Remembering Richard Nixon

buchanannixon [1]3,037 words

This week marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard M. Nixon’s (R.) resignation from office on August 9, 1974 as a consequence of the media-orchestrated Watergate affair. To mark the occasion, America’s Last Conservative and longtime Nixon aide Patrick Buchanan, increasingly productive in the book field in his twilight years, has published a new volume, The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority [2] (2014). Closer to Nixon for a longer period of time than most people probably realize, he considers Nixon to have been a great president.

Buchanan, who is Catholic, is usually thought of as Irish American, but he is really [3] half-German (mother) and, on his father’s side, primarily (it appears) Scotch-Irish and English.

Pioneering pro-white author and magazine editor Wilmot Robertson [4] (1915–2005), who mistook Buchanan for an Irishman, likewise mistook Richard Nixon, who was raised a Quaker, as one. In fact, Nixon was an Old Stock American of primarily Scotch-Irish, English, and German descent [5]. Four of the five Nixon brothers were named after kings of England—Richard was named after Richard the Lion-Hearted.

Nixon’s wife, Thelma Catherine “Pat” Ryan [6], was half-Irish Catholic (father). Her mother, born in Germany, was a Christian Scientist [7]. Pat Nixon’s simple headstone contains this statement: “Even when people can’t speak your language, they can tell if you have love in your heart.” A headstone distills a single essential message—and that was the one she chose to convey to posterity.

Richard Nixon vividly illustrates the way Jewish societies systematically mythologize, fictionalize, and falsify history even as it occurs (a component of culture distortion). When people think of Nixon words like “conservative,” “Right-wing,” “anti-Communist,” “anti-Semite,” “racist” and, of course, “crook,” pop into their minds, products of the fetid ideological miasma surrounding us.

The more informed will recall the “anti-black” phrase “benign neglect,” though remain ignorant that it was coined by Irish Catholic Nixon appointee Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a philo-Semitic Democrat. They will remember “anti-Jewish” taped exchanges between Nixon and Southern evangelist Billy Graham, aide H. R. Haldeman, and others, unaware of the startling shallowness, ignorance, and naïveté displayed about a subject so vital among people so high up in government.

Nixon’s “silent majority” was deemed a code word for “white.” Doubtless Wilmot Robertson adapted both his book title, The Dispossessed Majority [8], and his less-than-inspired term “Majority” to signify white, Northern European Gentiles, from this source. The phrase “silent majority [9]” was in common use when Robertson’s book was first published in 1972.

In an hour-long talk at the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California on July 21, 2014 [10], reminiscing about Nixon’s 1962–1968 political comeback (the subject of his book), Patrick Buchanan revealed that the Nixon camp was divided into conservative and Left-wing elements. Buchanan was, of course, a leader of the conservative faction, though he agreed with Nixon about race. Buchanan was never a white racialist.

Despite his former anti-Communism, Nixon’s knowledge of American conservatism appears to have derived largely from Pat Buchanan. Early on Nixon stated that the “Buckleyites” were more dangerous than “Birchers”—not from some commonsense perspective you might expect, but rather meaning that the Buckleyites were dangerous extremists. Buchanan actually had to set him straight on this.

The violent Establishment rhetoric against William F. Buckley in those days, who was never a true conservative, was similar to the venom directed now against philo-Semitic, non-racialist parties such as Marine Le Pen’s Front National, the Danish People’s Party, the Swedish Democrats, and others. It appears that Nixon, due to ignorance, accepted these falsehoods at face value. Nothing ever changes.

As a consequence, Buchanan became Nixon’s liaison to “respectable” conservatives. Once asked by Buckley factotum William Rusher [11], “‘Are you Nixon’s ambassador to the conservatives, or our ambassador to Nixon?’ His answer: ‘The former, always.’”

And yet, the conservative columnist guilelessly wrote [12] that in 1992 Nixon told him, “Buchanan, you’re the only extremist I know with a sense of humor.” Irony seems missing from this statement. Buchanan was useful to Nixon because of his nature, intelligence, energy, loyalty, deep admiration for “the Boss,” and political skills, but I believe Buchanan always was an “extremist” to Nixon nonetheless.

Today, as the Republican Party desperately jettisons its aging, demographically collapsing white voter base, Buchanan asks, “Is Nixon’s Resurrection Relevant to Today’s GOP?” [13] (July 10, 2014). His answer: “probably not.”


Buchanan does not hesitate to call Nixon—uncritically—an “internationalist.” The President was on the wrong (i.e., Establishment) side of immigration. Replacement immigration ranks with mass media control, integration, institutionalized anti-white racism, and deprivation of legal rights in its destructiveness. Nevertheless, in a message to Congress in 1971 Nixon said [14]:

To improve our immigration laws and to enlarge upon our national tradition as an open nation and an open society, legislation is being resubmitted which would, among other reforms, provide:

A higher percentage of immigrant visas for professionals, needed workers and refugees.

Additional visas for the Western hemisphere, with special provisions for our nearest neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

Further, to encourage travel and tourism in the United States, the requirement for a visa would be waived for all business and pleasure visits of ninety days or less by nationals of countries designated by the Secretary of State.

