The
V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political
correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying
about
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology -
Member: National Association of Scholars
CONTACT: Magruder44@aol.com - Phone: 785-312-9303
(
dukesch@aol.com, 480-595-7668)
80% OF
A WAVE IS RISING
by Leonard Magruder
August 30, 2004
David Broder, the noted columnist for The
Washington Post, got right to the heart of the matter in his national
column of August 24. “Will we ever recover from the 60’s? What’s happening with
the bitter dispute over John Kerry’s role in
It’s worse than that, he forgot that the majority of the American people had no use for the war protestors. In fact, we need to remember just how treasonous the campus “peace” movement really was. Commentary of February 1980 reported that 28% of all college students in the 60’s supported the Viet Cong, having been told by faculty that the war was only a civil war, neglecting the aspect of Communist aggression from the North, while 51% of those in the “peace” movement favored a Viet Cong victory. A poll by the University of Michigan showed that reactions to “Vietnam war protestors” by the public was by a wide margin the most negative shown to any group. The Harris poll showed, at the height of the war that 69% of the public believed that anti-war demonstrations were “acts of disloyalty against the boys fighting in Vietnam,” and 65% agreed “the protestors were giving aid and comfort to the Communists.” “The anti-war movement,” said the S.D.S. out of Antioch College, “rests on three main elements, the Trotskyites, the Communist Party, and the radical pacifists.” Said Jane Fonda to students at Michigan State on November 22, 1969, “If you understood Communism you would pray on your knees that we would some day become Communists.” A study commissioned by SANE showed that the more informed one was on the issue of Vietnam, the more one supported American involvement (documentation for these statements is found in “America in Our Time,” the highly acclaimed study by the noted British historian Godfrey Hodgson.)
The “peace” movement was never really concerned for peace. Although it cloaked itself in an aura of great moral purpose, it in fact gave aid and comfort to the enemy, marched under the flag of the Viet Cong, allowed Hanoi to dictate its agenda, and turned its back on the American soldier. It tried to stereotype them with the help of the media, as “dupes,” or drug-crazed “baby –killers.”
What is really eating away at America is that everyone knows that our educators still teach students that the protestors were the “moral heroes,” when the real heroes came back to slander and ostracism by their peers who did not serve. That is a contradiction that none of us, Vietnam vets and those of us who support them, have been able to live with for 30 years, and it absolutely must end now, as Broder suggests, to present a unified country in the face of a terrible new threat. The ideologues on campus are going to have to surrender. The veterans can’t. They were there and they know the truth
We see the continuing complaints about this contradiction in a booklet produced not long ago by the Vietnam Veteran Leadership Program of Houston. “The misinformation currently disseminated about Vietnam ultimately reflects on the motives, convictions, values, and integrity of those who participated in the war at the behest of their country. If is imperative that the record be set straight.”
Meanwhile, I was here at home. I was either an instructor or a professor at three universities during the Vietnam Era and I know how the faculty lied, how the students lied (for a documented analysis of exactly how they lied, see Kerry too Naive-Part 1 at v-v-a-r.org). And too many of these lies remain institutionalized and passed on by the media and university even today. And when you catch them lying, they just ignore you (see Students Challenge Professor on Vietnam at v-v-a-r.org). I was probably one of the first in the 60’s to step out on campus squares and tell the protestors they were lying. And I have been involved in this fight ever since because I recognized from the very beginning that this was the greatest moral fraud ever perpetrated on the American people, one that was doing enormous damage to the war, and to those who fought in the war. And as Broder said, it is still as searing as it was when it first burst into flames. You will see many of the people involved in this fraud in New York this week. Once you have betrayed freedom in one crisis, because of the guilt, you have to repeat it again in the next.
