As we mark the passing of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, I can’t help but wonder if sometime visitor Geoffrey will feel thathis death relieves us of the burden of having to recall that he is still among those stealing oxygen from the rest of us. Try as I might, I could never find anything attributed to Helms that matches the level of evil racism this Powerline piece attributes to Byrd. So I’m surprised that as of this writing (11:34PM CST), Geoffrey has yet to post the same celebratory obituary that he joyously posted for Helms.
It’s easy to rip on southern politicians of the generation of Helms, Byrd, Thurmond (I wonder what Geoffrey thought of Trent Lott’s speech to Strom on his 100th birthday—he must have gotten the vapors!), as they all came up in a time when racism was just the way things were. We look down on them for their racist beliefs (those who actually had them) and lump them all together if they ever uttered the “N-word”. But there are differences between Byrd and Helms (Thurmond was somewhere in the middle leaning more toward Byrd than Helms, as far as I can tell).
For some, and Geoffrey’s input will help clear the air as far as he’s concerned, the differences are mostly political. It was hard to find stories of Helms that didn’t label him as the worst kind of racist. But despite the fact that he claimed not to be a racist, and despite the fact that he had black people on his staff, he was (and still is) vilified more because of his politics than for him actually being a racist. He never supported affirmative action, which is racist in a different direction. He didn’t support making MLK JR’s birthday a holiday (Oh. The. Horror!) He didn’t support propping up third world countries with tax dollars. And of course he didn’t support abortion or homosexual “rights”, which makes him Satan.
Byrd, on the other hand, was an officer of the KKK, a recruiter and as the linked article shows, fully expressed the worst kind of racist sentiments as part of his duties in Congress. He said that his time with the Klan was “a mistake”, but good gosh, what a doozy! What in Helms life ever compared to THAT? And apparently, in March of 2001, Byrd allegedly called someone a “White Ni**er” while miked. Is there a Helms anecdote like that anywhere?
Hey, I’m not saying there isn’t such things about Helms, but only that I’ve not found anything. I’ve looked again before beginning this post. What I’m seeing is that there are a ton of websites and blogs listed on Google that talk about Helms being an awful racist. One needn’t even click on a link; it’s right there. Google “Was Jesse Helms a racist” and see what I mean.
The question is, will we see the same for Byrd? Will he get the exact same treatment in the many obits that will appear, or will that “(D)” next to his name mean he gets a pass? As this AmericanThinkerBlog post shows, he’ll likely get the latter.
But at least Geoffrey will be able to rest assured that the oxygen Byrd was stealing is now available for some really deep breaths. Kinda like springtime after a gentle rain, ain’t it?
Marshal Art's 
As far as the charges of racism, I am disposed to let bygones be bygones. Since the 1940's Senator Byrd had either stopped being racist (difficult, but not impossible), or simply learned what not to say in public.As far as using the term "White nigger" in an interview…I will say although it was a poor choice of words, when taken in context, the sentiment is understandable.He might have been still racist at the time of his death. I don't know. And, I won't say he was.That being said, Senator Byrd was a highly effective advocate for his state, though, and that's what Senators are elected to be. I've driven through West Virginia many times, and, for a couple of months, even lived there. Byrd's name is plastered all over the state. Bridges, buildings, hospitals, etc. He did an enormous amount of good for his state(At the expense of the good people of WV).I also enjoyed listening to his speeches, usually peppered with anecdotes about his childhood that were both entertaining and endearing. The knock I have with him was, as with every other Democrat, he was extremely adept (even more so than the others) at separating taxpayers from their hard earned money, and did it in such a way that most of his constituents thanked him for it. There's plenty of air to go around, environmentalists notwithstanding. R.I.P, Senator Byrd.
The Klan is truly a vile organization. How creepy is it when people get together because their hobby is hatred?Having stated the obvious, it is wildly ironic that black people had less to fear from Byrd the Klansman than Byrd the pro-legalized abortionist. While he wasn't as extremely pro-abortion as most Liberals, his support helped keep abortions in the black community three times the ratio of whites. That is the ultimate racism. Just like the racist anti-gun laws sought to keep guns out of the hands of black people, the racist pro-abortion laws ensure that blacks are destroyed much, much faster than whites (Hispanics, too, though their rate is "only" double that of whites).Margaret Sanger's dreams live on through the Democratic Party. Yet we're the ones accused of wanting to hold on to our majority. Just another lie from the deceptive mass media.P.S. But Kagan says she is unbiased — and you know she wouldn't lie about that! — so when she gets around to reading that Constitution thingy she'll see how obvious the right to bear arms and the right to life are. Right?!
liberals apparently have the ability to see into your heart and soul. Coincidentally democrats always have good hearts and souls no matter what they say and republicans are just a bunch of sticking racists no matter what they say.
Here's the difference between Robert Byrd and Jesse Helms. Whatever his personal feelings concerning African-Americans, Byrd not only officially apologized for his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he actively pursued Civil Rights legislation and hired African-Americans.Jesse Helms did none of the above. In fact, during most of his Senate career, Helms had on his staff folks who had spent part of their careers seeking to prove a biological/genetic link between intellectual inferiority and black skin. Even Strom Thurmond hired African-Americans, something Helms never did.And that's all I'm gonna say about it. Helms was a dyed-in-the-wool bigot and used his perch in the US Senate to pursue a racist agenda his entire career. Byrd was man enough, even if he personally did not change his views, to change his public voice on matters of race.