Race & Segregation

US stamp-desgregating schools [15]The lie that Nixon was anti-black is an old one. To celebrate the upcoming anniversary of the President’s resignation, the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley ran a piece on its August 7, 2014 broadcast reinforcing it. It consisted of a brief interview with a black technician who had been one of only two CBS crew members permitted in the Oval Office while the President delivered his resignation speech. He claimed that “as a young black man with an Afro” he was “scared to death” Nixon would see him and order him from the room, so he hid behind a camera. Seriously.

Stupid “news” for stupid people.

In “Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ and a Liberal Big Lie [16]” (July 3, 2014), Buchanan torpedoes the New York Times’ claim that “Nixon’s divisive ‘Southern strategy’ sent whites to the Republican Party and blacks to the Democrats . . .” He retails a long list of Democratic Party racial sins from days gone by. While true, the Democrats for decades have been as pro-colored as the Republicans, so there’s a limit to the value of such ancient history, especially when the Left isn’t listening anyway.

Buchanan boasts of Nixon:

From the standpoint of people concerned with the human rights and basic needs of whites, this is not high praise but a damning indictment. But Buchanan is not concerned with such matters.

Jews & Israel

Though always hated by Jews, Nixon did not return the favor. “In the end he said he forgave his enemies,” Wilmot Robertson wrote disapprovingly, “but his enemies never forgave him.”

Pat Buchanan shares Nixon’s peculiarity in this regard, as do most Right-wing and even racialist whites. Buchanan is routinely reviled in the most vicious terms across the Jewish spectrum (narrow as it is) from extreme Left to “right.” Odious “conservative” pundit Charles Krauthammer repeatedly attacks Buchanan [17] as a racist, fascist, anti-Semite, and quasi-“Holocaust denier.” Talk about a Big Lie! Yet I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Buchanan refer to “My good friend Charlie Krauthammer” sometime. That a bigot like Krauthammer can make accusations against any white man is repugnant. There is something deeply wrong with whites who meekly submit to such foul abuse.

So extreme was Nixon’s first-term support for Israel that during the 1972 reelection campaign Israel’s ambassador to Washington, former Haganah terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, openly campaigned for him against Democrat George McGovern.

The first American president to visit Israel, Nixon appointed many Jews to top positions in his Administration. National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, CIA Director and Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur F. Burns, chief economic adviser Herbert Stein, Deputy Attorney General Laurence Silberman, legal counsel Leonard Garment, presidential aide John Ehrlichman, and future government stars Caspar Weinberger and Alan Greenspan were among them. Baruch Korff was known as “Nixon’s rabbi.”

Servile “leader”: Nixon with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir [18]

Servile “leader”: Nixon with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir

“In his second term,” Buchanan proudly writes [12], Nixon “would order the strategic airlift that saved Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Israel never had a better friend, said Golda Meir.”

The Yom Kippur War, also known as the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, was fought between Israel and the Arab nations of Egypt and Syria, backed by the Soviet Union. The Arabs were attempting to recover territory stolen from them by the Jews in 1967. The war lasted only a few weeks; it began and ended in October 1973.

Due to the possibility that the Soviet Union might intervene on behalf of the Arabs, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon put US nuclear forces on worldwide alert (Defense Condition [DEFCON] 3 status). At Yorba Linda last month Buchanan said the US and USSR came closer to nuclear war on that occasion than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. This is confirmed by the Office of the Historian of the US Department of State, which also states [19] that the United States came “closer to a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis.”

Over Jews! Over Israel!

The Jews, of course, have long had their own nuclear weapons, constructed with technology and secrets stolen from the United States and other white countries—which, unlike imaginary Iranian bombs, does not bother international enforcers or philo-Semitic governments. In late 2013 it was revealed for the first time [20] that during the 1973 war, eyepatch-wearing Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan pushed Prime Minister Golda Meir to use the dirty weapons against the Arabs in the first days of the battle. Despite the fact that he did not get a green light to do so, Meir’s aides feared he might disobey orders and use them anyway.

Jews prefer that whites use their weapons—and take the blame for doing so. Many Jews would eagerly serve in future legal proceedings to prosecute and convict Gentile leaders who used nuclear weapons upon curt Jewish demand—and threat—that they do so.

In addition to endangering the lives of every American citizen while tripping over his shoelaces to assist Israel, Nixon drew down US defense stockpiles. Jews ordered Admiral Thomas F. Moorer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Southerner, to hand over advanced air-to-surface Maverick anti-tank missiles, of which we had only one squadron’s worth. Moorer refused, but told former US Rep. Paul Findley (R.-Ill.) in an August 24, 1983 interview that he was “overruled by political expediency at the presidential level” (i.e., by Nixon). He went on:

I’ve never seen a President—I don’t care who he is—stand up to them. It just boggles your mind.

They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down.

If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on. (Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby [Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill, 1985], p. 161)

Lastly, Nixon’s astounding obsequiousness to Jewry during the Arab-Israeli War triggered the economically crippling Arab oil embargo.

