crosstar
2008-07-06 18:49:31 UTC
WHY I WILL NOT BE ATTENDING THE HELMS FUNERAL
Richard Barrett
There is something to be said of "carrying on" and "passing the
torch." But, if the torch-bearer, himself, had dropped or extinguished
the flame, it is better to rekindle the flame, apart, or spark it, again,
elsewhere. Jesse Helms had a dramatic and personal impact on
my life. He "gave me a start" on his television-station, when, as
a young and struggling orator, I aspired to reach and motivate
people, the same as he did. The segregationist-vote was already
potent and organized, by way of George Wallace, and Senator
Helms energized it and carried it on, as well he should.
There was no pretense. Senator Helms was as ardent a segregationist
as Wallace, forged from the mold of Eugene Talmadge, Harry Byrd,
James Eastland, Meldrim Thomson and Huey Long. He fought King
Day, the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act. He warred against
every enemy of the American way-of-life, including homosexuals,
foreign-lobbies and Communists. But, at the end, he was hailed as a
"conservative." Only the leftist, Negro and Communist elements
mentioned that he had been a segregationist, although I had, also,
memorialized him as a "segregationist ahead of his time."
Aged and infirm, three years before he passed away, Senator Helms
published a ghosted memoir, in which he was attributed to have
said that he was "not the least bit racist." He, also, had stated, in
reversing his stance against funding AIDS-treatment, that "I was
wrong." It would be easy to whisk such words aside as mere
"semantics." Senator Helms would have been justified in noting that
the "R-word" was Marxist-instigated, a "buzz-word," as I call it,
which was too loaded with emotion and too problematical for
dispassionate discussion. Some Helms-apologists have agreed.
However, Lester Maddox had come across quite differently. When I
asked Governor Maddox if he had "changed," he replied sharply
that he had not and that he would "do it all over again." When queried
by a reporter if he was still a segregationist, Governor Maddox
struck back that "I am a segregationist. I've told you that I am a
segregationist. How many times do I have to tell you?" I attended the
Maddox-funeral, because I felt comfortable that the principles of
such a statesman were worthy of being carried on, which is why I,
also, attended the funeral of Senator Eastland.
I, purposely, declined to attend the funerals of Strom Thurmond
and Governor Wallace, however, because both had repudiated
their segregationist-views and, in effect, trashed their previous,
illustrious careers. Senator Helms and I would correspond and,
on occasion, when I would conduct an event, he would send his
well-wishes. But, if the firebrand had, indeed, become "luke warm," I
had a duty to "spew him out." Was he simply denying the "R-word,"
because he found the word inappropriate, but retaining his
blood-based views, which, after all, propelled him into office, in
the first place?
As Johnny Carson once said, if you have to explain the joke, you lose
the punch-line. So, what did Senator Helms mean? Twenty years before
he passed on, Senator Helms had allowed a "center" to be built by his
wealthy backers, dedicated to his "principles." "Segregation" never
appeared as one of those hallmarks. Senator Helms was ballyhooed
as being for "free enterprise," but, when I inquired if that was a
code-word for segregation, I received no response. At best, denying
the "R-word" sounded a wavering trumpet. Would that he simply had
stated, "I change not."
In the last days of Senator Helms, two young men had been arrested
for protesting integration. Jeremiah Munsen had been accused of
"hate" for displaying a noose and Brett Van Asdlen for knocking down
a Mexican homosexual. The "center" could have supplied lawyers or
funds for defense for these two exemplars of Senator Helms "in his
prime," but nothing, not even a statement of support, ensued. What if
the funeral-spokesman had called for the proceedings to reconvene in
Van Asdlen's hometown of Champaign, Illinois to rival the "Jena-Six"
display? But, no.
Then, there was the hiring of integrationist James Meredith on his
all-white staff. Some said that it was "proof" that Senator Helms had
"changed." However, at the time, Meredith had repudiated integration
and was calling for Negroes to go back to Africa. Meredith was, also,
claiming to support David Duke and, even, had said that he supported
me and wanted to appear on my television-show. I turned him down.
Whether Senator Helms thought the hiring as ironic or inconsequential,
it seemed dishonest. Robert Sterling had once written that I was one
of the "few unabashedly honest things."
