Share This Article with a Friend!

The New York Times Attacks Us Deplorables, I Fight Back: Part 2 of 3

Richard Viguerie










A week or so ago in an op-ed entitled “Why Steve King’s Punishment Took So Long” by Sam Rosenfeld and Daniel Schlozman The New York Times attacked me, the late Paul Weyrich, Morton Blackwell, Newt Gingrich and the modern conservative movement in general for adopting “a more pugilistic approach” to politics and abandoning “traditional Republican small-government political appeals in favor of mobilizations over busing, abortion and gay rights while courting the segregationist George Wallace’s followers and brokering a fateful alliance between Christian evangelicals and the Republican Party.”

The gist of the scurrilous charge of inherent racism made by Rosenfeld and Schlozman against conservatives was that the founders of the modern conservative movement and Republicans (often two different groups) have failed to “police” themselves by kicking out alleged racists associated with the John Birch Society and various other allegedly conservative organizations.

As a young man interacting with William F. Buckley, Jr. while I served as executive secretary of Young Americans for Freedom, I became acquainted with many, if not most of the leaders of the modern conservative movement’s founding generation. Tarring William F. Buckley, Jr., Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, M. Stanton Evans, Brent Bozell, Jr., Whittaker Chambers and the other intellectual giants who founded the modern conservative movement as racists is a slander that is not only deeply offensive, but completely without foundation.

In their column Rosenfeld and Schlozman conveniently skipped over the Democratic Party’s long association with white identity politics through the Ku Klux Klan (founded by Democrats) and the Democratic segregationist governors who resisted the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision to the point that Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to break their anti-constitutional resistance.

They also conveniently overlook the racist language and record of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the fact that, while some Republicans like Senator Barry Goldwater voted against the early civil rights legislation on principles of federalism, it was conservative Republicans, led by House Minority Leader Charlie Halleck of Indiana and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who provided Johnson with the votes to pass the civil rights legislation of the 1960s over the objections of segregationist Democrats.

Moreover, anyone can call themselves a conservative or be labeled by the media as such, but when one delves into the background of today’s allegedly conservative racists, one most often finds not a follower or member of any conservative organization, but a Democrat in the person of white nationalist Richard B. Spencer or a former Occupy Wall Street activist in the person of Jason Kessler, the organizer of the so-called Unite the Right rally turned riot in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Those failures on the part of Rosenfeld and Schlozman appear to be conscious and cynical choices to simply ignore fact and history in favor of their narrative that the Leftist elite are inherently more virtuous than conservatives, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could also be an honest mistake born of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the modern conservative movement is all about.

There is a crucial and fundamental difference between the goals of the modern conservative movement and how it came into being versus the goals and genesis of the modern progressive Left.

Buckley, Kirk, Meyer, et al concerned themselves primarily with two major issues: the relationship between moral humans and the state, and the role of constitutional government in protecting liberty under God’s laws.

As Russell Kirk wrote in The Roots of American Order, first published in 1974, “Whatever the failings of America in the eighth decade of the twentieth century, the American order has been a conspicuous success in the perspective of human history.” As he summed up: “Under God, a large measure of justice has been achieved; the state is strong and energetic; personal freedom is protected by laws and customs; and a sense of community ensures.”

This was, and is, a completely colorblind philosophy that rejects racism in all its pernicious forms, and also rejects the racial spoils system through which the Left and the Democratic Party reward their adherents.

In contrast to the modern conservative movement’s concern with the relationship between moral man and the state, the modern progressive Left championed by Rosenfeld and Schlozman has concerned itself with one thing and one thing only: The acquisition of power.

Thus, we see that, while the modern conservative movement concerned itself with limiting state power to advance individual liberty, the foundational figures of the modern American Left are all Marxists: Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward, Frances Fox Piven and their fellow travelers concerned themselves with generating race hate in order to acquire state power and impose their will upon their fellow citizens.

The goal of these radical Marxists, who inspired many if not most of today’s Democratic Party leaders, was not to protect personal freedom, but to collapse the constitutional order, and charges of racism are key elements of that project.