Geoffrey's response is not surprising and neither is his less than accurate "facts".From Wiki:"] In 1983, Helms hired Claude Allen, an African-American, as his press secretary. Despite his publicly-aired belief that he was one of the best-liked senators amongst black staff in Congress, it was pointed out that he didn't have any African-American staff of his own, prompting the hiring of the twenty-two year old,[179] who had switched parties when he was press secretary to Bill Cobey in the previous year's campaign.""In 1981, Helms started secret negotiations to end an 11-year impasse and pave the way for desegregation of historically white and historically black colleges in North Carolina. In response to a rival anti-discrimination bill in 1982, he proposed a bill outlawing granting tax-free status to schools that discriminated racially, but allowing schools that discriminate on the grounds of religion to avoid taxes."There's another point regarding the Voting Rights Act that he voted against for it's unequal treatment of states, but more research is needed to really flesh it out and I haven't the time.Geoffrey says Byrd apologized for his bigotry, but that's more than likely a political move as cultural attitudes changed. Helms never apologized because he insisted he wasn't the least bit racist. Helms refusal to support the Civil Rights Act does not prove racism in the least, though it's easy to smear him as such, which Geoffrey does here. One would need to spell out how his position manifested in his remarks and stated beliefs. I don't believe you'll find anything that says he opposed it out of racial hatred. The same can be said for his opposition regarding the nomination of blacks for SCOTUS or other positions or confirmations, such as Carol Mosely Braun. Few blacks in his time were conservative, so why would he approve of their appointments or nominations? Yet, such is used as evidence of racism. Typical of leftist haters, actually. In fact, it's common practice with the lefties to smear someone based on their opposition for a bill or proposal while never discussing the actual reason for that opposition. Geoffrey does that here with Helms, but not with Byrd. It's all a matter of what letter in parentheses follows the politician's name.Both of these guys were extraordinary politicians. But even here, the differences are clear. Byrd was a master pork-puller, getting the country to pay for W. Virginia projects. Helms delt with principle and what serves the nation. Byrd was the typical superficial Democrat supporting all that sounded good on the surface. Helms was the typical conservative Republican dealing in actual substance.Which was the more racist is easy to tell by their past dealings. Helms knew how to play the race card to support candidates, but is that anywhere near as bad as recruiting for an organization devoted to white supremacy? I don't think so. Only liberal bias would insist that Byrd could be forgiven for actual sins, while Helms must be condemned for imagined sins. Geoffrey's just that kind of liberal.
"Byrd was man enough, even if he personally did not change his views, to change his public voice on matters of race."In other words Byrd was man enough to lie about his true feelings. (assuming that GKS is correct in his supposition)
Marshall asked…What in Helms life ever compared to THAT?Byrd was indeed horrifyingly wrong to have been part of the Klan. And he repented for that and lived his life as a changed man. Helms was a racist who never repented so far as I know.What did Helms do to compare to being a Klansman while young and then repent of it?For starters…* Said of Civil Rights protests: "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."* Forged personal alliances with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson.* When Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois became the first African-American woman to sit in the Senate, Helms followed Moseley-Braun into an elevator, announcing to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch: "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries."Then, emphasizing the lines about how "good" things were before the Civil War ended slavery, Helms sang "Dixie."* Led a failed filibuster against the establishment of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.* "I became a Republican when a very wise young lady asked me how I could remain a Democrat when I didn't agree with what they stood for [ie, civil rights] and did agree with what the Republicans supported."* Announced in 1994 that if then-President Bill Clinton were to visit North Carolina, "He better have a bodyguard."* Helms warned that, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced."* He suggested that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist dupe and refused, even decades after King's death, to honor the Nobel Peace Prize winner.* He dismissed the civil rights movement as a cabal of communists and "moral degenerates."* ""Martin Luther King repeatedly refers to his 'non-violent movement.' It is about as non-violent as the Marines landing on Iwo Jima.""* "No intelligent Negro citizen should be insulted by a reference to this very plain fact of life. It is time to face honestly and sincerely the purely scientific statistical evidence of natural racial distinction in group intellect. … There is no bigotry either implicit or intended in such a realistic confrontation with the facts of life. … Those who would undertake to solve the problem by merely spending more money, and by massive forced integration, may be doing the greatest injustice of all to the Negro."* As a television commentator before running for the Senate, Helms said, "Dr. (Martin Luther) King's outfit … is heavily laden at the top with leaders of proven records of communism, socialism and sex perversion, as well as other curious behavior." He called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress."* "I thought it [the Civil Rights Act] was very unwise. It was taking liberties away from one group of citizens and giving them to another. I thought it was bad legislation then, and I have had nothing to change my mind about it." [in the 1980s or 1990s]* Because of Helms, several major treaties never became law: The Kyoto Protocol against global warming, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the proposed land mine treaty — all were stopped at his insistence."* He also had a thing about governments with death squads, and the appallingly brutal South African-funded guerilla groups in Angola and Mozambique. He supported the apartheid regime in South Africa.=======For starters. Supporting deadly thugs and dictators, opposing civil rights for all people, embarassing rude behavior throughout his life towards those he disagreed with, THESE are the things that compare and, indeed, are worse than being a Klansman for a while in your younger years.
