Featured Post



Tuesday, December 20, 2011


INJUSTICE: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department
Rev. by Hugh Murray
Adams may deserve 5 stars for courage, but his book receives a mere 3.  Why?
Adams is a whistleblower who worked in the U.S. Department of Justice until he resigned in 2010.  He reveals many of the inner workings of this influential federal bureau.  Though most of his book concerns enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Adams peripherally discusses issues such as school discipline, Braille for Kindle, and examinations for police and firefighters.
It is the voting rights division that Adams describes most thoroughly, for that is where he worked for five years.  He reveals the friction in the department even during the Administration of Pres. G. W. Bush.  The problems first arose concerning alleged voter fraud in Mississippi’s Noxubee County, which is about 70% Black.  A Black man, Ike Brown, rose to political leadership of the county.  Although in 1984 he pleaded guilty to forgery and in 1995 was convicted for aiding and abetting on false income tax returns(p. 20), he became chairman of the Democratic Party in Noxubee.  When asked what might improve race relations in Noxubee, he replied, “Funerals.” [for whites](21)
Brown used his influence so white poll workers would be excluded, and many other means to insure his all-Black slate would be victorious for Democratic nominations. In 2003 the US DoJ sent observers to Noxubee; some wanted to charge Brown with violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Others, in Bush’s DoJ, strongly objected to this process – “Could you believe we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?”(49) and “I know that Ike Brown is crooked, everybody knows that, but the resources of the Division should not be used this way.”(49)  However, these Leftwing careerists in the DoJ were overruled by Bush’s political appointees, and the DoJ filed suit against Democratic leader Ike Brown.  Those inside the DoJ who supported this suit were chastised by their Leftwing extremist colleagues, some even being called “Klansmen.”(52)  The extremist refrain was simple: “I didn’t come to work in the Civil Rights Division…to sue black people.”(53)  Their opponents responded that if Blacks were violating the Voting Rights Act, they should be prosecuted like anyone else.  The split in the DoJ was simple – Should Blacks who violate the Voting Rights Act be prosecuted?  The Leftists said, No; the Right said, Yes.
When the DoJ prosecuted Brown, some Leftists in the department sought to sabotage the case against the Black Democrat.(56)  On 29 June 2007 US District Judge Lee ruled that Ike Brown violated the law when his “racially motivated decision to count the votes of black voters while rejecting those of white voters is discrimination.”(60)  Not only did the Leftists in DoJ not celebrate the department’s victory, they were ashamed the suit had been brought and that the DoJ had convicted a Black man of massive voter fraud.(60)  The Fifth District Court upheld Judge Lee’s decision against Brown.  Nevertheless, the radicals of the DoJ did not believe a Black should be prosecuted if he violates the voting rights of white people.  Under Pres. Bush, the Left was forceful in the DoJ, but there were also those who believed the law should be enforced, whatever the race of the violator; whatever the race of the victim.
After Obama’s victory in 2008, he appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General, and it quickly became evident that a new policy was set.  “In the view of the Holder DOJ, whites aren’t protected by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”(69)
Shortly after Obama’s inauguration, the Civil Rights Division hired many more employees.  Whereas in the past, during interviews of prospective employees, they had been asked if they would enforce the law in a race-neutral manner against all law-breakers, under Attorney General Eric Holder, that question was not to be asked.  Only when Blacks were the victims and whites the perpetrators was the Holder regime interested in filing suit.
The new Administration’s policy was highlighted in the case of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia.  In November 2008, two members of that party, in party uniform, one waving a baton, harassed and threatened voters outside a polling place.  Videos showed their hostile presence outside the voting venue.  They were clearly violating the Voting Rights Act, and Adams worked on the case to prosecute them.  The NBPP itself did not even respond to the suit.  One of the members was also a minor official in the local Democratic Party, and the other, with the baton, had on other occasions (on video) called for the killing of all white people, including all white babies.  In effect Adams had won the case, when the Obama DoJ now demanded that the case be dropped.  Only the man with the baton was convicted, and his punishment amounted to little more than that he refrain from doing it again.
Happily, Adams includes photographs in his book showing candidate Obama in 2007 marching and, just behind him, leaders of the NBPP with their arms raised in Black Power salute.  Elsewhere Obama is shown on a platform with NBPP leaders.  And Obama was a member of Rev. Wright’s church for two decades.  President Obama proves that one need not be born in Kenya in order to harbor Mau Mau ideals.
A large part of this book is about details of voter fraud perpetrated by Black Democrats in Mississippi and Alabama.  It is tedious reading, akin to a shortened legal brief.  However, it does make a salient point – Black Democrats are capable of massive voter fraud.  While the Left and the Obama Administration refuse to prosecute such Black racists, Adams details their hypocrisy.  Strangely, Adams almost never calls their anti-white policies racist; they are merely “racialist.”
In his last chapter, Adams provides suggestions to a future Republican President to end the “racialist” policies now in place and restore a race-neutral approach to law enforcement.  He assumes that laws should be applied to all, whatever their race.
Where has Adams been for the past four decades?
            Civil rights had not been one of President John Kennedy’s urgent priorities.  However, as pressure mounted in the early 1960s with the sit-ins and the Freedom Rides, President Kennedy was pushed to move on the issue.  On 28 February 1963 in his special message to Congress on civil rights, Kennedy stressed that the American Constitution is color blind.  Nevertheless, neither Kennedy’s speech nor Black demands for more jobs would be the catalyst that would hurl civil rights legislation onto the Congressional agenda.  It was Birmingham, where television exposed police who blasted young Black protestors with fire hoses and terrorized others with fang-baring dogs.   And it was Birmingham where four young girls were bombed inside a church.  It was Birmingham that propelled most Americans to accept the need for a civil rights law. 