We have an excellent expose of the recycled Vietnam lies in a new book which we highly recommend, Can America Survive, by Stein and DeMuth:
“There has never been a time, after foreign aggressors attacked the United States, when respected political figures turned their rage against America and not against the people who did the attacking. Why? Why is the Left so angry at America and her rulers while the country is under attack? America has shown the whole world the path to freedom and prosperity...it is the magnet for all the oppressed peoples of the world. A nation that wiped out institutionalized racism, progress unheard of and unmatched in world history, and opened the doors of achievement to everyone, man and woman, black and white, Jew and Gentile, rich and poor. The America that fought two world wars and has taken no more territory in the lands we freed than the space needed to bury our dead. The America that quite recently invested its time, money and blood in saving the Muslims of the Balkan states, yet was attacked so cruelly and murderously by Muslims on 9/11. Still, we have a large segment of the American population, especially on the Left, who responded to the attack on America with sympathy for the attackers and contempt for the victims. Why? Your authors are gripped by the terror that the anger of the today’s American leftists will lead to something horrifying. A likely sequel to today’s anger from the Left would be a failure to adequately wage the war on terror. Some in the Left have poisoned the wellsprings of the patriotism that normally would sustain us over the lengthy and costly battle that is coming.”
The book then goes on to systematically demolish all the lies of the Left, which is certainly easy to do. The emptiness of the arguments of the Left, in contrast to the rage they produce, is one of the great mysteries of our time. The whole premise of this book is that there is something not quite rational about the level of anger directed against the United States and its leadership by the Left. Nothing in the real world justifies such rage. But then, the whole anti-war movement of the 60’s was nothing but endless rage, resting almost entirely on just one simple lie (see our article. We Don’t Want Your Views on War - You Lied About Vietnam at v-v-a-r.org).
William Bennett, former Sec. of Education and distinguished author, expressed a similar concern in his recent book, Why We Fight. He begins with examples of some of the stupid statements from the academic Left right after 9/11:
§ “When you bully people long enough they are going to strike back.”
§ “If what happened on 9/11 is terrorism, then what America did during the Gulf War was also terrorism.”
§ “We should apologize to the millions of widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished and all the other millions of victims of American imperialism.”
§ “Whatever the proximate cause of Sept. 11, the ultimate cause is the fascism of U.S. foreign policy.”
These statements, says Bennet, show a “want of clarity about the difference between good and evil...due to the well-entrenched judgment about our country and about the West in general that has come to dominate virtually every one of our major cultural and educational institutions. Leading intellectuals and educators have been saying and writing and teaching that the United States was no better and might even be worse than its enemies, that Western civilization was a mask under which one evil after another has been visited upon the poorest nations of the world. That way lies a generation prepared only for accommodation and appeasement.”
And Kerry, of course, has a long history of accommodation and appeasement (Paris, Nicaragua, Granada, Libya). These would be sure roads to national suicide in dealing with terrorists. Bennett then goes on to say what we have repeatedly said, “The arguments of today’s peace party are basically rooted in the period of the Vietnam war and its aftermath. It was then that the critique of the United States as an imperialist or ‘colonialist’ power, wreaking its evil will on the hapless people of the third world, became a slogan of the Left.”
And why? To get out of serving. The whole rage of the Left always rests on trying to get out of something. Remember when you see the hysteria in the streets of New York this week that there are no valid arguments there, no rationality, it’s all empty street drama,” Full of sound and fury - signifying nothing.”
What I said in a press release I gave out at my protest at the University of Colorado in 1968 is still in play (Associated Press, June 22): “To combat the fact that the average citizen sees the present conflict in terms of morality, the university has conceived the ultimate hypocrisy, it has projected an absolute moral judgment, ‘the Vietnam War is immoral’ (the Iraq War is immoral), from nihilistic philosophical foundations. The vehemence of both faculty and students, and their need to avoid debate at all costs, flows from the need to mask that hypocrisy, hoping the public will confuse the vehemence for unique moral insight and go along. But adult America, all of whom are for genuine peace in this world, has not fallen for it. It has conspicuously not joined the marches because it correctly senses the true underlying message, which is, we do not believe in truth or morals, we will not sacrifice for democracy, we do not care if millions are slaughtered or enslaved, we want only to be left alone, to pursue our sloth, our sex games, and our drugs.”
Same trick in New York. Don’t worry, they will all go home and the boys will talk revolution stuff while trying to get the girls to share the shower to conserve water. Wartime, you know.
