Dec. 3, 2011 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
41:36
20111203_Hour_1
|
Time
Text
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populous conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host for tonight, James Edwards.
Big girls ball right!
Big girls ball fright!
And a big fat Christmas welcome to our audience.
Tonight, Bill Rowland standing in for James Edwards, who once again is on the road.
This time, I think, for a short little vacation, well earned on his part.
But I'm here tonight with my good friend, Keith Alexander, and we've got a really good show tonight.
First hour, of course, is always Keith.
The second hour, it'll be all me.
And in the third hour, our good friend, one of the favored guests we have on this show, and certainly one of the most intellectually gifted, Sam Dixon will be joining us in the third hour to talk from a personal and firsthand experience about New Gingrich, the supposed frontrunner currently in the Republican bid for the presidency.
And Keith, I hope you're jolly, jocular, and jovial.
It's the Christmas season, and I know you've got a lot to say tonight.
Yep, I'm brimming with Christmas cheer, as usual, around this time of year.
But let me tell you that, well, I'm trying my best.
Let's see how close we can get to this microphone without impersonating Linda Lovelace.
Okay.
Family show, Keith.
Family show.
Right, yeah.
But this, they're always asking me to move up to it.
And quite frankly, I can't get my lips any closer to it without embracing the microphone bulb.
But nonetheless, this is the Christmas season.
We're Christians.
We know the reason for the season.
We hope all of you share that sentiment with us.
Now, it's great that Sam Dixon is going to be talking about Newt Gingrich because one of the things I wanted to do, at least in this first segment, is to kind of talk about the Republican field of presidential nominees at this point.
I seem to see a pattern coming through, and the pattern is that you have like the fruit of the month club, you've got the frontrunner of the month club as decided by the national media.
And basically, this is a very dubious honor.
It's like the doormouse at the Queen of Hearts banquet in Allison Wonderland.
The doormouse was invited to sit next to the Queen and wondered what he had done to deserve this high honor.
But when he got to the banquet, he learned basically the queen, whenever she was contradicted, would turn around to him, thump him on the head with her spoon and say, I told this ninkum poop this, that, or the other.
Well, that's basically what is happening to the so-called frontrunner of the month in the Republican nominee.
It's just an opportunity for the national liberally oriented media to tee off on them.
It's a very dubious honor.
They've taken out Rick Perry.
They've taken out Herman Cain, and now it's Newt Gingrich's turn.
Of course, not saying that any of those people don't deserve the thrashing that they're getting, but it's obvious that the national media is not going to have a kind word to say about any Republican nominee.
And, you know, quite frankly, all this means is it's your turn to take the licks.
Yeah, it's really like an arcade shooting gallery back in the old days where the little tin ducks would go by and you'd shoot them with BBs or corks or something and they'd knock them down.
Well, that's the media.
I think this is a deliberate media attempt to basically portray the Republicans as having nothing but, as you say, nincum poops in the race.
And, of course, you know, Keith, you and I may disagree on a couple of things with regards to the presumed nominees or nominee, but certainly in the field when you're talking about Herman Kane and Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, you're talking about some really unappetizing and unappealing people.
Newt Gingrich's national approval rating only several months ago was only like 3%.
I mean, he was considered one of the most loathed politicians in the country.
And now all of a sudden he's the beaming, glowing hope for the presidential nomination in 2012.
And I mean, there's no way that Newt Gingrich is going to win an election with his past and his history and his baggage.
Well, who in the hell, pardon my French, decided that he was now the front runner?
You know, you've got to consider the source.
This is the national media.
And there's one thing they're wonderful at doing is setting up straw men to knock down.
They've already got their arguments, you know, in a card file neatly indexed and ready to fire off at him.
If he is the nominee for the Republican Party, he will be the first in elected president.
He'll be the first president that has two, not just one, divorce in his past.
He is a two-legged dog par excellence.
He just cannot seem to keep his pants zipped.