   To promote that law, a massive march on Washington was mobilized for 28 August 1963, at which Martin Luther King’s speech struck the cord that rang the freedom bell.  That day it mesmerized many Americans; today, it’s memorized by many throughout the world.  It is the only speech one recalls from that event: the speech in which King dreamt that Blacks will “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
   This very spirit would be crystallized into the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The proposed law encountered unrelenting opposition from Southern Democrats, some 22 members of the Senate.  Most of the northern Democrats supported the bill, but could not muster 67 votes to end a filibuster.  So, Republican cooperation was essential for passage.  While a few, like Arizona’s Barry Goldwater, opposed it, most Republicans were willing to be swayed, if they were certain of the nature of the bill to be passed.
   When Congress debated the proposed civil rights legislation, there were ominous trends.  In late 1963 Pitney-Bowes, a major manufacturer of postage equipment, announced it would give Negroes preferences in hiring. (Hugh Davis, The Civil Rights Era, p. 116)  Other major corporations were quietly hiring Blacks by quotas and providing them preferential treatment. (Davis, 105)  Moreover, the Labor Dept.’s Bureau of Apprenticeship Training issued new guidelines that appeared to grant favoritism to Blacks and quotas in recruiting. (Davis, 114-15)

   When the proposed civil rights act was before Congress, preferential hiring and quotas were clearly part of the debate.  Was the Civil Rights Act to become a quota law?  Opponents, mainly Democrats like Sen. Sam Ervin (NC), contended that the law would inevitably result in quotas and preferences for Blacks.  Not so, assured the liberals.  A leading supporter of the legislation, Dem. Sen. Hubert Humphrey (Minn.), responded to such fears by clarifying:
     there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give any power to the Commission [the EEOC] or to
     any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial “quota” 
     or to achieve a racial balance…
     In fact the very opposite is true…Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of            
     ability and qualifications, not race and religion. [Davis, 150]  

   Furthermore, the floor managers in the Senate for Title VII [the employment section of the proposed law], Democrat Sen. Joseph Clark (Pa.) and Republican Sen. Clifford Case (NJ) issued a joint memorandum to answer opponents of the new law who complained that discrimination was not even defined.  “To discriminate means to make a distinction, to make a difference in treatment or favor…which is based on any five of the criteria: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin…There is no requirement in title VII that an employer maintain a racial balance in his work force.  On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance would involve a violation of title VII because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race.  It must be emphasized that discrimination is prohibited to any individual.” [Davis, 150-51].

   Another event would affect the debate in Congress. In the fall of 1963 a Black, high-school dropout sought a job at Motorola.  Like all applicants, he was given a general ability test. He failed it.  He then complained to the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission alleging he was not hired because of his race.  The Illinois state commission appointed a Black to hear the case, and in January 1964 that examiner ruled that the test was unfair to culturally deprived groups and issued a cease and desist order.  Motorola was ordered to stop testing to hire the best qualified applicants.  To many Americans, requiring companies to hire people who could not pass basic tests seemed unfair and a threat to merit hiring and an efficient work force.  Because of this threat, the proposed civil rights legislation was amended in Congress, as the Clark-Case memorandum explained: “There is nothing in Title VII that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and education, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups.” (Davis, 151)  Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen, Republican leader also had the legislation amended so that only intentional discrimination was barred.  In June 1964 the Senate voted 71-29 to end the filibuster against the legislation, and passed the bill 73-27.
   This is the law that America wanted, Congress passed, and President Johnson signed in July 1964.
   Indeed, I would contend that this is still what most Americans understand as the meaning of civil rights in general, and of fair employment practices in particular.

   Yet, how did a law meant to insure non-discrimination, merit hiring, maintenance of testing; a law that forbade quotas and racial balance come to mean the opposite?  How could the Civil Rights Act be used to enforce quotas (using euphemisms of “goals and timetables” or more recently “diversity”)?  How could the law be used to forbid aptitude testing when some groups do poorly?  How could it be used to prevent an employer from inquiring of a prospective employee about high school grades, or high school diplomas, or criminal records (as such queries would certainly affect groups differently)?  So today, in the name of equal opportunity, whites with far better records are rejected and Blacks, or later Browns, with far worse records are hired and promoted.  How could it be that a Chair of the Civil Rights Commission some years later would declare that civil rights laws did not apply to white people!  How could it be that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be a major springboard for the attack on equal opportunity for all: the end of non-discrimination; the end of merit hiring and promotion; and the general decline of the American work force?  All this in the name of equal opportunity!  As Orwell might reply to those questions: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