I think it would be fun to enumerate the instances of hypocrisy the left has displayed here, and elsewhere, in smearing Helms. Someone should compare and contrast the Left's hatred for Jesse Helms and their indifference to the lunacy of certain prominent clergy who have used their "perch" to promote a racist and explicitly race-essential theology and argue that the different races have innate differences when it comes to learning.But I'm most interested in Geoffrey's claim here:"Helms was a dyed-in-the-wool bigot and used his perch in the US Senate to pursue a racist agenda his entire career. Byrd was man enough, even if he personally did not change his views, to change his public voice on matters of race."I'd love to see his explanation for this eccentric view of manliness. At the very least, I'd like Geoffrey to make clear that he meant what he wrote: it seems that he believes that Byrd was more of a man for suppressing what he really believes in deference to political correctness.
Bubba, don't you know black people can't be racist? Only white people can be racist. If you don't believe that, ask Geoffrey or Dan T.
Well, I stand corrected. Helms managed to find some poor guy to be his token house negro. How lovely.Both men probably went to their graves bigots to the bone. The difference in their public approach toward matters of race couldn't have been more different. Jesse Helms attempted to block the creation of a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., on the absurd basis that King was a communist. Even if he was, so what, as far as I'm concerned.Actually, I was never a big fan of Byrd's although I liked his speech against the AUMF in Iraq. As far as race matters are concerned, however, there really is no contest – Helms' record as a United States Senator, including his horrid 1990 "black hands" ad in a tight race against an African-American opponent, widely understood even then to be racist, far surpasses anything in Byrd's record.Hiring some guy in 1983. Big deal.
Byrd was a democrat racist, that is what makes all the difference.
Well.Re, "(Byrd) said that his time with the Klan was 'a mistake', but good gosh, what a doozy! What in Helms life ever compared to THAT?"This: "He never supported affirmative action, which is racist in a different direction. He didn't support making MLK JR's birthday a holiday."What is it that you don't understand?
There are a number of ways I can dispute Dan's last comments. First of all, he gives credibility to what I said regarding the liberal's perception and opinion of a politician or his actions based on the letter that follows his name. Indeed, Dan has shown quite a penchant for this practice.And BTW, some of the following will answer some of Geoffrey's gross misconceptions as well.As to his points, I have time for only a few right now, so I'll have to get to the rest later.–"Said of Civil Rights protests: etc." Dan lists this as evidence of racism. But what is actually being said? Only that Helms wonders how long the average citizen will put up with his free movement in public places and his ability to freely conduct everyday business prohibited and obstructed by civil rights marches. How in the ever-loving world is this possibly racist? Because he said "Negro"? In the 1960's? Give me a break.–"Forged personal alliances…" Helms was a major voice against the spread of communism. Like the last point Dan tries to make, Dan sees only the superficial. More often than not, when one digs deeper than that surface that satisfies the likes of Dan, Helms was making choices between a communist option and a non-communist option. The spread of communism in those days was not some myth or rhetorical fear-mongering, but a true concern for the world in general and for patriots, America specifically. Dan never complains about those who support communist thugs or communist supported thugs like Castro or Ortega. Supporting any thug is abhorent, but ignoring thugs who have the backing of the larger communist entities like the Soviet Union or China is rank stupidity. Such stupidity is common amongst the Democratic Party and its supporters. Now I haven't had the opportunity to look too deeply into the Pinochet situation, but as for Roberto D'Aubuisson, Helms offered to disengage from this guy if proof of his alleged death squad activities could be produced. Nobody produced any. And like Dan when he supports the Sandinistas, Helms got his info from Salvadorans, many of whom to this day still look favorably on D'Aubuisson.At this point I just want to say that I left the keyboard without posting the above. New comments have been posted since then. In my next post I'll be adjusting my response to reflect the new comments.
As to employing blacks, Helms also employed James Meredith, the first black student at the University of Mississippi, as a special assistant from '89-'91. His press secretary was also black as were several of his administrative assistants.This article from WorldNetDaily is a testimonial, an eye-witness account of Helms hiring practices as an exec of a N.C. television station. And then, there's this little note that should be considered by those who think Helms was a racist.Has he done racist things? Well, as a child of a racist culture, there's no doubt that he can be so accused. But one must consider the source, the context, the man and one's own preconceived notions. The Carol Mosely-Braun incident is a good example. Did he sing "Dixie" to her in an elevator as a racist method of intimidation? Or was it a bad joke that merely comes off as racist? He didn't dislike her because she was black. He messed with her because she was a liberal and did so in a less than intelligent manner. Yeah, the 1990 ad was seen as racist by many. But many idiots think he was racist. So what? The ad was clearly about quotas and most people opposing affirmative action, which was supported by the black candidate in that race, were seen as racist. Opponents of affirmative action are STILL seen as racists by stupid people of the left. In fact, every race-related bill or proposal Helms opposed were opposed for reasons other than race, but that doesn't help the smear to tell the truth. Blocking King's birthday was seen as a politically correct ploy by the left, which it was. One of Helm's arguments against it was that Washington was dead 85 years before his birthday was officially recognized. But there were rumors about King that were not of Helm's making that he thought were serious to settle, stories that required unsealing FBI files to know the truth of. It wouldn't have hurt anyone to hold off on the holiday until such concerns were properly addressed. He had his concerns about the man. That doesn't make him racist. And if Geoffrey doesn't care if King was a closet commie, that isn't surprising. Lefties and commies ain't a newsflash.