Furthermore, he is a turncoat and a traitor to the cause of conservatism.
He was one of the authors of the contract for America, and once he gained power, he promptly started breaking the contract to America, right, left, and sideways.
He has no conservative instincts.
You know, people like Charles Krauthammer, that great neocon, for example, were trying to say that he has some core conservatism that Mitt Romney doesn't.
You know, this is crazy.
Newt Gingrich is sold out part and parcel, you know, to the Washington Beltway mentality.
He will be, you know, we've got a choice in the refrigerator of Bud and Bud Light.
We've got Obama, who is a full-bodied socialist that the Democrats want and embrace.
And then you have Socialism Light with people like Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
Now, even as much as I find objectionable about people like Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, and a lot of other people that are running, these people are all far and above better candidates from a conservative viewpoint than either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the bottom of the barrel, in my opinion.
Well, you know, I think that we need to come up with a new label for these alleged conservatives who always vote liberally because as you say, Newt Gingrich always posed as a conservative throughout his career, but then would vote in legislation for very liberal bills and very liberal laws.
He was a big proponent of affirmative action after coming out against it.
And I think we ought to start labeling them red tie conservatives because basically they may dress up like a conservative, but they hang socialism around their neck for everybody to see.
Well, I've got an even better name for them.
They're blue state Republicans.
Blue state Republicans, no nearsighted person can tell from a red state liberal.
These people don't have conservatism in their DNA the way that people in Red State America do.
And the national media and both parties are bound to determine that no authentic son or daughter of Red State America is going to get their hands anywhere near the levers of power in America.
We are basically what Jerry Lewis called the great American desert, flyover country as the usual suspects, the good sons and daughters of Israel that have so much power in America and are basically responsible for the triumph of liberalism in America in the latter part of the 20th century.
That's what they call us, flyover country.
I remember when Jerry Lewis during the civil rights movement showed up on either Jack Parr or Johnny Carson's show and said that whenever he took a transcontinental airplane flight, he always wanted to know when he was flying over Mississippi so he could go and use the bathroom.
I remember that.
And as a result, I won't tune in to his radio-thon.
I have seen no movies of his since then.
And before then, I was as big of a Jerry Lewis fan as anybody ever had been.
That's the mentality that is ruling America.
We are the serfs.
We're the people that live in the great American desert, but we're the people that have more geographic area and numbers.
Jump in, the political says, pool with James and the game.
Call us tonight at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the political cesspool, James Edwards.
And welcome back, everybody.
Not James Edwards, Bill Rowland, and Keith Alexander in the first hour tonight.
The dynamic duo, as Keith says, and broadcasting, as always, from AM 1380 in Memphis, Tennessee, and Millington.
And so happy to have you all here tonight.
And, you know, Keith, I've been listening to Christmas music.
I don't know about you.
I haven't heard any holiday songs.
I've heard Christmas music on the radio, which is very encouraging.
And, you know, it's really a good spirit of Christmas out there right now and more and more people saying Merry Christmas.
So maybe we've turned the corner on Christmas anyway.
We haven't solved the other problems, but maybe we bought some time for Christmas.
You know, you think that the liberals would pick up on this.
They set the playbrook.
When they decided to make saying Merry Christmas politically incorrect, every rebellious instinct of every teenager and every young adult had their switch flipped.
And now everybody is doing this basically just to shoot the bird at the powers that be.
The powers that be are now the left.
Make no mistake about it.
They were supposed to be the revolutionaries.
It's like Pat Buchanan said the dominant culture of the 50s, excuse me, the counterculture of the 50s and 60s is now the dominant culture of America.
And the dominant culture of the 50s and 60s is now the dissident culture of today.
Well, the dissidents get all the rebels and all the rebelliousness in the younger generation is now being funneled into being anti-liberal, which I think is a very hopeful sign.
Well, I wish there were more hopeful signs, but it seems like that every time something hopeful or something positive happens in terms of turning the country away from cultural Marxism, then comes another giant blow to our liberties and freedom and to mostly our freedom of association.