   Over the next few years it became clear that liberals had pulled a major, classic con-job on the American people: bait and switch.  Enact a law to insure the civil rights of ALL Americans, non-discrimination, merit hiring, no racial balance, no quotas, and then use that very law as a basis to implement the opposite.
Here is the essence of the weakness in Adams’ book – he does not place the anti-white discriminatory practices of the Voting Rights Division of the DOJ in perspective.  Adams makes a strong case that the Obama-Holder DoJ is determined not to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a race neutral manner.  They will prosecute violators when they are white; and not prosecute when they are Black.  They will prosecute when the victims are Black; and not when they are white.  Adams makes the case.
But Adams fails to connect this to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It too was race neutral legislation.  However, it was subverted by bureaucrats in the EEOC and other agencies.  They were aided by court decisions written by activist liberal judges.  However, it was Republican President Richard Nixon who made affirmative action a national policy and extended it to include Hispanics, Amerindians, and whoever the bureaucrats determine is their next pet group.  Republican President Ford did not interfere with affirmative action.  Despite his rhetoric, neither did Republican President Reagan.  President G H W Bush even signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, what he called a quota bill, which only solidified the quota programs.
With affirmative action, whites, especially white men, were denied equal opportunity, despite the clear wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  By the 1980s Mary Frances Berry, the  Chair of the Civil Rights Commission, could declare that the Civil Rights Act did not apply to white people.
Now, the DoJ under Obama-Holder covertly declares that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 no longer applies to white people.
To summarize: Stage 1- equal rights and basic civil rights are denied whites, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Stage 2- voting rights are no longer guaranteed for white people, in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The Obama Administration is simply taking the anti-white programs of previous administrations to a new level.  And Obama will probably do nothing to prevent illegal aliens from voting – if they vote for him.  Children of illegals may be given affirmative action admission and scholarships to universities above citizen-born whites.  And when whites become a minority in the US, one can expect their rights to diminish even more.  Stage 3?  Stage 4?
The trend to make whites second-class citizens, or less, is continuing to a new level under Obama-Holder.  The book by Adams makes clear the anti-white racism and policies of the Obama-Holder Administration.  But Adams fails to place these in context.  And his pleas to change things in a future Republican Administration makes one question his grasp of reality.  Anti-white policies expanded and become entrenched national procedures under Nixon, and continued with every Republican President after him.  Is Adams na├»ve to expect any better from today’s Republicans?  On the other hand, Adams clearly exposes how Obama’s Administration has escalated the war on whites.
I favor equal rights and equal opportunity for all citizens.  I am so old I remember when the mantra of civil rights forces was - to treat everyone without regard to race, creed, or color.  But the civil rights organizations of today have abandoned civil rights.  They have embraced preferences for pet groups, privileges for those whom they define as oppressed.  And they are most willing to oppress any who oppose their view.  The civil rights community, like the civil liberties community, has evolved into a community of tyrants.  I oppose race and gender preferences.  Since the late 1960s American policy has been anti-white.  These anti-white racist programs are accelerating under Obama, speeding toward an America where whites are a persecuted minority which may lose all rights of citizenship.  Adams’ book underscores the acceleration; but not the decades-old process, and not the looming, nightmarish Mau Mau future.   
   When one successfully over-represented group lost its citizenship, it was announced with great fanfare at party rallies.  There will be no Nuremberg rallies in America.  America is different.  Nevertheless, if whites in the US continue to lose basic rights, it is done behind closed doors by devious folks in black robes or bureaucratic suits or community-organizing casuals.  And it is done amid hypocritical howls that it is not being done at all.  Adams gives us a glimpse of the stealth theft by bureaucrats who steal citizen’s rights from the whites of America.               

