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."
That said, I will examine some of your points and questions, not to satisfy your bigoted myopia, but for the instructional benefit it may have for others, seeking ways to deal with the fanatic mindset. You begin with this comment: It's a real shame you are only capable of constructing walls & hurling insults instead of actually responding to questions coupled with quotes, and or, commenting that slavery & Southern segregation 'might' have at least inflicted pain & harm on those caught in the dilemmas. However, since it's a free country you are entitled to whatever views you see fit.
I am a bit dubious about your acknowledgment that it is a free country, since most of your rant, the past few days has been directed in an attack on traditional minded Southerners, who chose to celebrate their history and honor their forebears. But my comments on the merits of your argument were elicited by the intellectually dishonest tactics that you employed. Anyone who knows me, knows that my usual debate tactics are to civily listen to an oponent, and then respond to his argument, not his personality.
I have never advocated slavery, so get off the tangent that suggests that I have. I have simply responded to your efforts to demonize those who held slaves. As for segregation? Ohio is not a segregated State. I have not advocated that it become one. The social customs of other States are not my business. However, when ideologues, seek to impose a monolithic social value system on Americans, I protest.
I am also aware of the terrible harm that has been done--especially to Negro youth, but some White youth also--by the mindless determination to deliberately mix people up, whether vis bussing or other "affirmative" means. If you live in New York, and want to look at the situation more closely, you should get hold of the Armstrong Study in the 1940s, which showed what the actual effect--alienation, delinquency, etc..--of forcing all children into schools, where they were assumed to have the same aptitudes, really was. (The study was in the New York public school system, but it describes psychological alienation--a result of the normal child's defensive mechanisms--that have been observed in virtually every major urban school system, over the past two generations.)
Education is inherently a local matter. Courts and Federal Legislators need to keep their noses out of local education.
You next take up--and completely distort--an article I wrote on the Nazi slaughter of Jews:
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?
You have either not read the essay, or have again shown a total lack of intellectual integrity, for you have totally distorted the nature and thrust of the article: The Cult Of The Holocaust. The last thing that the article is is a denial of the slaughter. It does endeavor to put the slaughter into a more realistic light than the term "Holocaust," which conjures up the idea of an explosive conflagration, intense but soon over, would imply. The reality was a deliberate, cold-blooded but methodical slaughter--one of the major examples of the cruel savagery of the Socialist mindset--the same one which emerges in a more preliminary form in the endless rhetoric of hate, being spewed against the American Southern tradition, today.
My essay also suggests that the correct response to the Marx/Hitler demonization of the Jews, is to return to a focus on the strength of the Mosaic tradition, rather than endlessly focusing on the terrible body count.
If you are really concerned with the horror--and not just pretending, to try to make a point--you should stop aping the tactics that led to it. Hitler had been in power, shouting "big lies," against the Jews for nine years, before the commencement of the sytematic slaughter. Marxists, in general, in Germany, had been demonizing the Jews as responsible for Capitalist excesses for about a hundred years, before the slaughter started.
Marx had recommended the focus on a single enemy approach in the 1840s. Hitler adopted the suggested scape goat from the other Leftist movements, in order to win the battle for the streets. But by 1942, the Nazis had become so swept up in the rhetoric of demonization, that they undermined their war effort, to divert considerable resources to the attempted extermination of all Jews under their control.
The Jews had been targeted, not because they were failures, but because they had succeeded. And the lies told about them, caused others to blame them for all of the problems that those less successful had experienced. Year by year, the hate became more focused, while those who knew better were intimidated into not opening their mouths--into not even protesting--until it was simply a given, that a people who had produced far more than their proportionate share of leaders in many fields, were totally ostracized.
If you really give a damn about preventing a recurrence of this vicious idiocy, why do you play the same game against the Southern White tradition, in America? Why do you disparage the one people in America, who at the very time the German Socialists were already deeply into the demonization of Jews, accepted Jews fully into the mainstream of their ante-bellum society? If you are not a fool, you are a hypocrite.