And it seems to me that America is only maybe one or two steps behind Europe in terms of beginning a process of prosecuting hate crimes against people merely for exercising their First Amendment rights.
I saw a post about a woman in England who was on a train with diversities aboard and she merely pointed out that this wasn't, that there weren't enough Englishmen on the train and these weren't Englishmen and so forth and so on.
Well, she's now being prosecuted by the government and has had her children taken away from her merely for expressing an opinion, never using racial slurs or anything of that kind, but merely going against the grain of the cultural Marxists in Britain.
And then recently a minister under Cameron has said that they're going to crush racism with an iron fist.
And I think it's what it's come to.
Aren't they paragons of tolerance, these people on the left, Bill?
Here's why the next election, the next presidential election, is absolutely crucial.
We now have a so-called conservative majority, such conservative as it may be, on the Supreme Court.
That is the key.
And we need to get cases up there and we need to have a president that's going to basically staff the Justice Department, the EOC, and all these federal agencies with people that are going to be attacking the racial discrimination that affirmative action represents.
And we were talking about the presidential field before the show today.
And I have a little bit of a difference with you, Bill.
I know that you're a big supporter of Ron Paul.
I think that libertarianism is an extremely dangerous concept.
It's the liberal part of conservatism.
And I'm worried about these people that want to do away with the federal, you know, the government, you know, shrink the government, because unfortunately, the government agencies have created a new zeitgeist in America,
a new dominant culture, in which affirmative action, for example, is as American as apple pie and the American flag in the eyes of corporate America, the government, and a large part of the population.
And if we just do away with the coercive force of the government, that's going to be the status quo.
And I was telling you about two instances that came to my attention just this week that show you how bad it is in corporate America today.
For example, I know a young person in my circle of friends who told me that he's working for a legal temp service and he was sent out to a large corporation and to work for like $32 an hour in their corporate law department.
He said, all these temp workers are white males with the exception of one.
He said, meanwhile, all the people that are full-time members of the staff making six-figure plus salaries and getting a full benefit package are diversities, either women or minorities.
That shows you what the status quo is in America now.
Also, I know another young person who was about to go to work for a large law firm, and he was confided, he was given this confidential information.
He said that somebody had been hired, some outsider, to do consulting work on their website, and this person reported to upper management of the firm that you don't have nearly enough diversity.
And as a result, this firm has instituted a new policy that they're not ashamed of at all.
They put it out in writing that 75% of all new hires will be diversities.
In other words, either women or minorities.
So consequently, if you want to freeze that type of program as the status quo that cannot be challenged by the government, then go right ahead with this libertarian notion that we're going to shrink all the government away.
Government caused this problem.
Government is the only thing that has the power to undo it.
We need to have a newly staffed EEOC that does what the EOC is supposed to do and prosecutes racial discrimination.
Now all the racial discrimination is anti-white racial discrimination directed at whites.
We need to have the federal government bringing suit against these corporations just like the EOC did in the late 60s and early 70s against American companies prosecuting them for racial discrimination against blacks and other minorities.
We now need them to bring the same type of suits against these corporations for anti-white male discrimination.
If we don't do that, we're a lost cause.
And that's what libertarianism would lead us into.
It's kind of like a trick bag or a wolf's trap.
And we better not fall for it.
Your thoughts on this bill.
Well, my thoughts on this are plain and simple, is that, as you said, Keith, this was a government institution that was created to supposedly battle racial discrimination.
But you and I know historically that it has not been to battle racial discrimination.
It was established, in fact, to go against white institutions and white people and further desegregation.
And I have very strong doubts that the EOC could reverse its function so suddenly just because of the election of a president.
I haven't seen a conservative president yet come into power who has changed the status quo of the EEOC from a prosecuting or pursuing cases against anti-white policies.
Instead, they've just simply pursued the same course.
We're getting ready to come up on a break.