Friday, December 9, 2011

7 Tipping Points

The Miracle of Freedom; 7 Tipping Points that Saved the World
Written by Chris Stewart and Ted Stewart
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            This slight book can provoke heavy thought about weighty topics.  The Stewarts have selected seven historical turning points in which, had battles gone the other way, there might be no freedom in the world.  The book’s reasonable assumption is that freedom is a rare and unique acquisition in human history.
            The authors write in general terms about these seven battles and why they were important, but in each chapter they include fictitious characters to exemplify the values of the adversaries.  It is in these discussions that the Stewarts stumble.  Thus, they present an Assyrian general pushing “his feet against his stirrups”(p. 30) around 700 BC, and a few hundred years later, a Persian emissary to Spartan King Leonidas “stretched against his stirrups and lifted his sword.”(p. 79)  However, most authorities contend that stirrups were not invented until several hundred years after, and were not used in Europe until about 500AD, helping to destroy the primacy of the infantry and galloping toward the rise of the knight on horseback.
            The Stewarts invent a character, a slave in ancient Egypt named Akhenaten Amsu living in 1876 BC.  Though not impossible, it is most improbable that he would have the name of Akhenaten, with reference to a god who would not become prominent until about 1350 BC, during the reign of  Pharaoh Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti.  Soon after their deaths, they became so hated for trying to establish a new, monotheistic-like religion, that their names were erased and their memories obliterated for 3,200 years.  Only with the unearthing of their capital in the 19th century and discovery in the 1920s of the tomb of King Tutankamon (aka, Tutankaten) did the world learn of the short, unusual reign of Pharoah Akhenaten and his unique religion.  Because the Pharaoh’s Hymn to Aten is so similar to Psalm 104 of the Bible, that there must have been some connection between the Egyptian Atenism and Judaism. What were the connections?  Archaeologist James Breasted, Sigmund Freud, and others have speculated, while writer Ahmed Osman argued, unconvincingly, that Akhenaten was Moses.   Perhaps, this was a point that tipped the wrong way, so the Stewarts do not discuss it.  Still, it is most unlikely that a slave in 1876 BC Egypt would have been named Akhenaten anything.
            When writing of ancient Rome the authors state, “Digging through the refuse,…, he encounters a string of potato peelings.” (105)  This is most improbable for potatoes were unknown in Europe until after the discovery of the Americas.  Only after Columbus did the potato, and later maize, enter the European diet.
            Similarly, the Stewarts have an Arab residing near the Black Sea speaking in December 1493 of changes to be expected, including inflation, because of the return journey of Columbus.  I suspect it was far too early for any Black Sea neighbors to be speculating about inflationary effects of the recent voyage of Columbus.
            The Stewarts refer to “the war raging in Russia” (275) in May 1941.  What war?  Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Third Reich were still at peace, having divvied up Poland and various smaller countries in Eastern Europe.  The invasion of the USSR by numerous European nations would not begin until 22 June 1941.
            However, trivial errors are not my  main objection to this book.  The authors rightly judge Constantine’s victory over the pagan Emperor Maxentius for control of Rome in 312 as a major turning point.  With Constantine, Christianity gained legal status, and would soon become the dominant religion of the massive Roman Empire.  The Stewarts deem this victory an advance for freedom,- for polytheism was unscientific (114), and Christianity ended slavery (112).  Ultimately, Christianity is the reason Europe would lead the world in steel, guns, ships, and agriculture.(112)  The Stewarts also make an often overlooked point: with Christianity, infanticide would henceforth be considered immoral.  The ancient Greeks might kill a deformed infant.  The Roman father had a day or two to decide whether to accept a new-born into his family.  With Christianity,  a major change occurs: parents were supposed to raise their children, not kill them.  And if they were unable to raise them, the church might do so instead.  The Stewarts rightly note that this undoubtedly meant fewer female infants were killed through exposure.
            I urge readers of this book to see the film 2009 Spanish film Agora for a presentation of how some pagans could be scientific while some Christians might be anything but.  Yet, viewing that film is not necessary to think of the remarkable scientific accomplishments of the ancient Greeks – with most of those advances occurring while the Greeks were polytheistic pagans.  I do not pretend that all ancient Greeks were always rational and scientific, but surely the same can be said for the Christians.  Indeed, one of the early Church fathers, Tertullian, declared, “I believe because it is absurd.”  To some Christians, reason and science were not the cherished ideals of all Christians.
            When experiments conflict with Holy Writ, what should one believe?  Where are the four corners of the earth?  How could the earth be round?  And as Christianity consolidated power, science would soon have its martyrs, from the pagan woman mathematician Hypatia to Bruno and possibly many unknowns deemed witches or wizards or heretics.  On the other hand, in Christian Europe monasteries led advances in agriculture, and wind mills, and mechanical clocks were invented, and innovations made to inventions originally developed in other cultures, improving and refining them so that they surpassed the originals.
            Was Christianity responsible for the end of slavery?  Recall the admonition of Paul to the run-away:  the slave should return to his master.  Slavery declined in the late Roman Empire, but the empire itself was in decline.  Indeed, some attributed the sinking of Rome to the rise of Christianity.  Was Christianity the cause of the decline of slavery?  Or did slavery decline as part of the general decline and the general wreckage of the economy?  In time, when Christian Europe began to expand again, so did slavery.
            I would argue that it was the anti-Christians who first fought to end slavery.  During the French Revolution, the radicals, the Jacobins, who abolished the Christian calendar, replaced the 7-day week with one of ten days, and introduced other decimal measurements, - it was they who sought to end slavery throughout the French Empire.  Their revolutionary zeal spread to Haiti.  Even after the overthrow of Robespierre, his anti-Christian, anti-slavery ideals were propagated.  In Haiti the slave revolt and the French attempt to suppress it transformed into a race war, which ended with the flight or murder of most whites.
            Some Christians also become leaders of anti-slavery societies.  In Britain religious leaders persuaded Parliament to outlaw the slave trade in the 1830s.  When Britain’s Royal Navy then sought to prohibit that trade, there was rioting by the West African slave traders who were suddenly losing their chief, most valuable export.  In America small, quietist groups like the Quakers were joined by ever more mainstream Protestants of the North to condemn slavery.  They quarreled and broke with the mainstream Protestants of the South, who quoted the Bible to defend “the peculiar institution.”  A civil war finally settled both the political and theological dispute in the US.  Catholic Brazil retained legalized slavery until the 1880s.  In the Arab and African worlds, slavery would continue long after that.
            Despite my refusal to equate the West and all of its freedoms, scientific inquiry, wealth, etc. with Christian values, I am a defender of Western Civilization.  Like the Stewarts, I see the West as an island of reason, science, a work ethic, and wealth superior to most other cultures.
            Yet, by making the Battle of Britain one of the seven tipping points, one must ask, was Germany not part of the West?  Italy?  The Soviet Union?
            Certainly, Germany’s scientific culture had developed to a high point by the opening of the 20th century.  Even under Hitler, Germany published more medical journals than any other nation, and more medical doctors headed universities in the Third Reich.  One need not be a rocket scientist to acknowledge German achievement in rocketry.  Aware of their accomplishments, Winston Churchill sneered at the Germans as he led Britain to war against them – the Germans had become mechanized barbarians.  In effect, they had ceased to be a part of the West.  Just look at how they treated the Jews, for example.
            If Germany is expelled from the West because it mistreated Jews, and then sought to liquidate those who were left in Europe, what other nations should cease to be considered Western?  In Agora, not only are the pagans killed, but the Jews are expelled from Roman Alexandria in the 4th century AD.  Later, Jews were expelled from France and England.  One might try to excuse this by definition: that was the Dark Ages.  Well, what about the year of Columbus’ voyage, one that the Stewarts rank as a tipping point.  In 1492 the Spanish defeated the Muslims of the Granada kingdom and decreed that throughout Spain all Jews and Muslims must henceforth convert to Catholicism or leave Spain.  I do not think there was a legal synagogue in Spain from 1492 until the death of Franco in the 20th century.
            If barbarous behavior toward Jews or others is reason to exclude Hitler’s Germany from “the West,” should Spain as it began its explorations and conquests also be excluded?  And while Spain of 1492 lacked an SS, it would soon have the Inquisition with its tortures to insure that conversos were not secret Jews or Muslims or heretics.  King Ferdinand and Isabella were trying to make the Iberian peninsula Jew-free; Hitler was simply trying to do the same for Germany and Europe.  If Germany is ousted from the club of the West, then surely Spain should be ejected when discussing Spain’s most important period in history.