ER,Long time no "see". How sad your first comment in ages is so stupid. What are they teaching you at that seminary?
Now here's a few things about Byrd:Highlights of Robert Byrd’s history of race relations include: – 1942: Joins the KKK; eventually rises to the rank of “Exalted Cyclops.”– 1945: Writes “Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”– 1947: Says in a letter that the Klan is needed “like never before” and declares that he is “anxious to see its rebirth.”– 1964: Attempts to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn’t out of principled libertarian support for property rights. Cites a racist study claiming that black people’s brains are statistically smaller than white people’s.– 1967: Votes against Thurgood Marshall’s Supreme Court nomination. Went to J. Edgar Hoover to see if Marshall had any Communist ties that could ruin his nomination.– 1968: Tells the FBI that it’s time that Martin Luther King, Jr., “met his Waterloo.” FBI ignores him.– 1991: Votes Against Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination. Becomes the only senator in the body to have voted against both black Supreme Court nominees.– 2001: Refers to what he called “white niggers” on national television. Try to imagine, say, Haley Barbour being given a pass after calling someone a “white nigger.”"Men are not created equal today, and they were not created equal in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written," Mr. Byrd proclaimed during the filibuster. "Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity and vision."He opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and most of Johnson's "war on poverty" programs. "We can take the people out of the slums, but we cannot take the slums out of the people," he said. "Wherever some people go the slums will follow. People first have to clean up inside themselves."Geoffrey should be breathing the clean fresh air now, shouldn't he?
Marshall, about Helms and MLK, you write, "He had his concerns about the man. That doesn't make him racist."That's absolutely right, but it's clear that many on the Left believe otherwise. They believe that anything less than breathless admiration for MLK is proof of racism, just as they believe that it is impossible to oppose their race-related policies for any reason other than prejudice.In both circumstances, the point isn't to oppose actual racism: it's to demonize and delegitimize one's political opponents.
Wow. God works in mysterious ways, her wonders to perform. Mark decided to take a judicious and gracious tack.________As for your lazy thinking, Marshall, I guess since James Meredith is a black man he can clean up any dirty thing, including Helms "diversity" hiring. Since Mr. Meredith has always been opposed to his conception of "civil rights" and the civil rights agendas of the 1960s and 1970s, he does not seem to be "black enough" though to constitute a crossing of the lines by Mr. Helms.The fact that he is a black man appears to be all that satisfies you and, I presume, Mr. Helms' office.The fact that Mr. Meredith does no put store in the accumulated cost, psychological and structural, which black men and women and the black family have paid for centuries of slavery and a century of Jim Crow puts him outside the ideological gated community that hems in Mr. Helms with Mr. Thurmond with you, etc…Like your buddy, Alan Keyes. Being a black man allows him to clean up the facade that covers all the racist, misogynist, classist and white privilege policies, anti-Christian in motivation, that he and you and so many fear-mongering anxious folks prefer.So, your lazy thinking which openly instrumentalizes the skin of Mr. Meredith but – merely an intellectual incapacity on your part for which you cannot be blamed – neglects his short-sighted sociological imagination is more evidence that you are the nigger. Lazy, unappreciative of because impossibly unchanged by God's love which saves you, fear mongering.The very construct of a nigger as we (white folks) made it.As for Mr. Byrd, his own words justify him. They justify him because they evidence his own change of soul – something available to all of us while we live [even still for you, Marshall]:"I have lived with the weight of my own youthful mistakes my whole life, like a millstone around my neck, and I accept that those mistakes will forever be mentioned when people talk about me. I believe I have learned from those mistakes. I know I've tried very hard to do so."
"Wow. God works in mysterious ways, her wonders to perform. Mark decided to take a judicious and gracious tack."Then I must be wrong. I take it all back. May Senator Byrd rot in Hell for being such an unrepentant racist.
First of all, I really have to apologize to ER. His comment that marked his return from a long absense does not do justice to the word "stupid". It is only kind of goofy.Feodor, on the other hand, once again demonstrates what "stupid" is really all about. He is (allegedly) the well read and heavily educated one (by his own claims) and thus, to show up with the comment he did demonstrates "stupid" like no other liberal visitor can. Feodor apparently can't read or is afflicted with the lazy thinking of which he accuses me. I posted several examples of Helm's support for black employment and from a time when the Civil Rights marches lunatic liberals hail were all the rage. Feodor shows he's every bit the negative image of Helms (as far as race relations) by his accusation that Meredith is not "black enough"! What an incredibly racist comment to make for one who claims to be sensitive to the plight of the black community. Because like all liberals, to Feodor, what makes one authentically black is to buy into the whiney, poor-me victimhood mentality of the race-baiting class. For a black to be conservative, and thus truly concerned with doing what really elevates ANY individual in a truly color-blind manner, is to be traitorous to the cause. (No doubt Feodor would have similar sentiments for conservative women who claim to care about what truly makes for a "feminist".)The evidence I have provided has shown that Helms was indeed NOT a racist. This is not enough for the Feodors of the world because of Helm's sensible and thoughtful opposition to policies and programs that do not help the black community or do so at the expense of other people. THIS is supposedly racism. And Feodor calls MY thinking "lazy". What could be a better example of lazy thinking than the typical liberal position that opposing policies like affirmative action could ever be proof of racism? Yet, the lazy thinking individuals that they are, the lefties like Feo, Geoffrey, ER, Dan T and others will accept without hesitation or reservation the politically advantageous apologies of a former "Cyclops" for the KKK who opposed all sorts of real integration during his political career. So let's compare once again:Byrd–a life of uncompromising and blatant racism lauded by liberals and forgiven without any question by them for a claim of repentence during an age of racial awakening. Helms–a claim of respect for every man, backed up by public expression and his advocating for real support for the race. He insisted all his life that he was NOT a racist, yet the liberals, because he opposed bad policy proposals that he felt were superficial in their goals and harmful to the nation in their practice, was insincere in his claims despite all evidence to the contrary.If there is anyone here in need of soul-change, it would be YOU, Feo and the other racist, liberal fakers and haters.