It's Bill Rowland and Keith Alexander on the political cesspool.
And I think we have a couple of seconds.
But in any case, just remember to go to our website, look at our blog, because in the second hour we might take a few callers and look at the stories we have there, which includes stories from virtually all over the world regarding the plight of the white people in Europe and, of course, in the United States.
But yeah, take a look at the blog before we begin the next hour because I will be covering that alone.
And certainly I want to cover some of these topics as well.
And once again, Keith Alexander, Bill Rowland, political cesspool, sex pool.
We'll be right back after these messages.
Freudian slip.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
On the show and express your opinion in the political cesspool, call us toll-free at 1-866-986-6397.
We gotta get out of this place.
If it's the last thing we ever do, we gotta get out of this place.
Girl, there's a better life for me.
And welcome back to the Political Cesspool broadcasting to you from Memphis, Tennessee.
I am Bill Rowland, and with me is Keith Alexander here for the next half hour.
And we have been discussing the Republican candidates seeking the nomination for the Republican candidacy for president, I guess.
But currently this field has been pretty unappetizing and unsatisfactory, particularly the candidacies of Mitt Romney, who is a, as Keith says, a blue state Republican.
Herman Kaine, who has now dropped out of the race after failing to keep his piccadillos undercover.
And of course, Rick Perry from Texas, who is stumble-footed and has put his foot in his mouth and failed to really get his message to the American people.
So, you know, the selection is pretty weak.
I would say, with the exception of Ron Paul, Keith disagrees with me.
Keith, back to that discussion.
I say that reducing the government is the thing to do.
Get rid of these permanent fixtures in Washington that control through bureaucracy.
You say some of them need to stay.
We don't need to immediately shrink government.
Well, the reason we don't need to shrink government now is because there has been a sea change in the outlook of the American establishment in business and in government.
They are now as thoroughgoing advocates of affirmative action, diversity, multiculturalism as they were thoroughgoing advocates of segregation, let's say in the South in a place like Memphis or Birmingham, Alabama in 1955.
Back then, the establishment had to be brought to heel by the government so that they were not segregationists.
Now, we're going to have to use the government in a similar fashion to punish corporations and governments that insist upon following their predilections of giving affirmative action to minorities and thereby racially discriminating against whites.
As you pointed out, liberalism has always been great at camouflaging its motives.
Liberalism is not pro-black.
It's not pro-woman.
It's not pro-gay.
It is anti-white male.
It's anti-white, what Paul Craig Roberts called in a series of essays that he wrote back around the year 2000, wham.
A wham is a white, heterosexual, able-bodied male.
Those are the people they want to bring down, and they'll use anybody they can to do it.
They're trying to subvert the American order.
And of course, when you put these defectives in positions of authority, it's no wonder that we're losing the race with other nations.
We've got our third string going up against their first string with very predictable results.
Now, you said the EEOC can't be brought into line to be a force against anti-white racism.
And to that, I say hogwash.
It's all a matter of people.
Put Sam Dixon in charge of the EOC, and I think you would have a serious change in their outlook and in their emphasis.
Put me in charge of it, same thing.
There are people out there.
The problem is the mainstream media is vetting people that would be holding those positions just like they are the Republican nominees.
And basically, it's a great compliment for any Republican nominee to be selected fruit of the month, or other words, the frontrunner of the month, because that means they think you're dangerous.
They haven't made Rick Santorum the frontrunner of the month or Michelle Bachman because they think they're small potatoes, likewise for John Huntsman.
But whoever winds up being the nominee for the Republican Party, bet your bottom dollar that they're going to be dragged through the mud and they're going to be the subject of a dirty tricks campaign that would have made Richard Nixon blush with embarrassment.
This is the way, this is the standard operating procedure of the left.
They, you know, to heck with morals, to heck with standards, to heck with fair play, you know, all they're about is winning.
Well, we need to have an EEOC, for example, that is in our corner.
And it can be done.