            One may counter my argument, asserting, the Spain of Columbus was Christian; Hitler was not.  Hitler and the Nazi leadership may not have been Christian, but most Germans were.  Some American soldiers fighting in Europe were shocked to enter a home displaying on one wall a picture of the Fuehrer, and on another, a picture of the Pope.  Hitler had concluded a concordat with the Papacy early in his dictatorship.  And Hitler’s ally, Mussolini, had ended the hostility to the Pope, which he had inherited from the founders of the modern Italian state.  Mussolini had signed a pact with the Papacy, granting the Pope Vatican City and giving the Roman Church a privileged position in the Italian state.  Surely, the Italians were Christian.  Should they be expelled from the West because they were allied to Hitler?  And the same question should be raised about Hungary, the Vichy France of Marshall Petain, Croatia, Slovakia, which was headed by a priest, etc.
            There was one significant way in which Hitler’s Reich harkened back to the pagan past rather than that of Christianity.  The state soon required a midwife to be present when an Aryan woman gave birth.  She was to report about the health of the infant, and if she determined it was malformed, the baby might be taken from the mother to a special hospital – and starved.  Hitler was a vegetarian, did not smoke, and did not drink alcohol.  He sought to promote a healthy nation.  The Nazi health policies sought to do this by eliminating defectives, and many Germans approved this idea.  However, even Nazi panels refused to abide by some non-party doctors who even sought to sterilize alcoholics over 70 years of age for the good of the race and the Reich.  On the other side, various church groups did speak out against these Nazi practices.
            In another area, the Nazis did not hearken back to the pagan Greeks – homosexuality.  While the Stewarts declare that Christianity brought freedom; it certainly did not bring freedom to homosexuals.  Greeks were famous for their male-male lovers.  Gibbon concluded that almost none of the Roman emperors were “regular” in their sexual habits before Christianity.  Hadrian, after whom the Adriatic Sea is named, even had one of his male lovers declared a god.  The freedom, and regular (using regular to mean something different from what Gibbon meant) sex life of the pagans, came to an end with the victory of Constantine.  This was made manifest with the codification of Roman law under Justinian in the 6th century: the penalty for homosexual activity was death.  And so it remained until the code was revised as the Napoleonic Code.  Where Napoleon’s armies marched, with slogans of liberty, equality, and fraternity, Jews could leave their ghettos and gays could be gay.
            Though the leader of the Storm Troopers (SA) was gay, Hitler had him and other SA leaders killed in summer of 1934.  Rumors claim that Hitler was also homosexual.  Even if he were, the policies of the Nazi regime were extremely anti-gay.  Some alleged that Hitler came from Jewish ancestry.  A better case can be made for Heydrich, and the Nazi war criminal von Milch.  A Grand Inquisitor was also of Jewish ancestry.   In a sense, this does not matter, for the policies of Hitler were extremely anti-homosexual and anti-Jewish.  And one can deduce that the anti-gay program of the Nazis was simply another form of their efforts to create a healthy, eugenic nation by liquidating defectives.
            Was Hitler’s Germany part of the West?  In its anti-Jewish and anti-gay policies, it was definitely Western.  In its eugenics programs, it was no longer Christian.  But various American states had initiated  some similar eugenic programs before Hitler came to power.  Indeed, these were often introduced as part of progressive legislation.  In sterilizing mental defectives, the Nazis were simply following progressive American reforms.  Was America part of the West?
            And what about the Soviet Union?  The USSR in theory was based upon the world-view of Karl Marx, a Ph.D. from a German university whose dissertation concerned ancient philosophy.  He did much of his research in the British Museum in London.  He praised science, and christened his approach “scientific socialism.”  An atheist from a family of converted Jews, still he appears very Western.  He developed a theory of economics and history and sought to apply it to gain power.  Others were more successful in applying it, and during WWI Lenin and his Bolsheviki seized power in Russia.  A civil war ensued for several years, with the West and Japan aiding the Whites against the Reds.  Lenin’s group won, and though it was overtly atheistic, there may have been a religious component.  Of the early Bolshevik leaders, almost all were of Jewish heritage (including Lenin through his grandfather).  The chief exception was Stalin who was of Christian background and who had studied in an Orthodox Christian seminary.  Stalin was married to a Jewish woman.  Are Jews part of the West?  They would be some of the most prominent members of the Communist Party in the USSR and would enter the elite organization to transform the country.
            Marxist attempts to create a “new man” by changing the environment and ”re-educating” or eliminating the negative elements was almost scientific in construction and implementation.  Change the environment, end capitalism and exploitation, teach the new ways of avoiding selfishness, and the new socialist man will appear.  Heaven on earth without a god.  Of course, about 20 million were starved or killed in trying to implement these policies in the USSR.  But those liquidated were merely capitalists, bourgeois types, reactionaries, or some other deviants.  The bad eggs were trashed so a delicious omelet might be concocted.  Apparently Stalin failed to push through the necessary sacrifices for a consumer heaven, but he built the military so that the USSR withstood Hitler’s major invasion.  And with the help of spies and captured rocket scientists, Stalin’s USSR emerged as the #2 power on earth.  Was the USSR part of the West?
            Marx’s influence would extend beyond Europe.  Under Mao in China up to 50 million were killed to create the new man.  And in Cambodia about one fourth of the population was exterminated to build anew.  Those who had read, those who had knowledge of the greedy capitalist and colonial era, those who were professionals, all had been corrupted and should be remolded for the new regime.  Since most were so perverted by enjoying the fruits of exploitation under the cold system, they could not change; they were liquidated.  Was China and Cambodia part of the West?
            Hitler had a similar vision.  Destroying capitalism and the capitalist?  No, they were productive.  Only a small number were unproductive; the Jews, the parasites.  Hitler would defend the 99%, the vast majority of Aryans against the 1%, the tiny minority of Jews who seemed to dominate Germany before the Nazis gained power.  Just eliminate the crafty, devious Jews, and everyone else will have a better life.  Was Auschwitz part of the West?
            There is another institution that reemerged in the 20th century of Hitler and Stalin – slavery.  It may not have been labeled such, but “enemies of the people” were rounded up, not for having committed any crimes, but for who they were.  They could be imprisoned, placed in special camps, and worked to death, starved, or simply exterminated.  Slavery expanded in the 20th century – in Nazi Europe, the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc.
            There is another point, not a tipping point, that should be discussed.  The Greeks declared that in Persia, only the Emperor was free – all others being slaves of that king of kings.  One suspects there was still a great deal of room to maneuver among the millions in that empire.  And how free were the Greeks?  Slaves, women, children, the poor, - how free were they?  In the 1850s Southerners chastised the Yankees who engaged in “wage slavery,” a phrase that Marxists would later use.  The poor in the North had to work long hours for low wages and when old, would have no master to protect and provide for him.  Surely, the Southern peculiar institution might be more humane than Yankee policies.
            I would content that no human is totally free.  I am sure, if we could hear their conversations, we would be surprised at how the Persian Emperor felt he was not free; how Hitler saw his limitations even in the Reich; how Stalin thought there were plots against him; how Mao …  They were not totally free.  And slaves are usually not totally unfree.  At worse, they might decide to flee even if the odds are overwhelming they will be shot and killed.  Still, it might be their final act, but it would be a free one.
Yet, that does not diminish the great difference between slavery and freedom.  They are opposite sides of a spectrum, a continuum, where one can slide into another.  I tend to agree with the Stewarts that most of mankind through most of his history has lived closer to the slavery side of the continuum.  Freedom is a rarity, and it should be cherished.  And so I must agree with the Stewarts, that in 1940 there was a vast difference between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Germany.  The British Empire was not all free, nor was the Reich all slavery, but there was a vast difference in the amount of freedom between the two belligerents.  Britain did represent freedom.  Germany, though a part of the West, did represent slavery (as did Italy and the USSR).  The Battle of Britain was a tipping point in the struggle for freedom in the world. 
Are dreams fed by blood and broken bones?
            There was almost no freedom in Cambodia, in Mao’s China, in Stalin’s USSR.  There was very little in Hitler’s Germany after 1938.  Even though Western influence was visible in certain fields in each of these lands, freedom was not visible.  The modern totalitarian state is an outgrowth of the West, and yet it is the antithesis of much of the best of the West.  In the end, I must concur with the Stewarts that the Battle of Britain was a tipping point.  Had the British lost, the world would be far less free.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Some Comments on Recent Stories