"The evidence I have provided has shown that Helms was indeed NOT a racist."That he hired black folks?You do know, don't you Marshall, that under Jim Crow, black folks got paid? Right?And the Uncle Toms were the one's who said – in their hearts – "thank you."
You do know, Feodor, the difference between merely hiring someone and promoting, supporting, encouraging and working to insure their success, don't you? Once again, don't indulge in lazy thinking and actually read the links I've provided and actually learn something. Helms showed he believed in the ability of every man, and black men in particular in a time a place where it was unfashionalbe to do so, to develop one's self and move to whatever heights one can achieve. He also sought to give them, in that same time and place where it was unfashionable to do so, the means by which to develop those skills and the opportunity to apply and exploit them for the benefit of the black man who chose to avail himself of said opportunity. And Byrd, after the repentence you lazy lib thinkers don't take a moment to question because of his party affiiation? He eventually supported handouts. But to you lazy thinkers, you supposedly educated and well read fakers, the mere fact that a black man avails himself of the opportunities to do for himself, something that you insincere posturers pretend to want to provide, you call that black man an "Uncle Tom". You can't have it both ways, you sinful and bigoted exploiters and perpetuators of black suffering. In a white dominated society, where the black man once was mere chattel to some, how can he realize self-sufficiency while still oppressed? And when the oppression is lifted, how can he achieve self-sufficiency where the landed won't give him the time of day? And when the well-off, monied white man says, "OK, I'll not only give you a job, but I'll allow you to compete openly and equally with every other employee I have in order for you to go as far as your talent, intelligence and ability will allow." then you call that black man an "Uncle Tom" for taking his shot. So, if I'm understanding your duplicitous position, no black man who achieves without the handout of the white man is an Uncle Tom. He can only succeed because the white man gives him money, but not opportunity. He can only possess success if it is handed to him without any effort on his part beyond holding out his hand, but to possess success because a white man treated him like an equal and he achieved that success by his own effort, that man is an Uncle Tom. I get it now. You're every bit the horse's ass I gave you credit for being, and I say that at the risk of offending horses everywhere. There's no way you're married to a black woman while having such contempt for the black race, unless she's as much an idiot as you are.
"… the difference between merely hiring someone and promoting, supporting, encouraging and working to insure their success…"I am assuming you are referring to this part of the scarlet letter as "evidence" of Helms' noble position (and I agree it's telling, but of completely opposite motivations):"In any case, I want to do something to help the Negro race to recognize the opportunity that awaits it. [What a grand Helms he gives himself.] It is not enough for me to hire a few qualified Negroes for good jobs in our own company. [Great!] To tell you the truth, we would like to have more [Negroes] than we presently have. But there is great difficulty in finding qualified people–not merely in terms of training and experience [understandable], but in attitude [?] and potential [?] as well."Now, Marshall, I now you're cracker enough to "actually read the links [you've] provided and actually learn something" about the coded language going on here:"Where are the Negroes educated and experienced enough BUT docile and respectful of white superiority enough to work in my company while I awaken the whole Negro race?"Yeah, you're on to some deep nigger thinking here, Marshall, and I'm absolutely positive you're nigger enough to know it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The stupidity keeps on comin'!First of all, you stupidly and wihout evidence of anything in your history assume you can divine another's movtivations that aren't clearly stated in oppostion to the sentiments of the words in the letter. This makes you not only stupid, but stupidly presumptuous but typical of the common (and there are few so common as you) liberal in their belief that they "understand" anyone right of center. Indeed, I doubt you have the smarts to understand other idiot libs (sorry for the redundancy).You, in your arrogance, plainly criticize, as do all "progressive" lib fake Christians, you plainly criticize REAL Christians by attacking their Biblical interpretations by pretending there's some lack of understanding of context. Here, you fail to remember, as I said earlier, the time and place in which this letter was written. Helms was not in politics at this time (or just barely beginning to be) and was speaking as a private business man to another within his company. What freakin' "code" is necessary between two "racists" in the south in the 1960's, you idiot? Did racist men of means in the south "fear" being labelled a "racist" back int he 1960's south, or would they have looked at you as if you are the idiot you plainly are and say, "Of course, I'm a racist!" To anyone with the least bit of sense and knowledge of history, the latter is clearly more likely.Further, the use of the term "Negroes" was still commonplace throughout the nation at that time, even by negroes themselves, even by MLK JR.Employers seek candidates with the proper attitude and potential REGARDLESS of race. What kind of idiot would expect one seeking to "help the Negro race to recognize the opportunity that awaits it" would do things any differently in the hiring of blacks? Do you, in your abject stupidity really believe that his idea to help would be successful if he hired any jerk off the street with not desire to properly apply himself? Do you think he would expect success if his company hired ANYONE in that manner?But you, in your stupidity and hatred of anyone right of center or truly Christian assumes the worst about his motivations, that he's looking for "yesmen" amongst black candidates for the opportunity he's hoping to provide. Horse's ass? Meet Feodor. You could learn something about being spewing filth and stench. Feodor is unsurpassed this side of Jeremiah Wright.