There are people that have all the credentials, all the legal know-how to do it out there, but we've got to stop listening to the Jewish-dominated media.
We've got to just turn them off.
We've got to be as effective at marginalizing their voices as they have been effective in marginalizing ours.
But we do need the government's help in order to do this.
We're not going to do it.
If we suddenly just remove the role of the government, we are now making what these big corporations do in the way of anti-white discrimination.
We're enshrining it.
We're saying that it is like Caesar's wife beyond reproach.
Nothing can be done about it.
We've got to follow the tactics of the left.
The left knew how to affect change, and they used the government in all of its coercive power to do it.
They want to change America.
We want to change America back.
And we can't do it without the government.
So consequently, that's why libertarianism is a problem.
That's one of the big reasons.
The problem with libertarianism, first and foremost, is that it's the liberal part of conservatism.
And it seems to be the part of conservatism that draws people that aren't real authentic conservatives more often than not.
That's my problem with it.
Well, Keith, I can guarantee you one thing for sure.
None of the Republican nominees, if elected, is going to appoint a pro-white staff to the EOC.
It is a bastion of liberalism.
It is a fixture of liberalism, which is not going to be converted because it's in place to do one thing, and that's conduct anti-white legal actions on behalf of companies.
Now, let me say this about corporations.
Corporations in the United States, and around the world, really, have bought into the notion that diversity is a strength and it's a profitable strength.
And they will learn their lesson when their stock falls and when these incompetent minorities destroy the corporation or reduce its value, just as Franklin Raines did at Fannie Mae, just as O'Neill did at Merrill Lynch, and other blacks have taken over corporations and proven to be monumental failures.
Well, in the corporate world, the corporations are held to fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders.
And sooner or later, people who are losing money on diversity are going to raise their voices against the practices of these corporations.
Now, here's another thing.
Even if you have the EEOC in place to prosecute the most egregious examples of anti-white discrimination, still, that EEOC would be, the corporations would simply take the tact that, well, then let us be free to hire whoever we want.
And that would be a hard thing to go against, even if you are taking remedial action against white, anti-white discrimination.
Well, let me say, again, that's not what they're doing.
They are discriminating against white males, pure and simple.
And that's what, you know, they would, what would they have said in 1969 to a corporation that said, just let us be free to hire whoever we want.
They just said, hogwash.
We're not going to do that because you're discriminating against black people.
We need to have the same sense of racial solidarity that every other group is not only permitted but allowed to have.
And we need to press it and prosecute it.
And let me say this.
I think you're wrong about the fact that there's never been any movement to the right in the EOC.
Even in the, you know, abysmal George Bush, George W. Bush administration, towards the end of his tenure, you had enough conservatives in there that they were for the first time beginning to prosecute black voting right depredations against whites in places like Meadville, Mississippi, where they had a black political boss who was using his power to prevent white people from voting in local elections.
And they had a prosecution and they succeeded.
Now, as soon as the Obama administration got in, they dropped all of that, but they were moving in that direction.
So consequently, I'm not quite as hopeless as you are.
I do admit that unfortunately, both the mainstream liberals and mainstream conservatives seem to have bought into this idea that the civil rights movement is some bright shining moment in American history rather than what it truly was.
It was a camel's nose in the tent for radical egalitarian liberalism.
And it is the safe harbor to which liberals always flee when the public begins to get jaded about their latest radical egalitarian movement du jour like gay marriage, for example.
They always go running back and trying to build bridges to the civil rights movement.
I tell people that there would never, if you, let's pick whatever thing you have that you like in conservatism, but don't, but you do like the civil rights movement.
There would never have been a Roe versus Wade without Brown versus Board of Education.
There would never have been a gay rights movement without a successful civil rights movement.
People need to understand modern liberalism is a one cloth.
Well, Keith, I'm going to, I'll say this in my final comments on this.
You get rid of all the big government functions, you go back to states' rights, and that's where all of this belongs.