The New York Times

Campaign Stops - Strong Opinions on the 2012 Election
December 1, 2011, 2:13 AM
Voting Rights — and Responsibilities

·         Hugh Murray
·         Milwaukee
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to its sponsors would not give special advantages to Blacks, not would it require quotas or even racial balance in the workplace. Indeed, Sen. Humphrey contended hiring or firing for racial balance would be illegal under the CR law. Unfortunately, within a few years, behind the scenes, liberals in both parties turned the law on its head, and formulated affirmative action into anti-white, governmental required, institutional racism.
Now, whistle blower J. Christian Adams, in his book INJUSTICE, demonstrates how the anti-white racism infects the Department of Justice under Obama. The leadership is simply unwilling to enforce the law to protect the voting rights of whites. So long as we have Obama as President and Holder as Atty. Gen., we can expect more of such anti-white racism - enforcing the law when it helps Blacks victims; ignoring the law or obstructing the law when it helps white victims.
Obama's Administration is clearly racist, anti-white racist. Under Pres. Obama, all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

New York Times
Readers' Comments
The Decadent LeftBack to Article »
Better a protest movement that casts itself (however quixotically) as the defender of “the 99 percent” than one that just represents Democratic interest groups.

Hugh Murray
December 4th, 2011
7:27 am
Douthat contends it is better for a protest to defend the 99% than narrow interests. The Nazis declared that they represented the 99% of Aryans in Germany against the 1% of Jews. The Occupy crowd is determined to have its way with tantrums and by trampling on the rights of others to open their business, sleep in a quiet neighborhood, walk in a park, etc. for weeks. The Wisconsin mobs harassed duly elected representatives. Do we want a government based upon an election in which citizens can vote, or a mobocracy of intimidating, sloganeering protestors who allegedly defend the 99%? Interestingly, the majority usually votes against the Occupy extremists.

New York Times

Execution Case Dropped Against Abu-Jamal

Published: December 7, 2011

  • Hugh Murray
  • Milwaukee
Scandalous! The murderer should have been executed decades ago. No wonder America is infected with racist flash mobs, racist muggers, and racist murderers like Panther Mumia. The courts which have collaborated with criminals by permitting soft sentences for monsters, the university departments that specialize in excusiology, and the media that hired this jailed murderer as a commentator, all contribute to the Black Panther racist ideology that contaminates our cities. Mumia lives as American justice dies.
These are some of my comments from Yahoo.
What Are Climate Change Skeptics Still Skeptical About? http://l.yimg.com/a/i/identity2/profile_48c.png"A BBC TV documentary on the history of Britain began with a look at ancient human ruins in the Shetland and Orkney islands. Remnants in the ancient ovens revealed they were eating tropical fish. Must have been very warm north of Scotland 5,000 years ago. In 1,000 AD Vikings settled Greenland, and built a community of 3,500 people living a European life with cows to graze the green land. They even had a bishop. It was warmer then than now. Then it grew cold around 1300 AD, and the settlement disappeared. In the Middle Ages the French vintners complained about imported English wines - because it was warm in England. Bottom line - it was much warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. Humans survived and some thrived. Our climate fluctuates. Ignore the Gores and others with their computer speculations and fantasies that show little evidence of human history and natural climate change."
Jewish group applauds David Duke's arrest http://l.yimg.com/a/i/identity2/profile_48c.png"Too bad free speech is not a part of the German Constitution! Remember Voltaire's comment about defending the right of people to express views with which the author disagrees. Duke should have been allowed to speak. He should not have been arrested. Anyone who uses violence, like some in Occupy Wall Street, should be arrested. Those who occupy property that is not theirs, might be arrested. But a man invited to speak before a peacefully assembled group, should NOT be arrested. We can hope that Duke is free now and that the oppressive German government stops its policies that deny free speech and other freedoms."
One of the posters on this site accused me of being KKK.  I replied that while I had never been a member of the KKK, I had been a member of the ACLU.-------Hugh