I am not going to comment on your silly citation of a Leftwing text book. I was very active in 1961 in the debate over the "Civil Rights" movement, and was in first hand contact with many of the prominent players on both sides, and will tell you that the Klan (one should better ask which Klan, as there were a great many small attempts to revive one, usually among the less educated)was not a major player. They would have liked to be, but few took them seriously. Your writer is simply smearing the opposition by association.
As for my position on the various Constitutional Amendments, which imposed strictures on the States' Right to control suffrage? Why do you pretend that I am being evasive? Although it has nothing really to do with this thread--which is about Southerners proudly displaying one of their historic flags, to celebrate their proud history--I pointed out to you that I opposed those Amendments. How silly can you get.
What is there about Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution you do not understand? It leaves it up to the States--where it should have remained--to determine suffrage within their borders. It merely defines Federal Suffrage as being the same as that provided in each State for the more popular branch of its State Legislature.
What you obviously oppose is to me the bedrock of the American tradition--the non-monolithic nature of our Federal Republic. It was not the Founders' intention to create something like the Third Reich, where one Will prevailed. It was broad enough and tolerant enough to allow the Puritans in New England to put each other in stocks, if they chose, for sleeping in Church; and broad enough and tolerant enough to allow the Planters in Virginia to celebrate Christmas with all the gusto their forebears had employed in the great Manor Houses in Great Britain; and broad enough to allow the people in Rhode Island to take their more eclectic view of Freedom, and the people in Georgia to sort out and deal with some of those transported types, according to their own ways and devices.
To recur to what you choose to call a "Holocaust," and I a "cold-blooded, systematic Socialist slaughter:"
Call it what you will, it would not have been likely, had someone stood up to preserve the rights of the German States, not to be subsumed into the Nazi monolith, in the early 1930s; had someone stood up and pointed out that it is not the function of the Central Government in a Federation of sovereign States with varied cultures, to impose a single monolithic value system on all its peoples.
Such a preservation of local rights to be different--of the rights of peoples to preserve their traditional values--might also have stopped the other great European deliberate, systematic slaughters of the 20th Century, such as the one where Stalin killed off the skilled farmers of Russia and the Ukraine, by imposed and enforced starvation.
Of course, both Stalin and Hitler had bought the environmentalist nonsense, that implies that the State--the collective--can remake people by remaking their environment. They assumed that whatever skills their victims possessed, would be easily replaceable. Well, they were not, and the effects of their Socialist mania will haunt Europe for some time to come.
The quotes are yours, quoting yourself, as though this was too good a point to let go. What does it tell us? Nothing to your credit.
1. Senator Underwood of Alabama was denied the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1922, because of the enmity of the Klan--particularly in the Midwest. He came close, but close did not do it.
2. What is really clear, however, in your statement, is that you are taking a very, very cheap shot. What stand of the Klan are you referring to? From the context, I assume that you are not claiming that every Senator endorsed lynching--or are you? If you are, that is an absolute lie. If you are saying that every Senator from the South supported some of the segregation policies, you are right. But what does the Klan have to do with that? By the precise same token, every Senator from New York, from 1940 to 1965, supported the Communist view on race relations.
Do you feel that the last makes a fair point?
I have in some posts gone into the Socialist and Communist origins of the "Civil Rights" movement. But I have never suggested that all who later embraced it were either Communists or Communist sympathizers.
And speaking of cheap shots, do you intend to apologize for your posting of the wrong Byrd, the other day? Or for that matter, your posting of a doctored picture of the West Virginia Byrd, while you were at it?
