Looking at the shambles around us, it is hard for young people to believe that anything has improved in any area since the 60s. But I remember that back then a debate would consist of liberal Republicans arguing on television with liberal Democrats. Things were so bad that liberal propaganda was declared to be a public service, AND NO ONE PUBLICLY DISAGREED.

Television is still solid leftist propaganda, but they don't brag about it any more or call it public service-type "messages." It is now called propaganda when it is mentioned.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, movies and television shows would have "social messages" in them. These "social messages" would call for integration or peace with the Communists. A "social message" would explain to us that what we called criminals were actually innocent victims of society.

Some New York writer would appear on television and tell us how he tried to get "social messages" into his work. He would chide others for not having enough "social messages" on television. Everybody would agree with him.

It was taken for granted that we were all to feel grateful for these "social messages." Back then, though no one else seemed to question this, I was absolutely puzzled by it.

"Why," I wanted to ask, "Are we to be grateful that someone puts his political propaganda into my television entertainment?" But, as I say, no one on the talk shows ever asked this question. It was just something that was supposed to be good for us.

Today, I am in the same quandary when it comes to all the media urging people to do me a big favor and vote. Why on earth should I want somebody to vote? Why is a disinterested person doing the country a favor by staggering to the polls and casting a mindless vote? You see almost no one protesting this nonsense, though I know it makes no sense to any of us. We were the same way back then about those "social messages."

Younger people cannot imagine what a relief it is to have any nationwide means by which to criticize the left.

There is one nice thing about speaking for truth that has long been suppressed: the more avenues that open up to us, the more the old ones which are locked in by liberals lose the power to prevent Americans from telling each other the truth. As Lake High says, "If you're not on the Internet, you're not in politics."

We are getting new avenues also in the explosion of cable channels. And the Internet and cable help each other. Back in the old days, even if we could have brought up points on the Internet, the three major networks and PBS could and would have ignored us. But today,
with so many cable outlets and so many competing talk programs, there is less and less time between the buzz on the Internet and public discussion.


Meanwhile all this is killing network news, which means it is destroying one of our deadliest enemies. Information technology is our friend, and it's moving faster all the time.

Conservatives whine and they cry about how biased the press is against them. Then they do exactly what the liberals tell them to, and the bias just gets worse.

So they whine some more, then do exactly the same thing again.

One after another, conservatives denounce "Racism." They scream and they yell at anybody who is further right than they are about white people. They shriek "racist" and "Nazi" at anyone the left does not approve of. They say that if they cut enough "racist" throats, those sweet, fair liberals will see that they are not racists and approve of them.

So what would any sane person expect to happen?

The minute you denounce everybody to your right on race as a "Nazi," the liberals start denouncing YOU as a Nazi. After all, it was YOU who made the screaming of Nazi so legitimate.

Justin Raimondo is a columnist I had begun to enjoy reading. But like so many others, he suddenly went into hysterics with a wild attack on a major portion of the right that is just what the leftists ordered.

Raimondo just let out a poisoned-pig shriek about how anybody who wants to limit immigration or has any concerns about immigration and integration is not merely a racist, but a NAZI -- or at least a Nazi sympathizer (http://128.121.216.19/justin/pf/p-j120400.html December 4, 2000).

It turns out that one of the people he says is working with these "Nazis" is David Horowitz. Horowitz is a Jew, but when these nutcases start shrieking Nazi, no factual information can get in the way.

This Raimondo character considers himself a libertarian, but he has no interest whatsoever in anything but racial heresy. He indicates that anybody who doesn't go after the minority vote -- which is just a code word for pandering to the left -- is some kind of Nazi or in collaboration with Nazis.

Worst of all, Raimondo specifically identifies any belief in racial purity with Nazism.

Why are so many self-proclaimed "libertarians" interested only in a person's stand on race and not on his stand on FREEDOM?

It is not a person's stand on race that makes him a Nazi. That is what liberals want us to say. It is one's stand on FREEDOM that makes one a totalitarian, either Fascist or Communist. You can be a perfectly good right-wing totalitarian with no racial views at all. Franco of Spain and Salazar of Portugal followed a policy of "assimilacion," the intermarriage of whites and blacks to form a single fascist nation.

It is not racial or economic theories that make one a Nazi or a Communist. Willy Brandt was a Democratic Socialist and a leading anti-Communist as mayor of West Berlin. The point is not his economic theory, but the fact that he was for FREEDOM against TOTALITARIANISM.

Practically every congressman and senator before 1960 disapproved of racial intermarriage, including that civil rights hero, Harry Truman. Following Raimondo's logic, the army that invaded Normandy was Nazi, because it was segregated.

Liberals love that kind of talk on the right, because it makes their own witch-hunts and denunciations successful. But the Raimondos of the world think that it makes the right safe from being accused of "racism" if they shout the word loud enough. It never works.

All it does is make it that much easier for liberals to denounce all of us.