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Affirmative Action: Reply to Kahlenberg

What Should Obama Do on Affirmative Action?
November 21, 2011, 5:53 pm
Chronicle of Higher Education
See Chronicle for his article proposing a method for President Obama to save affirmative action.
My reply:

There is an unreality about this article.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant for hiring, promotion, admission to university, etc. all based on merit.  Sen. Hubert Humphrey declared in the debate prior to passage that hiring to fill quotas or to achieve a racial balance would be illegal under CR law.  However, personnel is policy, and soon the EEOC required preferences and racial preferences and quotas (using euphemisms like goal and timetables).  Liberals became so brazen that Mary F. Berry, then on the CR Commission, announced that the CR laws did not apply to whites.  So much for equal opportunity for all.

Now Obama's Dept. of Justice does not believe that the Voting Rights Act applies to white people.  Whistleblower J. Christian Adams exposes the ideology that now pervades the Obama-Holder Justice Dept. in his new book, INJUSTICE.  Even under Bush, some Leftist DoJers opposed taking to court a Black Democrat in Mississippi who violated the Voting Rights Act with various types of fraud.  And the same crowd became more determined with Obama's victory in 2008.  They demanded the DoJ lose the case against the New Black Panther Party and one of its operatives who flagrantly sought to intimidate voters in Philadelphia with their Party uniforms, the batons, and threats.  Most charges were dropped because Obama's crew was not interested in defending the right to vote of white people.  Just as the CR law of equal opportunity became the race preference law, now the Voting Rights law will be the "right of minorities to vote" law and not apply if whites are intimidated.

How does Kahlenberg expect Obama to abandon race preferences in university admission?  Remember, Obama has marched with leaders of the New Black Panther Party - some of whom call for the killing of the white race.  Obama's campaign rhetoric may have been race neutral, but his appointments and his policies have been consistently anti-white.  And any kind of affirmative action, enforced by the present crew in place, would continue to be just as anti-white as it is now.------Hugh Murray

Monday, November 21, 2011

"J. Edgar" Movie AND Man

“J. Edgar” - Home Movie?
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            Basically, the film was a love story.  Unfortunately, it is not told in a linear manner, and at times one must guess as to the time a scene is occurring.  It did show some of the pettiness of Hoover – requiring agents to dress in a certain manner, cut mustaches, etc.  The earliest event shown is the bombing of Attorney General Palmer’s home after WWI.  Hoover is clearly anti-Bolshevik, and aids in the round-up of radicals for deportation.  The film might have devoted more to the role of his bureau during Prohibition.  The anti-gangster campaigns of the late 20s and 30s indicate how Hoover increases the power of his agency.  However, more should have been shown how he vindictively sought to destroy agents who did more to capture the gangsters and yet were destroyed by Hoover out of jealousy.  Nothing is shown of FDR’s campaign against pro-German elements as WWII approached.  All know that Japanese were rounded up and interned in the US, but so were German and Italian nationals.  Was the FBI involved?  I don’t know, but possibly.  Communists spies stealing atomic or other secrets is ignored in the film, as is the whole Cold War era.  And to protect the US from subversion, the FBI researched to ferret out homosexuals from government jobs.  Had Eastwood included this crusade, the movie would have had a certain irony.
            Hoover’s hostility to ML King is emphasized, but nothing about the surveillance of the Communist operative that led to the FBIs wiretapping King.  The assassination of John Kennedy is passed quickly, with nothing about the FBI’s role in investigating the killing.  It is clear in the film that Hoover used files to blackmail President’s, - Eleanor Roosevelt who had a close (lesbian) woman friend, JFK who romanced a beautiful East German gal (possible spy), etc.  Hoover’s blackmail files (without specifics) are used to threaten President Nixon to keep Hoover on the job.
            Nothing in the film extends far beyond the generally accepted story.  What did the FBI know about Lee Harvey Oswald, for example?  Various agents have alleged Hoover knew much more, but Eastwood does not speculate on this issue.  Did Hoover use the media to out suspected Communists during the Cold War?  Was his relation to Sen. Joe McCarthy as condescending as the one-line in the film?  Jim Marrs alleged that in the 1930s the Mafia had proof of Hoover’s affection for his assistant Tolson, and the mob blackmailed Hoover so the FBI would ignore the Mafia.  For whatever reason, Hoover did maintain that there was no organized crime in the US.
            Instead, the film focuses on the love story of Hoover and Tolson, and the efforts of Hoover’s mother to prevent him from being a daffodil.  Happily, Eastwood did not have Hoover attending a party in a bright, red dress, as alleged by a woman with mob connections.  But he does place Hoover in his mother’s dress and beads.  It seems clear that Hoover was gay, but there is little evidence that he was a cross-dresser.
            For several decades Hoover was among the most powerful men in America.  And for decades, he was accompanied by another man; all this in an era when homosexuality was deemed a crime and a pathology.  At times, Hoover’s FBI was charged with ridding the government of subversives and homosexuals.  Yet, Hoover and Tolson were an item aat race tracks and restaurants.  Communists hated Hoover and the FBI.  I recall in the 1960s how a radical friend sneered that three leading conservative, anti-Communists, Cardinal Spellman of New York, Sen. Joe McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover were all homosexuals.  (McCarthy had married, but a bit later in life).  At the time I discounted the charge as simply an example of smearing the political opponent (all sides do it).  However, now I wonder.
            This film “J. Edgar” is not a bad one.  However, Hoover was far too powerful for so long and was so complex that this effort fails to do the subject justice.  Eastwood’s attempt might better be retitled, “J. Edgar Hoover: the Home Movie.”
                      ADDITION    ADDITION   ADDITION