If you have a valid point, you should not have to resort to dishonest arguments to support it. If you do not have a valid point--and I do not believe that you do--you need to find another subject, where your thoughts may have more validity.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
By unanimous consent, Mr. Brooks (James of New York) presented a protest; which was ordered to be entered on the journal, as follows:Are you also proud of that portion of 'Northern history' and wish it was never altered?"The recognized presence of three persons on the floor of this house from the State of Arkansas, sent here by military force acting under a brigadier general of the army, but nevertheless claiming to be members of this Congress, and to share with us, the representatives from free States, in the imposition of taxes and customs and other laws upon our people, makes it our imperative duty in this, the first case, to remonstrate most solemnly, and to protest as solemnly, against this perilous and destructive innovation upon the principles and practices of our hitherto constitutional self-government. The so-called reconstruction acts which created the military government in Arkansas and like governments in other southern States to share with us in the legislative power of the northern and western free people, we have every reason to believe, have been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, the public declaration of which fact was avoided only by the extraordinary and strange device of this Congress in snatching jurisdiction from the court in the McCardle case when such a public decision was about to be made.
Of the three great branches of the government, it seems, then, that after the Executive vetoed these acts as unconstitutional, the judiciary adjudicated them to be so, while a Congress, the creation of but twenty-seven of the thirty-seven States of the Union, overrides these equal and co-ordinate branches of that government, first by voting down the vetoes, next by nullifying the judgments of the court! In an era of profound peace, when not an armed man rises against the government from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, there, in ten States, our American historical way of creating the organic law has been utterly subverted by the bayonet. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, with scarcely an exception, and even amid the battles of the Revolution, conventions have been convoked through, and constitutions created by, the electors of the States, the only authorized depositaries of the sovereign power of every State without exterior dictation or domination, as well under the old confederation as under the existing federal Constitution. The hardest and harshest test-oath required from 1766 to the peace of 1783 was an abjuration oath of allegiance to George III, while some of the now so-called bayonet-made constitutions from the south propose absurd and cruel tests; absurd, as in Arkansas, where is interwoven in the organic law a mere party test between the radical reconstructionists and the democratic conservatives, such as would exclude from voting, if living there, the thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of democrats in the free States, (art. S, sec. 4;) or cruel, as in Alabama, where no white man can vote who will not forever forswear his own race and color, and perjure himself by swearing, in defiance of the law of God, that the negro is his equal and forever to be his equal at the ballot-box, in the jury-box, with the cartridge-box; in the school, in the college, in house and home, and by the fire-side; in short, in every way, everywhere, (art. 7, sec. 4.)
Now, in these and the other southern States in the midst of war President Lincoln, in his proclamation, December 8, 1863, offered amnesty and pardon to rebels then in arms, if they would lay down their arms and take an oath of fidelity, while now, not a Union man in Arkansas or Alabama can vote unless in the first place he swears allegiance to the majesty of this Congress, and in the next swears off his Americanism and Africanizes himself. Hitherto constitutions with us have been the outgrowth of popular life, springing from the exuberance of our enterprise and energy in the settlement of the forests or prairies of our country; but here, before us now. are nine constitutions, with one if not three more yet to come from Texas, which have all been imposed upon the people by five military satraps or pentarchs, in a manner never before known under our law, but borrowed at best from imperial Roman military colonization, or from the worst precedents of the French revolution. France is then recorded to have had five constitutions in three years, so frequently made and so frequently changed that they were ironically classed by the French people with the periodical literature of the day. Louisiana, a colony of that France, has had four constitutions in four years, and a constitution there has now become periodical literature, as in France, in the agonies and throes of the great revolution. Laws, mere statute laws, which can never be created by conventions, are appended, more or less, to all these constitutions, and bayonet-created, one-branch governments, with no executive, no senate, no house of representatives, no judiciary, have ordained irrepealable, irreversible laws in the very organism of the State, such as cannot be thus created by the executive, the senate, and the house of representatives of legitimate governments when acting in unison and all combined. All this has been done, without regard to preceding constitutions or precedents, or to the common law of the States or the law of nations.