This makes you not only stupid, but stupidly presumptuous but typical of the common… liberal in their belief that they "understand" anyone right of center.Do you have no idea of the supreme irony in you fellas holding such a position/making such a statement?
It only sounds ironic to you, Dan, but it is truth, or at least, truth based. Seeing what does not exist, especially in the midst of plain speaking, is quite common for the liberal. In reverse, however, a liberal clarifying his own comments presents more confusion. The right reads the left accurately. The left can't read.
"Did racist men of means in the south "fear" being labelled a "racist" back int he 1960's south…?"Yes. If you knew your history, you would know that white businesses individually and Chambers of Commerce in the South in the aggregate worked hard to keep racial unrest to a minimum: it badly hurt business. This is the clear lesson of the Birmingham Chamber's power play against Bull Conner. In using bare force against the black community, Conner was damaging Birmingham's economic opportunity in the region, the nation, and the world. When the president of the Birmingham Chamber was in Japan, he received the American newspapers one morning to find that his city was on the front page of every one with pictures of fire hoses and dogs set upon black people.When he came back, Conner was ousted in a heated battle for power.So, yes, since you don't know, white business owners have been playing the melioration and smoke and mirrors game since the 1950s._____________How blind an eye do you want to turn, Marshall?"I want to do something to help the Negro race to recognize the opportunity that awaits it [sic]."That's grossly paternalistic for any time."But there is great difficulty in finding qualified people… in attitude…"Seriously, you don't get this?Okay, so your nigger self has been buried for a while because it's been so attacked for so long and your interested in hiding it too well.But, seriously, you don't get this?Time and context, Marshall. You think he felt had difficulty finding educated and experienced white workers with "qualified attitude and potential"? Affter all, educated and experienced white people are synonymous with a "qualified attitude and potential." It's the same thing if you're white. Not if you're black. Oh, sorry, Negro.Blind eye, man, keep turning them if it keeps you happy. Ignorance and all that.________I didn't criticize Helms for using the word, "Negroes," did I?You're paranoid. I was supplying the missing noun: "we would like to have more [ ] than we presently have."Say, you aren't worried about why he may have left out the qualified and left only the qualifier "more" are you?I had not thought of that. See, I knew you had some good Nigger antennae on you!________"anyone right of center or truly Christian" ?????Are these like, interchangeable?_________Jeremiah Wright is fairly smart, hard working, black man of, what, 70? Yep, born in 1941.And, in some ways, he is a deeply angry black man backed up by some extended theological and spiritual reflection on his experience of faith, church, nation, and world.A black man of 70. Born in 1941. 20 years old in 1961.And you're going to ask him not to be angry?Really? You think you know enough of being black in American in the 50s and 60s to ask that of him?Go ahead man, but it says a lot about you as a white man.
The right reads the left accurately. The left can't read.And yet, of the last 20 or so comments you've made about MY beliefs, you have not gotten even ONE even CLOSE to right (I haven't gone back to check, but I'm relatively sure that would be a safe estimate).SOME conservatives may be able to understand what a progressive person is saying, but the crowd here has demonstrated repeatedly an astonishingly AWFUL ability to comprehend words coming from a liberal.In fact, it's so often wrong, one has to guess that it's because the conservatives here are just in default demonize mode, rather than actually trying to understand. I mean, even if someone were guessing with no idea what another's position is, they'd be right oftener than y'all are just on blind luck.Therein lies the irony.On the other hand, since I WAS a conservative (your sort of conservative, anyway), I do have at least an inkling of understanding of the thoughts of conservatives.
I agree, Marshall, reading is not your problem. Just like with John Locke, you read them, you just don't understand the texts.And when you start denying underlying meanings, you revert to a fourth grade level of reading – and then your responses are just ad nauseum denials and shifting. You're aware what's there, you just don't give up any ground – but you look foolish and stubborn and utterly boring.