I posted this review on amazon.com.  Then I read another review by Herbert Calhoun who judged Hoover a monster.  I commented on his review, he replied, and the debate ensued.  Below are the comments from amazon.com:
Your initial post: Nov 21, 2011 11:40:26 PM PST
Comparing Beria of the Soviet secret police to J. Edgar Hoover simply shows how much better we in the US were. While Beria and his predecessors in the NKVD were rounding up and killing millions of Soviet citizens, Hoover's reign seems extremely mild by comparison. There were in the US spies aiding the USSR, to build atomic bombs and steal our military and economic secrets. Some were caught. Few were executed. It was far easier to be a dissident in J. Edgar's America than in Beria's USSR.

In reply to your post on Nov 22, 2011 3:50:23 AM PST
I did not miss this point. 

My reasons for drawing the "loose" comparison was that eventually Beria was brought to task for his excesses. But in the U.S. no one who makes a political (or an economic) mistake -- no matter how damaging to our democracy -- ever pays for it? My point is that it was a difference in degree, not in kind. And Mr. Hoover's was a perfect case in point.

And further to your point. Hoover would not have caught the atomic spies if Elizabeth Bentley had not for her on reasons exposed the cell she was in. Only after that was Hoover able to wrap-up most, but not all of the group. Claus Fuchs, you may recall, finally confessed under MI-5 pressure, many years later after he had lived a long trouble-free life.

I would not be the one to defend Miss Hoover under any circumstances.

You replied with a later post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 9:19:18 AM PST 
Last edited by you on Nov 22, 2011 9:19:50 AM PST
J. Edgar was not Miss Hoover. Marx noted that quantitative differences when large enough become qualitative differences. The massive numbers rounded up into gulags and killed by Beria's agency were of a qualitative difference from Hoover's infractions in the US. And some of his attacks on civil liberties came at the orders of Presidents like Truman, whose Attorney General's list of subversive organizations led to firings and discrimination. That is a long way from Beria and Stalin.
Even if Hoover were connected to a plot in Dallas that resulted in the JFK assassination and cover up, and I do not assert that he was, then he was involved in a coup - but still nothing so deadly as the Soviet secret police.
From the 1920s until 1972 with J. Edgar in power, America was still one of the freest nations on earth. Had he been the monster you portray, America might be a different, dismal, regimented state.

In reply to your post on Nov 22, 2011 12:07:19 PM PST
The film was not about Russia, which at the time was a communist country, but the U.S. which reputedly throughout Hoover reign was a democracy. I suppose you think of Ms. Hoover as a hero. That of course is your prerogative. But based on his record, he was little more than a monster -- who had no respect for democracy, or for the U.S. He was a sick racist, as are most of the people who see him as a hero.

You replied with a later post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 3:44:40 PM PST
Consider those who held similar positions elsewhere during J. Edgar's leadership in the US. It is clear that the Soviet system and Beria were incomparably worse. And what about Europe? For some of Hoover's time in leadership, the chief of Interpol was a gentleman by the name of Heinrich Himmler. By comparison, Hoover was certainly no monster. Was he racist? Probably no more so than Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who instituted segregation in federal agencies. Probably no more so than Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt who vacationed in segregated Georgia and was allied with Democratic Senators like Bilbo of Mississippi. Probably no more so than Democratic President Truman, who denounced Martin Luther King, and said if agitators came into his store like the sit ins, he would throw them out. Was Hoover sick? He was vindictive toward possible rivals; he created an agency with rigid rules. He was gay and had his agents investigate if federal employes were gay, which might cause their termination. But he was following the rules of the time.
We do not live in a perfect world. Hoover had his faults, but he was no monster. He created an agency that outlived him and that has been relied upon by the nation's leaders. They found that he had performed a good job. And sometimes doing a good job is heroic.
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to your post on Nov 23, 2011 10:00:37 AM PST
Mr. Murray,

Unless it is the Communist, I see you do not told those responsible for not making a mockery of our values very high. You have a very peculiar way of defending Hoover, our highest law enforcement officer who was most probably being blackmailed as a closeted homosexual by the very mob he was mandated by the American people to catch.

A man who while he was supposed to be catching spies, but instead was racking up stats on car thefts. A man who had all of Washington fearful of the sexual dirt he had accumulated in his files on others, while the mob had pictures in their files on him sucking on his boyfriend's private parts. Our chief law enforcement officer, who was implicated in assassinating American citizens, including even possibly the President?

Maybe by your way of thinking and according to your rules of morality, that is not a monster. For mine, it is.

We thus must agree to disagree.


Hugh Murray adds - The great courage and determination of the bureaucrat, J. Edgar Hoover

There is another aspect to Hoover utterly neglected by the film. Under President Franklin Roosevelt, many Communists and others obtained jobs in the federal government. Some were spies. When some Soviet operatives turned, and told the FBI, Hoover believed them. He sought to alert other agencies that spies were in their employ. Under Roosevelt, it was clear, the government did not want to know about such matters. Hoover pressed on.  A good bureaucrat often seeks to please his superiors. Hoover had the courage to continue to annoy them, warning them of the danger.

Similarly, when the Roosevelt government sought to return Soviet dissidents to our ally, the USSR (and probable death), Hoover intervened to save some.

Of course this is not in the movie. When does Hollywood ever criticize Franklin Roosevelt?