As Dr. Brian Joondeph, explained in an article for The American Thinker, the objective of Cloward and Piven was chaos, turmoil and crisis, not constitutional order. By crisis, they mean, “A publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere.” How do they create such a crisis? “Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.”

In other words, in contrast to the color blind ordered liberty under God’s laws advocated by the modern conservative movement, what the modern Left does is community organize protests, riots, and generalized chaos, much of it based on specious charges of racism.

One of the ways the Left has accomplished the disruption of the personal freedom “protected by laws and customs; and a sense of community” is through race-based organizations, such as the Black Lives Matter movement.

While Rosenfeld and Schlozman are probably unaware of the research, conservative writer and economist James Simpson has published an outstanding exposé of the connection between the Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists who provide the shock troops for the Alinsky-Cloward-Piven inspired revolution and the longtime hardcore Leftists who fund it and put it into motion.

In “Reds Exploiting Blacks: The Roots of Black Lives Matter” Simpson explains that:

BLM launched in 2013 with a Twitter hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter, after neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman was acquitted in the Trayvon Martin killing. Radical Left activists Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi claim credit for the slogan and hashtag. Following the Michael Brown shooting in August 2014, Dream Defenders, an organization led by Working Families Party (ACORN) activist and Occupy Wall Street anarchist Nelini Stamp, popularized the phrase “Hands Up–Don’t Shoot!” which has since become BLM’s widely recognized slogan.

Garza, Cullors and Tometi all work for front groups of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), one of the four largest radical Left organizations in the country. The others are the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS). Nelini Stamp’s ACORN—now rebranded under a variety of different names—works with all four organizations, and Dream Defenders is backed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center and others.

FRSO is a hereditary descendant of the New Communist Movement, which was inspired by Mao and the many communist revolutions throughout the world in the 1960s and 1970s. FRSO split into two separate groups in 1999, FRSO/Fight Back and FRSO/OSCL (Freedom Road Socialist Organization/Organizacion Socialista del Camino para la Libertad). Black Lives Matter and its founders are allied with the latter group.

Racism is essential to these Leftist organizations that exist not to build racial harmony, but for quite the opposite reason; to destroy the “white” American core of capitalism, free markets, limited government and American traditional culture and values.

Rosenfeld and Schlozman should be well-aware that in this context “white” does not mean a person of the Caucasian race. “White” in radical construction means anyone of any race, creed, nationality, color, sex, or sexual preference who embraces these beliefs which to the radical Left are irredeemably evil and anyone who aligns with them is “white” in spirit and thus equally guilty of “white crimes.”

The racist Left carries this narrative to unprecedented heights, observes Simpson, claiming that only whites can be racists. And while justifying violence to achieve “social justice,” the movement’s goal is to overthrow our society to replace it with a Marxist one.

Rosenfeld and Schlozman’s charge that the conservative movement is inherently racist constitutes a slander with no basis in fact, and it also conveniently deflects inquiry into which side really needs to appeal to racism to succeed, the Right or the Left?

Knowing what we know about the racist record of the Democratic Party and the modern Left’s foundational plans to fan racial hatred in order to accomplish the “fundamental transformation of America” the answer is obvious, it is the Democratic Party and its allies in the radical Left.

Coming soon, Part 3, who are the real extremists?

Share this

The New York Times attacks Us Deplorables

Great article. Yes, I really appreciate direct lineage cited to the Marxist roots. Two points. To me we desperately need a concerted campaign to educate America on Communism's true evils, genocides bigger than Hitler, brutal police states, and a two tiered society favoring only the politburo. Most of America is near totally ignorant of this the biggest story of the 20th century. The intelligentsia right needs to find a way to get FOX, OAN and the rest to tell the story in a big way.
Second, why do we never throw racism type charges back at the left? With the Covington, Ky pro life teens, weren't the Black Israelite's racists? In effect, if the comments about whites having no place in America, weren't the indians also racists. Why are we so timid to level the charges?