Shortly before he died, Orval Faubus said to me, "It is up to you,
now, to carry on." So, when I stood by the coffin of Governor Maddox,
I was able to say, honestly and without reservation, that I would
carry on. I can say the same for the old, actually the "young,"
Wallace and Helms, but not the old-age "conservative," polished-up,
revised, propped-up facade, vainly trying to obscure the
"stand-in-the-school-house-door" or the "Pickrick-drumsticks." If
Senator Helms had deigned to characterize "segregation" as
"conservatism," I would not quarrel over words. I describe myself
as a "nationalist."
In his book, Senator Helms faults King Day for "establishing a day
off that costs the country many millions in lost productivity each
year." That is a far cry from denouncing the University of North
Carolina as the "University of Negroes and Communists," for flirting
with integration, and Martin Luther King, for his "Communist ties."
In his campaign against Harvey Gantt, Senator Helms aired a
commercial that faulted affirmative-action for taking white men's
jobs. But the book ascribes that "the campaign was never about Mr.
Gantt being black. It was always and only about him being a liberal."
When the day does arrive, when minorities and aliens no longer abuse
and inhabit the land, Senator Helms will have to be mentioned for
having fought the good fight. However, when I litigated against the
NAACP, in defending segregation, others opted to defend simply what
they called "heritage," prompting the Negro-organization to state
that "Mr. Barrett is quite proud of this conduct and resents efforts
by Intervenor and the State Defendants to distort and rewrite history."
And, so, I pass on attending the funeral. I do say, "Thanks for the
memories," but not for the white-wash.
To unsubscribe from Crosstarlist:
http://www.nationalist.org/contact/unsubscribe.php
To subscribe to Crosstarlist:
http://www.nationalist.org/contact/subscribe.php
To comment on Crosstarlist:
http://www.nationalist.org/contact/comment.php
To read this article on the Crosstar website:
http://www.nationalist.org/alt/2008/070601.html
Crosstarlist
Trademark/service of nationalist.org
Not necessarily Crosstarlist views
Copyright 2008 The Nationalist Movement
Richard Barrett
There is something to be said of "carrying on" and "passing the
torch." But, if the torch-bearer, himself, had dropped or extinguished
the flame, it is better to rekindle the flame, apart, or spark it, again,
elsewhere. Jesse Helms had a dramatic and personal impact on
my life. He "gave me a start" on his television-station, when, as
a young and struggling orator, I aspired to reach and motivate
people, the same as he did. The segregationist-vote was already
potent and organized, by way of George Wallace, and Senator
Helms energized it and carried it on, as well he should.
There was no pretense. Senator Helms was as ardent a segregationist
as Wallace, forged from the mold of Eugene Talmadge, Harry Byrd,
James Eastland, Meldrim Thomson and Huey Long. He fought King
Day, the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act. He warred against
every enemy of the American way-of-life, including homosexuals,
foreign-lobbies and Communists. But, at the end, he was hailed as a
"conservative." Only the leftist, Negro and Communist elements
mentioned that he had been a segregationist, although I had, also,
memorialized him as a "segregationist ahead of his time."
Aged and infirm, three years before he passed away, Senator Helms
published a ghosted memoir, in which he was attributed to have
said that he was "not the least bit racist." He, also, had stated, in
reversing his stance against funding AIDS-treatment, that "I was
wrong." It would be easy to whisk such words aside as mere
"semantics." Senator Helms would have been justified in noting that
the "R-word" was Marxist-instigated, a "buzz-word," as I call it,
which was too loaded with emotion and too problematical for
dispassionate discussion. Some Helms-apologists have agreed.
However, Lester Maddox had come across quite differently. When I
asked Governor Maddox if he had "changed," he replied sharply
that he had not and that he would "do it all over again." When queried
by a reporter if he was still a segregationist, Governor Maddox
struck back that "I am a segregationist. I've told you that I am a
segregationist. How many times do I have to tell you?" I attended the
Maddox-funeral, because I felt comfortable that the principles of
such a statesman were worthy of being carried on, which is why I,
also, attended the funeral of Senator Eastland.
