Your posting of pictures of Robert Byrd of West Virginia--a Liberal New Deal Democrat--as well as quotes from Senator Robert Byrd--in response to my comments about the Harry Byrd organization in the Old Dominion, is an example of the mean spirited, intellectually dishonest tactics that have discredited your entire argument. If you are not deranged or stupid, you know perfectly well that Harry Byrd was a descendant of the William Byrd of Colonial Virginia fame, and no relation to Robert Byrd. That Harry Byrd was the most Conservative man in the United States Senate for a third of a century; that before that as Governor of Virginia, he put through the touhgest anti-Lynching law of any State; that his integrity was never questioned. That the Conservative wing of the Republican Party had only the highest respect for Harry Byrd, who though he remained a Democrat, frequently helped achieve bipartisan Conservative majorities on key issues, particularly those addressing waste and extravagance in Government.
Your suggestion that I would disenfranchise Booker T. Washington is also a lie. Point to one place in any of my writings where I suggest such a thing. The fact that I believe that suffrage is properly left to the States, certainly does not suggest anything of the sort. Washington, by the way, would have had no truck with your hate mongering. He was, at all times, a loyal Southerner, working for good will, and against bigots like yourself.
Finally, you treat us to this little outburst:
"Again, you mentioned Nazi Germany. It is indeed an excellent example--if you once understand it..."
You have no idea with whom you are speaking. The position you disgustingly hold on the Shoah is crystal clear when previously reviewing your 'Myth of the Holocaust'.
I have a pretty good idea with whom I am speaking. You have identified yourself as an intellectually dishonest fellow, promoting ill will between Americans. That makes you unworthy of respect. I do not care if you are wealthy, or have some form of power and influence, you have kept to yourself in this thread. You have demonstrated that you are not worthy of the respect of rational men.
As for my "Myth of the Holocaust." You never reviewed such a thing of mine, because I never wrote such a thing. You are a liar, pure and simple. You do, indeed, illustrate the techniques of Nazi Germany--and deserve the same level of respect as one would accord one of Herr Goebbels underlings in the Propaganda Ministry.
Here is something you might like to chew on, along those lines. It was one of the very first things I ever posted on the internet: Compulsion For Uniformity.
William Flax
In terms of the "Myth of the Holocaust" my wording for your website listing i.e. "Cult Of "The Holocaust - Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century" which is even worse! Is/was this title not listed on your website? I never stated you wrote it but having as a link is just as bad.
Usage of the derogatory term "Cult" when speaking in terms of the Jewish Holocaust during World War II has a very negative connotation, as if the Shoah (Holocaust) is somehow a distorted invented 'myth', as though it never happened. Then the wording "Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century" Survivors & relatives of those which perished should be overjoyed by this repugnant display?
Definition of 'myth'= 'An ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical. A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.'
Do you actual feel this appropriate wording? "Cult Of The Holocaust - Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century
Let's see if your capable of a normal response regarding "Cult Of The Holocaust - Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century in relation to switch and bait tactics along with the non-stop barbs.
Did you not state you were in opposition to various amendments to the Constitution?
No comment here either? "In terms of the Nineteenth Amendment, do you believe the ladies should not be able to cast their votes either?"
Same deal here, no forth coming response on your end to what I wrote below:
"In Southern states, in place of the Fifteenth Amendment, for almost 100 years was Southern state instigated & enforced ultra-violent voter intimidation, and later also 'grandfather clauses' and 'poll taxes' in order to prevent some Americans from voting. Are you also proud of that portion of 'Southern history' and wish it was never altered?"
This was one of your comments in a previous posting: "My opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment is based both upon its content and the method by which it was "ratified." I would have the same objection to the Fifteenth Amendment, but not the Thirteenth."
I asked you: "Why do you even bother linking anything stated by Booker T. Washington, when according to your views on constitutional amendments, the man would not be allowed to vote. Really pitiful."
You state very clear opposition to both the Fourteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment. If neither amendments were ratified how would it have been possible for Booker T. Washington to vote, especially if he were residing in Southern states during the era of Jim Crow? This is extremely puzzling. You can't have it both ways. Yet you responded with this: "Your suggestion that I would disenfranchise Booker T. Washington is also a lie. Point to one place in any of my writings where I suggest such a thing.
How is it a "lie" when you are against the very amendment allowing Black Americans the vote in the post Civil War period. Southern States did not allow Black citizens their right to vote after Federal troops were mistakenly removed from former states in rebellion.
I am attempting understand your full meaning. If certain states, as in 'states rights', prohibit or make extremely difficult for Black Americans to vote, would you be in agreement, since it's a 'states rights' issue?
In terms of Klan associated cops depicted in the photographs I supplied you found it very convenient not to respond: "The photos of the 'Klan cops' in question which you refused to issue comment, are from a website with a subsection entitled 'INTRODUCTION TO SEGREGATION IN THE SOUTH, 1961. (which never happened in your opinion) by David B. Fankhauser, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Chemistry U.C. Clermont College, Batavia, Ohio."
Care to comment on this now?
"I must conclude one of your core complaints relate to Section #3 of the the Fourteenth Amendment. The portion which reads '...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
And...:
"This part of Section #1 must be killing you: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I take it it's 'no comment' as well? "Since you stated equal opposition to the Fifteenth Amendment which race(s) would be restricted from voting?: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Once again on the 'Poll Tax & Grandfather Clause'. Do you believe if selected states return to one or the other, states in question should be allowed to actually impose taxes on American citizens in order to vote or not vote if the voter could not afford to pay the 'Poll Tax' or simply refused as being unconstitutional? In 1944 (Democratic) Senator Burnet R. Maybank of South Carolina said: "Regardless of the Supreme Court decision and any laws that may be passed by Congress, we in South Carolina are going to do whatever we can to protect our white primaries." Do you agree?
Do you also agree with this comment stated by John D. Long, a legislator from South Carolina: "As for the Negro voting in my primary," he said, "we'll fight him at the precinct meeting, we'll fight him at the county convention, we'll fight him at the enrollment books, and, by God, well fight him at the polls if I have to bite the dust as did my ancestors!" Agree?
"Political equality is a question it were as well for the Negro race to forget in the South", said the Waterboro, South Carolina, Press and Standard. Was this type of ranting correct?
"Our Southern duty is to get around the decision in more ways than one," added the widely syndicated Southern columnist, John Temple Graves. Any comment here?
In conclusion, this statement of mine you did not comment on, I wonder why? "You know as well as everyone else during Jim Crow nobody got elected senator in states like South Carolina or Alabama unless they shared the views of the Klan."