We'll be right back after these messages, Bill Rowland and Keith Alexander, the Political Cesspool radio program.
We'll see you in just a few minutes.
Welcome back to get on the political cesspool.
Call us on James's Dime, toll-free, at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of The Political Cesspool, James Edwards.
And we're back on the air.
The Political Cesspool, broadcasting from Memphis, Tennessee.
Tonight, James Edwards is off and about on a little holiday with his lovely wife and child and parts unknown.
And so tonight, you have the bench coming up to bat for James, and that is Bill Rowland, myself, that is, and Keith Alexander.
And we've been having a very lively discussion about politics in the United States, particularly the Republican field for the presidency.
But we're moving on, Keith.
What's your next topic?
Next topic is Alternative Right, which is another website that we feature and link to at the Political Cesspool.
We like the people there generally, but they've taken some positions recently that we think we need to take them to task for.
First of all, Richard Spencer, who is the major mover, the major domo over there at Alternative Right, had some rather sneering comments to make about paleoconservatism in an article that he wrote about the bell curve.
Then, an author named Alex Kotergik that lives in England, but I think is of Eastern European descent, has written a critique of Pat Buchanan's most recent book, Suicide of a Superpower, and he talks about its pluses and minuses.
Well, the minuses that he points out are not minuses at all, and I think that we need to come to Pat Buchanan's defense because Pat Buchanan is, like us, a paleoconservative.
Here's what Mr. Kurtadjic said about the minuses in the book, Suicide of a Superpower, which is Buchanan's latest effort.
There are fundamental flaws in Buchanan's exposition.
Firstly, he equates European civilization with Christianity.
This is surprising, particularly coming from an American writer advancing an Americanist position, given that some of the basic principles and practices upon which America was founded, such as the Constitutional Republic, originated or had their roots in Europe before the dawn of Christianity.
What about ancient Greece?
What about ancient Rome?
Were those not European civilizations?
A more accurate statement is that the United States is a Christian country.
This is defensible, even if the United States never had an established religion and even if not all Americans were Christian.
Perhaps what Buchanan means is that Faustian civilization, the civilization of Northern Europe upon which North America is an extension, is a Christian civilization.
Well, of course, America is a Christian nation.
And of course, as a European and as a member of alternative right, there seems to be some type of intellectual conceit going on over there to be anti-Christian.
You know, we need to look at the pre-Christian West, like Odinism and things like this for our religion.
Well, Pat Buchanan is very clear about what he meant in his prior book dealing with this same subject called The Death of the West.
He points specifically to the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate, who had a very brief reign, but during his reign, he tried to reverse the Emperor Constantine's embrace of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome and go back to the old Roman paganism.
He said that Rome couldn't survive as a military power and as a dominant power in the world, embracing a religion in which the primary tenant is love thy neighbor rather than the martial virtues of the old Roman faith.
Well, Buchanan points out that Julian the Apostate had a point.
Now, without getting into the relative merits of Roman paganism versus Christianity, his point is this.
If a culture or a civilization is based upon a religion, and American culture and civilization definitely is based on civilization, I mean based on Christianity, then when the nation abandons that particular faith, and in the case of America, that would be Christianity, the nation tends to wither and die.
That's what happened to Rome, even when they embraced Christianity.
It wasn't the religion of their founding, and as a result, they withered and died.
America's religion at the point of its founding was Christianity.
And even though we have the forms of Christianity now, Christianity today is a totally different religion than the religion of the founding fathers.
The Founding Fathers wouldn't recognize what we have today in Christian churches as being Christianity.
Basically, the religion of most modern Christian churches is liberalism.
It has replaced Christianity.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have been replaced with the Gospels of Peter, Paul, and Mary.
The social gospel has displaced the gospel.
And as a result, the Founding Fathers would say, even though you call this religion Christianity, it is not Christianity.
So consequently, Buchanan's right on point.
We are losing our religion.
And, you know, I would think Mr. Kurtadic has spent too much time in libraries and under lamps.