I, purposely, declined to attend the funerals of Strom Thurmond
and Governor Wallace, however, because both had repudiated
their segregationist-views and, in effect, trashed their previous,
illustrious careers. Senator Helms and I would correspond and,
on occasion, when I would conduct an event, he would send his
well-wishes. But, if the firebrand had, indeed, become "luke warm," I
had a duty to "spew him out." Was he simply denying the "R-word,"
because he found the word inappropriate, but retaining his
blood-based views, which, after all, propelled him into office, in
the first place?
As Johnny Carson once said, if you have to explain the joke, you lose
the punch-line. So, what did Senator Helms mean? Twenty years before
he passed on, Senator Helms had allowed a "center" to be built by his
wealthy backers, dedicated to his "principles." "Segregation" never
appeared as one of those hallmarks. Senator Helms was ballyhooed
as being for "free enterprise," but, when I inquired if that was a
code-word for segregation, I received no response. At best, denying
the "R-word" sounded a wavering trumpet. Would that he simply had
stated, "I change not."
In the last days of Senator Helms, two young men had been arrested
for protesting integration. Jeremiah Munsen had been accused of
"hate" for displaying a noose and Brett Van Asdlen for knocking down
a Mexican homosexual. The "center" could have supplied lawyers or
funds for defense for these two exemplars of Senator Helms "in his
prime," but nothing, not even a statement of support, ensued. What if
the funeral-spokesman had called for the proceedings to reconvene in
Van Asdlen's hometown of Champaign, Illinois to rival the "Jena-Six"
display? But, no.
Then, there was the hiring of integrationist James Meredith on his
all-white staff. Some said that it was "proof" that Senator Helms had
"changed." However, at the time, Meredith had repudiated integration
and was calling for Negroes to go back to Africa. Meredith was, also,
claiming to support David Duke and, even, had said that he supported
me and wanted to appear on my television-show. I turned him down.
Whether Senator Helms thought the hiring as ironic or inconsequential,
it seemed dishonest. Robert Sterling had once written that I was one
of the "few unabashedly honest things."
Shortly before he died, Orval Faubus said to me, "It is up to you,
now, to carry on." So, when I stood by the coffin of Governor Maddox,
I was able to say, honestly and without reservation, that I would
carry on. I can say the same for the old, actually the "young,"
Wallace and Helms, but not the old-age "conservative," polished-up,
revised, propped-up facade, vainly trying to obscure the
"stand-in-the-school-house-door" or the "Pickrick-drumsticks." If
Senator Helms had deigned to characterize "segregation" as
"conservatism," I would not quarrel over words. I describe myself
as a "nationalist."
In his book, Senator Helms faults King Day for "establishing a day
off that costs the country many millions in lost productivity each
year." That is a far cry from denouncing the University of North
Carolina as the "University of Negroes and Communists," for flirting
with integration, and Martin Luther King, for his "Communist ties."
In his campaign against Harvey Gantt, Senator Helms aired a
commercial that faulted affirmative-action for taking white men's
jobs. But the book ascribes that "the campaign was never about Mr.
Gantt being black. It was always and only about him being a liberal."
When the day does arrive, when minorities and aliens no longer abuse
and inhabit the land, Senator Helms will have to be mentioned for
having fought the good fight. However, when I litigated against the
NAACP, in defending segregation, others opted to defend simply what
they called "heritage," prompting the Negro-organization to state
that "Mr. Barrett is quite proud of this conduct and resents efforts
by Intervenor and the State Defendants to distort and rewrite history."
And, so, I pass on attending the funeral. I do say, "Thanks for the
memories," but not for the white-wash.
To unsubscribe from Crosstarlist:
http://www.nationalist.org/contact/unsubscribe.php
To subscribe to Crosstarlist:
http://www.nationalist.org/contact/subscribe.php
To comment on Crosstarlist:
http://www.nationalist.org/contact/comment.php
To read this article on the Crosstar website:
http://www.nationalist.org/alt/2008/070601.html
Crosstarlist
Trademark/service of nationalist.org
Not necessarily Crosstarlist views
Copyright 2008 The Nationalist Movement