Then, as now, the consequences for Americans—even nuclear war, if it came to that—did not matter. The only thing that mattered was that Jews got what they wanted.

Watergate & Downfall

In his essay “The Loony Bin or the Great Watergate Purge” in Ventilations [21] (1974; rev. ed., 1982), Wilmot Robertson skillfully skewered the hypocrisy of the media circus that was Watergate. He called it “a liberal-minority [“minority” was his frequent euphemism for “Jewish”] purge of an entire presidential administration.” In what may be the only autobiographical passage he ever wrote for publication, Robertson likened the bizarre episode, a “tempest in a teapot that was blown up into a Teapot Dome,” to an experience from his childhood:

When I was young I used to visit the carnival that came to town every year in the late spring. One attraction was the Loony Bin, a ticket for which cost 25 cents. You’d go into a dark, mildew-smelling tent and follow a creaking walkway past grotesque plastic figures which screamed and howled at you as you went by. It was a relief to get out into the sunlight again. The experience, which lasted only a few minutes, was not frightening, but sickening. It was all so badly staged, so patently counterfeit, so totally tasteless.

Now suppose some baleful spirit from outer space had suddenly materialized during one of my annual excursions into the Loony Bin and frozen me in my tracks . . . All of us remain trapped in the Loony Bin. . . . We remain prisoners in a dark tent and many of us still believe we can reason with the plastic phantoms who scream and howl at us in scratchy recordings. But we cannot speak to automated indoctrination machines, to robots without ears.

In his new book Buchanan calls Watergate “the first successful coup d’etat in American history.” He is not the first to have done so, and as a genuine moderate does not use such terms lightly. Watergate was an integral component of the Jewish-Left-wing cultural revolution of the 1970s. It demonstrated beyond doubt who ran the country, and made a laughingstock of law, journalism, and democracy.

A smoking gun: prior to eliminating Nixon the Left removed the Vice President of the United States from office, a man they hated even more than Nixon: the half-Greek, half-Southern Spiro Agnew. In public speeches the acerbic, combative Agnew had aimed sharp verbal barbs at the ruling class and its media.

Here is Agnew’s account of the secret machinations of Attorney General Elliott Richardson, a Left-wing Unitarian WASP Republican, and his staff in his memoirs, Go Quietly . . . or else (New York: William Morrow, 1980), pp. 194-95:

Richardson stressed that the war which had erupted in the Middle East the previous day [the Arab-Israeli War] made it doubly imperative to move me out of the vice-presidency. The President faced tremendous new responsibilities as he strove to save Israel from the attack by Egypt and Syria—the Arab forces, having a great advantage from their surprise assault, were pressing forward relentlessly. Nixon was determined to save Israel, but the Soviet Union would also very likely intervene to prevent the defeat of the socialist Arab countries. The world could conceivably be approaching the brink of a nuclear catastrophe. . . . now, more than ever, the Attorney General sought to kick me out and bring in a new Vice-President who might, at any time, have to move into the White House.

The Yom Kippur War demonstrated “how important it was to wind up this matter as promptly as possible,” Richardson said. He felt much more strongly about this now than he had two weeks ago.

Richardson wanted someone in the line of succession to the presidency who, like Nixon, would defend Israel, whatever the risk to the United States. My resignation must be obtained immediately.

Agnew’s removal was accomplished by having Jewish businessmen testify that they had given him kickbacks on state contracts while he was governor of Maryland. He was replaced as Vice President by House Minority Leader Gerald Ford (R.-Mich.), who assumed the Presidency from Richard Nixon 10 months later.

Nixon with Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1957. The California Republican worked hard throughout his career to “mix it up” and, according to loyal aide Patrick Buchanan, succeeded admirably. [22]

Nixon with Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1957. The California Republican worked hard throughout his career to “mix it up” and, according to loyal aide Patrick Buchanan, succeeded admirably.

Patrick Buchanan makes a strong case that Richard Nixon deserves to be considered a member in good standing of the anti-white elite. But Jews and the Left don’t care. They hated Nixon in 1974, and they hate him today. Nothing Buchanan says is going to change that.

Even Buchanan’s conservative Republican Party constituency probably feels comfortable worshipping public saint Martin Luther King, Jr. rather than worrying about the role played by Richard Nixon in the downfall of white America, no matter how great it was. They don’t have the deep personal and emotional attachment to the man that the loyalist Buchanan has.

Buchanan’s audience at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda three weeks ago consisted mostly of aging (a few young) white Republicans with some Jews and at least one young Asian woman thrown in. I didn’t see any blacks.

Though Buchanan spun war stories about 1960s Republican presidential politics with verve, the only substantive applause he received occurred during the Q & A period when, in response to audience questions, he stated that possibly it wasn’t the greatest idea in the world to import every nonwhite (by implication) into the country, and that it would be unwise to militarily attack Russia over Ukraine.

Even so, audience members were not revolutionaries willing—or able—to take on the vicious, dynamic foes who hate them with genocidal fury. Like white racialists, they seem devoid of inner fire, passion, or righteous anger. Collectively, their life force seems spent.