He doesn't understand that.
Another thing that he wants to point out is that the founders were liberals, not conservatives, as Buchanan argues.
And to that, I say hogwash.
Everything is based on relativism in the viewpoint of Mr. Kotagic and the people over at Alternative Right at the present time.
What really happened is that the America of the 1950s, which is what Mr. Kotadjik says Mr. Buchanan wants to return to, was a pretty good time for white Americans.
He doesn't seem to want to say that, but white Americans is the, you know, that's the toxin, that's the, you know, magnetic North Pole as far as we're concerned.
That's how we measure things.
And as a result of that, because white people were much better off back then, even though the engines of our dispossession, dispossession, like, for example, the welfare state under the Roosevelt administration, the Federal Reserve was in place, the income tax was in place.
None of that stuff had really gained traction.
We always say here at the political cesspool that the watershed moment in American history, as far as we're concerned, was Brown versus Board of Education, May 17, 1954.
That's the moment in which the left discovered how to rule America without winning elections or persuading legislators.
What happened was that this is how the 3% rules the 97% and uses the power of the government to coerce us into adopting their ideas.
And as we pointed out in the prior segments of this first hour, they've been amazingly successful at this.
When you control people's access to wealth and well-being by controlling their businesses and their governments and their ability to make money, like Chuck Coulson said at Watergate, when you got a man by a certain part of the anatomy, his heart and mind follow shortly thereafter.
Well, that's exactly what has happened to the American people.
That's why all these American corporations embrace multiculturalism.
Now, also, Mr. Kurtadjik is a European and probably an adopted Brit, and as a result, he has no love for Americanism.
We here at the political cesspool do.
And we think that the America that existed before the triumph of liberalism was a pretty good place.
Certainly it could be improved upon.
But saying that the Founding Fathers were liberals is, again, errant foolishness.
If they saw modern liberals today, they wouldn't call them kinsmen and spirit to themselves.
They would think of them as Jacobins, people like those in the French Revolution who most of the Founding Fathers despised.
The only one who really had any support for them was Thomas Paine, who was the only atheist among the Founding Fathers.
went over and tried to help the revolution and as a result almost got guillotined for his efforts.
Bill, this is, you know, there's trying to say that this, you know, there's some type of, you know, ideological lineage between the founding fathers and the SDS of the late 60s or today's Obama administration is,
you know, that might be an interesting intellectual parlor game, but in terms of reality that most of us live in, it's an absurdity.
What has happened is that we have strayed from the founding fathers.
If Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, give me that type of liberalism.
Don't give me the socialism and the cultural Marxism that we have in the Obama administration.
Well, Keith, we only got about a minute left.
And of course, everything you say is true.
The United States was established by Christians, for Christians, prior to the American Revolution.
99% were Protestants.
99% were Protestants.
You know, the objection I have is this disdain for Christianity among some white nationalists or pro-white groups as being the cause of the downfall or the weakness in our consciousness, which is not true.
The weakness in our consciousness was put there by cultural Marxism, which has also infested the churches and has also infected many other institutions from education to, you know.
Every institution that sets moral and ethical values has been the victim of cultural Marxism, and the churches certainly have been.
All of this social gospel baloney that we have now that's even in fundamentalism, that's liberalism.
It's not Christianity.
Well, I think that pretty much sums it up, is that this new identity Christian is the problem.
It's not Christianity in the original sense.
We'll be right back after these messages.
Bill Rowland, Keith Alexander, and the political cesspool.
The day the squirrel went berserk in the first self-british church in that sleeping little town of Pastor Goula.
It was a fight for survival.
And that folk got in revival.
They were jumping pews and shouting, Hallelujah.
Well, Harve hit the aisles dancing and screaming.
Some thought he had religion, others thought he had a demon, and Harve thought he had a weed eater loose in his fruitless looms.
He fell to his knees to plead and beg, and the squirrel ran out of his britch's leg unobserved to the other side of the room.