We are often reminded that if we live long enough we get to see some very strange things. Well, I have lived long enough, and I am seeing some very strange things.
One of those things
is neocon Clifford D. May praising the work of neocon Andrew Roberts for saying
that America rid the world of slavery by adopting slavery and then abolishing
it. He added that America did so, not by staging a revolution but by doing … yes,
Andrew, by doing what? He is not sure what, but the one thing he is absolutely
sure about is that the American Revolution had nothing to do with slavery, and
everything to do with the need to feel independent of a king who might have
been certified as mentally ill, but was otherwise a sweet fellow who did not
worry much about having his dictatorial powers curtailed.
To contribute his
two-cents worth to the debate now raging in America about the New York Times
assertion (the 1619 Project) that the United States came to be, not in the late
18th century, but the early 17th century when slaves were first brought to
America — Clifford May latched
on to the ideas of Andrew Roberts whom he praised by sticking the following
paragraph at the end of his column:
“If, as has been
said, the past is a foreign country, no one is more skilled to guide us through
that distant land than Andrew Roberts. His services are especially
valuable now, a time when propagandists pushing an illiberal and anti-American
ideology are leading us toward a dystopian future”.
But who really is
this fellow Andrew Roberts? Briefly, here is what’s known about him:
Andrew Roberts wants to unite the English speaking nations. A
staunch supporter of all neocon viewpoints, he applauded George W. Bush for
attacking al-Qaeda. He supported the invasion of Iraq, arguing that it was
consistent with the Pax Americana principles. When no WMD were found in that
country, he still defended the invasion. He also defended every war crime and crime against humanity committed by
the British. He defended the British torture of the Kenyan Mau Mau combatants
as well as the civilians. He supported the Amritsar massacres in India. He even
approved of the internment of the Irish in the North of Ireland. And he
associated with the exiled White South Africans who worked to recolonize and
civilize the “uncivilized” native Africans.
So, this is the guy
who is now asking: American slavery? What American slavery? If anything, America
committed unprecedented spiritual acts by taking slaves in order to free them
and show the world how it can be done. This being the case, Clifford May has embraced
the idea and built on it.
What the man did is
very much in the Jewish style of screwing himself up (not just shooting himself
in the foot this time) by trying to score in a big way, but seeing the futile
attempt backfire on him in no small way. Here is how he did that. First,
Clifford May legitimized the Andrew Roberts revision of history like this:
“Science is never settled. History is never settled either. No one has done
more to establish that than Andrew Roberts, the great British historian”.
And then, in a
bizarre twist even for Jewish logic, Clifford May accused the New York Times of
revising history when in fact, the New York Times did nothing of the sort. Look
and marvel at the way that the mind of a Jewish lawyer contorts itself into a
pretzel. Here is what Clifford May did. First, he asked a question: If history
is always open to revision, why the outrage over the 1619 Project? He then
answered it like this: The 1619 Project is not based on serious research or new
evidence.
What on Earth is he
talking about, mentioning serious research and new evidence? You do research
and try to unearth new evidence when there is a dispute about the facts. But
nobody is disputing the fact that the first slaves were brought to America in
1619 or that America’s Independence was declared in 1776. Rather, the dispute
is about the way that today’s rolling of life in America, is perceived to have
been influenced by either or both these two events.
Andrew Roberts was
aware of this reality and its implications. And so, he offered this thought: “If
the Founding Fathers were evil, the founding of their country was evil and
built upon a lie … No society can survive such an existential belief about
itself.” In other words, Roberts is saying that we have a choice to make:
Either we admit that America was built on a lie and see it perish, or lie about
its founding and see it survive. Obviously, Roberts is clear about which choice
he wants Americans to make.
As to Clifford May,
he has a typical Dershowitz-like observation to make. It goes like this: “You
should know that since time immemorial, slavery was a common practice almost
everywhere on earth.” In other words, he is saying this: Hey look here;
everyone was doing it, why not us?
So then, the sum
total of what these two neocons are saying is that Americans should lie to
themselves, and the school teachers should lie to their students about the
founding of the American nation because the country is so fragile, it will
disintegrate if the truth became common knowledge.
And because to omit
that story from the syllabus of American history will create a vacuum, we
should fill that vacuum with stories about the Holocaust that happened in
Europe. This will make the Jews a more privileged lot, a move that should make
us all happy.