You're making this way too easy, Feo, you babbling idiot.There's a big difference between one's public personna and private. There's no way two "racist" business men of the SAME company would be too fearful to allow themselves to speak freely to one another in private business communications. I'll research the Birmingham situation another time, but there's also a difference between how a business man thinks about his community and how he'd feel if that community were presented to the nation in the way pics of racial unrest were presented. You again cleave to the superficial and only pretend to go deeply. ———————–Blind eye? Paternalistic? What rank nonsense and stupidity. Worse, it's an example of the type of myopia and blindness of which you're trying to accuse me. You, without evidence, insist on seeing Helms' efforts in a negative light, also exposing yourself for the false priest and false Christian you are. (Also, I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with the Helms after which you added your "sic"—"it" or "them" works equally well grammatically).Speaking of false Christians, repeatedly calling me "nigger" is just the type of ungracious behavior that Dan would wet himself over were it directed toward him. It doesn't bother me because being called names by someone as lowclass as yourself equates to being honored. Give me your worst and you only expose yourself for the scumbag you are."You think he felt had difficulty finding educated and experienced white workers with "qualified attitude and potential"?"Don't all employers everywhere in every time? In fact, these days I'd wager it's even more so considering the years of training in entitlement indoctrination."Affter all, educated and experienced white people are synonymous with a "qualified attitude and potential."To whom? Bigots like yourself? You're projecting again. Keep you head up your ass if the warmth, darkness and stench is a comfort to you.————-You bristle because he said, referring to a program he was hoping to begin, that he desired MORE qualified Negroes than they already had, FOR A PROGRAM DESIGNED TO HELP NEGROES IMPACTED BY RACISM IN THE REGION? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS??? I don't know why your stupidity still shocks me after all this time, but you continue to outdo yourself.————————
"And, in some ways, he is a deeply angry black man backed up by some extended theological and spiritual reflection on his experience of faith, church, nation, and world."His "reflection" hasn't led him to any Christian attitude. He's a racist and a race-baiter."And you're going to ask him not to be angry?"Absolutely. He's had a great life and now lives far better than I do in this egregious and damnable America. He's a racist, race-baiter AND a freakin' liar and hypocrite."Really? You think you know enough of being black in American in the 50s and 60s to ask that of him?"Yes. And I know more than enough about Christ to insist and expect better from one who dares call himself a Christian."Go ahead man, but it says a lot about you as a white man."I hope it does. But by not doing it yourself, it says a lot about what a fool and an idiot YOU are. All those books. All that education…
Speaking of false Christians, repeatedly calling me "nigger" is just the type of ungracious behavior that Dan would wet himself over were it directed toward him.Marshall, since you and yours routinely engage in name-calling (typically drawing blood first), I'll pass on coming to your defense when people act as you act in response to your behavior. It's your blog, you can set the tone.You have chosen to set a tone where name-calling is part of the "fun." Live by the epithet, die by them.
For what it's worth, though, it would not stand at my blog.
"Marshall, since you and yours routinely engage in name-calling (typically drawing blood first), I'll pass on coming to your defense when people act as you act in response to your behavior. It's your blog, you can set the tone."Wow, Dan. That's an amazingly unChristian attitude. And also, in typical lib fashion, you mistate the situation. What is routine on our end, with the exception of direct shots at you by Mark and Bubba (as well as sometimes myself) after years of attempts at engaging in adult conversation with you, is assaults on opinions that are expressed. This notion that all opinions are equally deserving of respect is another STUPID liberal one. We conservatives (REAL conservatives–something you never were based on any expression of your understanding of conservatism) respect everyone's right to HAVE an opinion and when the sitation allows, the right to express it. But to respect the opinion itself, to pretend it is equally valid to another is entitlement mentality of the most pathetic kind. Furthermore, I wasn't asking for you to defend me, or even respond to the comment. I was only pointing out a simple truth.As if that wasn't enough, Danny, muh man, there's name-calling ("idiot"), and there's name-calling ("nigger"). That you can't see the distinction between the former (what I do) and the latter (what Feo is doing), is also typical of you and yours. Still reading you guys perfectly. You think otherwise and I don't blame you. I wouldn't like the truth and accuracy of my positions related back to me if they said about me what your positions say about you. I, like you, would try again and again to restate it so as to diminish that truth, to mitigate it, to project something that I wish my position says rather than what it does. Actually, I'd face the truth and adjust accordingly like conservatives always do, rather than insist my opponent and all others accept a reality of my own making, rather the reality that actually exists.You see, Dan, we don't demonize because we don't have to. Your own words and actions convict you, just as they always have. It does not work in the other direction as the liberal demonization of Helms continues in spite of all evidence and testimony to the contrary so plainly shows. In fact, not once have I stated that Byrd died a racist, but only that he was indeed a racist and YOU GUYS accept without question his statement of repentence, while denying Helms the same courtesy. What lies between THOSE lines that I'm not reading properly? What does that say about libs that I haven't rightly discerned? Indeed, I have not even said that Helms was NOT a racist, but only that he denied ever being one and that his political positions (as well as his efforts to help blacks get ahead in a time and place where that was hard for blacks to do) suggest otherwise. You were never a conservative, Dan. You were something that resembled the liberal notion of what a conservative is. You were a caricature, a cartoon, a superficial resemblance. That would explain why you so easily accepted liberalism as it is known today. Such shallowness isn't characteristic of a true conservative. "The right reads the left accurately. The left can't read."No irony whatsoever.