The whole thrust of Bennett’s new book is that decades of
teaching leftist multiculturalism and moral relativism may have left the nation
morally and spiritually unprepared for the current crisis, as a result of which
we could lose this war the way we did the Vietnam War. That doesn’t mean that
Muslim armies will invade us. It means that in our current state of mis-education
and irrationality, we may pick the wrong man, one who doesn’t have what it
takes to protect the nation from the Islamist terrorists. We have never even
heard Kerry mention the word Islam. Does he understand the nature of the
crisis?
But they know what they are doing. The latest poll by the
national organization Rasmussen Reports, taken after the Democratic Convention,
shows that Bush holds a 23% lead among veterans, but those with no military
service favor Kerry by 10 points. This has very frightening implications. Those
with knowledge about war strongly prefer Bush over Kerry as Commander-in-Chief.
An honest national media would investigate this finding and tell the American
people why these veterans believe this. It also means that the much larger
group of those with no military experience to judge the matter believe that
Kerry would be better. In their ignorance of what makes a good
Commander-in-Chief, because the media is covering up what veterans have to say,
they could make Kerry, the less able of the two men, Commander-in-Chief. This
would place the country in much greater danger that it would be in under Bush.
The media, blindfolding
Wintersoldier.com recently responded to a letter from a
“Thanks for the kind words... A wave is building out there. It’s still in the gathering stage, but it seems to consist of two elements - the anger you and others express at having been unjustly maligned, and a dawning hope that these old wrongs can finally be set right. It is too early to say how the wave will look when it reaches the shore. But we have a pretty good view from here, and it makes the skin prickle just a bit.”
Commentary:
I can’t believe the stupidity of the media. Talk show host
Hugh Hewitt wrote recently, “The conventional wisdom floating downstream from
And The National Review reported, “The media has
brushed off the issue of Kerry’s past as irrelevant or a pointless ‘refighting’
of the Vietnam War.” I knew immediately when Kerry made his speech at the
Convention that a major issue would, in fact, be
Stephen Young wrote recently, “Our national recollection
of the war matches that of the New Left.” That is the problem. The media wants
to keep it that way. The media declared long ago that the debate over
A wave is indeed rising. The nation cannot live with this
any longer. It poses a catastrophic threat to the nation, not only because of
the division, but because it keeps the public from seeing, as most veterans can
see, that Kerry is Unfit for Command, the title of a new book about
Kerry written by veterans. It keeps the public from seeing the
misinterpretation of the Vietnam War in Kerry’s ‘71 testimony to Congress.
Millions of
We have a most crucial of all elections coming up and the media is hiding half the facts.
Now is the time to clearly repudiate both the Kerry position, at the polls, and the leftist position on campus. The two are essentially the same. To legitimize the position of the New Left in the Presidency would be inconceivable. You might as well vote for Jane Fonda.
Either the Vietnam War was “an imperialistic, immoral war of aggression against “freedom fighters”(the Viet Cong) in South Vietnam attempting to unify their country.” the position of the campus “peace” movement, and clearly the position of Kerry and his group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or it was “a fight for the freedom of the South Vietnamese against Communist aggression from North Vietnam,” the position of the government, the majority of the American people, and certain to be the position of those who sacrificed their lives.
These positions are mutually incompatible. They cannot
both be true at the same time. The nation cannot remain forever in this state
of illogic and division. Through new books, films, and testimonies from even
the enemy, we now have more than enough facts to show students how the campus
lied about
To save the nation the university is going to have to do
some soul searching on the subject of
You heal the nation, not by pretending that you can hold on to two absolutely incompatible versions of the war as both true, but by bringing out the truth. The other side then disappears and you again have unity. Without that unity we will fail against the Islamist terrorists.
We know from our recent V.V.A.R. polls that 80% of all
Do everything you can to enlist others in this fight. We
will send you a copy, tape for TV, or cassette for radio of our 40-minute
interviews with vets telling how the war protestors, including Kerry, affected
them. Use the other 20 minutes in an hour program for comments by a live panel
of
This article may be reproduced in any form. Copy this article, distribute, add us as a link.
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Website design and management courtesy of Annette R. Hall. Hosted by www.i-served.com.