this, we can formulate Whitaker's Law On Multiculturalism:
"A true multiculturalism can only be united
by a universally-held opinion. A truly multicultural
state must therefore be constantly rooting out heresy."
This rooting out of heresy is what we call Political
Correctness. Multiculturalism cannot exist without
Political Correctness.
A union based on what the Founding Fathers would
have called "natural" factors does not
need to be constantly enforced. But a union where
a difference of opinion is treason requires constant
monitoring and constant enforcement.
Clinton and McCain stand ready to commit America
to this constant monitoring and enforcement, both
here and in Europe.
|