The military, which, under legitimate institutions, can only be used in time of peace to conserve or preserve the State, have here been used to destroy States. The General of the army, who represents the sword, and only the sword of the republic, has beenexalted by acts of Congress above the constitutional Commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in order to execute those military decrees, and as the surer way to root out every vestige left of constitutional law or liberty. The same General of the army, in order to prolong or perpetuate his military domination north and west as well as south, has been selected in party convention at Chicago to head the electoral vote for the Presidency in ten of our States which are as much under his feet as Turkey is under the Sultan or Poland under the Czar of Russia. But, as if only to add insult to the injury of this military outrage upon popular government in these ten States, either by act of Congress or by these Congress-soldier-made State constitutions, at least 250,000 whites have been disfranchised, while 750,000 negroes, inexperienced in all law-making, and more ignorant than our children, have been enfranchised in their stead, and have thus been created absolute masters and sovereigns over the whole white population of the south.
Because of all this, and in opposition to all this, we, representatives of the people from the free States, in behalf of our constituents and of thousands and tens of thousands of others who would be here represented if the popular power without could now constitutionally act here within, earnestly and solemnly protest against this violence upon our Constitution and upon our people, and do hereby counsel and advise all friends of popular government to submit to this force and fraud only until at the ballot-box, operating through the elections, this great wrong can be put right. There is no law in the land supreme over the constitutional law. There is no government but constitutional government; and hence all bayonet-made, all Congress-imposed constitutions are of no weight, authority, or sanction, save that enforced by arms, an element of power unknown to Americans in peace, and never recognized but as it acts in and under the supreme civil law, the Constitution, and the statutes enacted in pursuance thereof. We protest, then, in behalf of the free people of the north and the west, against the right of this military oligarchy established in Arkansas or elsewhere in the now re-enslaved States of the south to impose upon us, through Congress, taxes or customs or other laws to maintain this oligarchy or its Freedmen's Bureau. We protest against going into the now proposed copartnership of military dictators and negroes in the administration of this government. We demand, in the name of the fathers of the Constitution and for the sake of posterity, not its reconstruction, but the restoration of that sacred instrument, which has been to us all a pillar of fire from 1787 on to its present overthrow; and in all solemnity, before God and man, under a full sense of the responsibility of all we utter, we do hereby affix our names to this protest against the admission of these three persons, claiming to be members of Congress from Arkansas.
* JAMES BROOKS.
* JAMES B. BECK.
* VAN TRUMP.
* CHAS. A. ELDRIDGE.
* SAMUEL J. RANDALL.
* W. MUNGEN.
* STEPHEN TABER.
* ASA P. GROVER.
* L. S. TRIMBLE.
* GEORGE M. ADAMS.
* A. J. GLOSSBRENNER.
* STEVENSON ARCHER.
* JOHN A. NICHOLSON.
* JOHN MORRISSEY.
* THOS. LAURENS JONES.
* W. E. NIBLACK.
* JULIUS HOTCHKISS.
* WM. H. BARNUM.
* JOHN W. CHANLER.
* S. B. AXTELL
* S.S. MARSHALL.
* W. S. HOLMAN.
* CHARLES HAIGHT.
* CHARLES SITGREAVES.
* J. PROCTOR KNOTT.
* J. S. GOLLADAY.
* J. M. HUMPHREY.
* FERNANDO WOOD.
* J. LAWRENCE GETZ.
* F. STONE.
* M. C. KERR.
* JOHN FOX.
* JAMES A. JOHNSON.
* JOHN V. L. PRUYN.
* W. E. ROBINSON.
* B. M. BOYER.
* GEO. W. WOODWARD.
* CHAS. E. PHELPS. * A. G. BURR. * D.M. VAN AUKEN. * J. R. McCORMICK. * DEMAS BARNES. * JAMES M. CAVANAUGH. * LEWISS W. ROSS. * H. McCULLOUGH.Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 24 Jun 1868.