You were never a conservative, Dan.You're a mind-reader AND a time traveler, too??!! Wow, that way you have of knowing better than I do what I think and knowing better than I do how I was growing up is hard to believe.Very hard to believe.Face it, Marshall, the fact is, despite how you FEEL about my opinions or your feelings about what I think, you simply don't factually know what I think. When you state your hunch about my opinions, you are consistently wrong/mistaken.That's just a fact, easily demonstrated in the real world. Similarly, no matter how much you feel like you can guess what I was like when I was younger, you just don't know and to suggest that I was not conservative only proves that.All you would have to do to discover how wildly wrong you are would be to talk to my pastors, my friends back then, my parents and family. I was a conservative's conservative, traditional Southern Baptist in the extreme.Don't embarrass yourself brother, with future hunches about what others think and believe. You're too often too wrong to be believed.
"That's just a fact, easily demonstrated in the real world."Apparently not so easy in the blogosphere as you have yet to demonstrate that or much of anything you claim we have wrong about you. Once again, Dan. All we have is your words. Years of words, none of which have ever matched your self-image better than our collective perception based on those words. What you think is conservative has been rejected by pretty much every center-right visitor to this and other blogs. Your statements of what you thought of homosexuals, for example, isn't the same as anything we've expressed. As I said, the best you can say is it's superficially similar. That doesn't cut it. AND, as we have seen with your intepretation of the Bible, for us to believe that your interpretation of conservatism is anywhere near what it is in reality is not a stretch by any means. So, though you like to imagine that we think we are mind readers (and now "time-travelers"), I will simply remind you that our impressions of you, our conclusions, are all based on the collective body of your words presented in blogs for the last several years. Through all that time you've been questioned repeatedly, asked to clarify, and you've only solidified our perception. The same is true for each of us to one extent or another, but true nonetheless, be it Mark, Eric, Neil, Bubba, Craig, Mom2, myself and others. As I said, you just don't like the way it looks when repeated back to you. I don't blame you for that in the least.
Correction: I meant to say"…for us to believe that your interpretation of conservatism isn't anywhere near what it is in reality is not a stretch by any means."…but you knew that.
Marshall, you do me such a disservice. Applying the epithet, "nigger" and "cracker" is so much more than name calling. It's a diagnosis. As opposed to "idiot" which is way too amorphous to be helpful.But "nigger" is an elaborate construction of the white mind and took on more and more nuance as the decades and then centuries progressed. Much like "kafir" it began as pejorative sociological category and then turned into an instrument of individual and communal terrorism. So, how does this apply to you and me. And I say me because, much like your discussion with that masochistic Dan (else why would he spend how many thousands of man hours here with you?) about how he understands the conservative mind, having been one, so I, likewise, understand the nigger mind, the cracker mind (one and the same) having, still, a vestigial nigger/cracker in me.It's a way of thinking, of hating, of dealing with fear and a perceived threat or perceived loss of status among white folks. The nigger is our construction, a thickly described symbol of our mind, our nightmares and fears. The nigger is our word, a product of our thinking – and being a cracker is a platform for such a construction.Race history and currency is what it is: an holistically social experience and practice that is socially learned by all children growing up in America, no matter what ethnicity or even – it offers no protection from the disease – what combinations of ethnicity. Because we grew up the way we did, I think I know that part of you, Marshall, that absorbed what we all absorbed, particularly that part of you me and was formed to think in a particularly white way about race in America, and about blacks in particular, and browns in particular, and, somewhat more hazily, about "Asians" in particular, etc., etc.And that part is the nigger in you. Grounded on the cracker in you. I have it, too. It will be there to the day we die. Just like that esteemed Senator, Robert Byrd said in his confession of sin: we are products of our time and culture and racial identity.We can heal ourselves, of course, if we spend conscious effort in a mode of love to analyze these demons. Again, somewhat like, it seems, Senator Byrd did in his life.I can only wish you'd try. But I find that nigger you has a man-sized grip on your mind. And it makes me afraid… even it is only a virtual fear, ephemeral, and kind of gone when I go back to reading my New York Times.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You've infected Blogger, Marshall. It's telling me lies about how it is denying what I wrote, and then it gets obsessive and repeats and repeats itself. It's like you've taken it over.
Perhaps Blogger instinctively knows trash when someone attempts to post it. Your "analysis" of me is about as laughable at all your other attempts to prove your intellectualism. It's obvious that you suffer from some racist characteristics within yourself that haunt you. Inter-racial relations and marriage have done nothing to ease this white guilt and you assume that it plagues every white man, apparently because we're white and born in America? Is that the position you're taking? Amazing. It's amazing you dare try to pass yourself off as sophisticated and educated with such an incredibly inane perspective forming your world view.How can it be that you assume such of your fellow man? How can it be that you actually believe such is only the sin of one race and not all, which in itself is racist? How can it be that you can't wrap your small mind around the possibility, if not fact, that some people just aren't concerned with the color of another man's skin? Do you also struggle with the thought that each blond-haired woman you meet will be an idiot? What's more, I find it absolutely staggering that you maintain these accusations without any evidence from me in anything I've ever posted, as well as declarations to the contrary! Still, you insist that I suffer from the same affliction which nags and convicts you.There's another possibility. That is that your marriage has brought this corrupted thinking about in your mind. Perhaps your wife is a militant white-hater with jungle fever. I don't know. There must be some explanation for your incredibly stupid assumptions. As for repeating MYself, that's only necessary when my opponents are repeating THEIRselves by standing behind their foolish positions. I hope you fight off your personal demons once and for all. They're clouding your judgement and making you look more foolish than even you should look.
Hah! See? It wasn't name calling, thank you very much.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.