By Brent Bozell
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Here's a story you probably haven't heard, unless you
read Drudge or Breitbart. The Independent in the U.K. has published a story
(from which I pull freely), as have a couple of Jewish outlets. That's all I
can find. You tell me if it qualifies as "news" that the "news
" media should be covering.
It involves a young man who would someday become one of
the best-known and most powerful men in the world. A new book is out. It
explores recently uncovered diaries kept by this young man. The journal entries
document his fascination with Adolf Hitler and Nazism.
This young man traveled to Germany three times between
1937 and 1945. Clearly he admired the Germans -- and that includes the racial
imperatives of Nazism. The Independent reveals this entry logged after he visited
the Rhine in 1937:
"Very beautiful, because there are many castles
along the route. The towns are all charming which shows that the Nordic races
appear to be definitely superior to their Latin counterparts. The Germans are
really too good -- that's why people conspire against them -- they do it to
protect themselves."
By today's standards, that sentiment is clearly racist.
It glorifies Aryans as "superior" to brown people. (If you doubt me,
contact your local La Raza office, read them that passage, and solicit a
comment or two.)
This young man wrote as well: "I have come to the
conclusion that fascism is right for Germany and Italy. What are the evils of
fascism compared to communism?" His travelling companion, Lem Billings,
would later state that the young man was "completely consumed by his
interest for the Hitler movement."
The young man would return to Germany after the war, in
1945, and after visiting Hitler's famous "Eagle's Nest" mountain-top
retreat, would write that, "Anyone who has visited these places can
imagine how in a few years, Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds
him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures that ever
lived. There is something mysterious about the way he lived and died and which
will outlive him and continue to flourish. He was made of the stuff of
legends."
This man was 20 in 1937. It is undeniable that any
pro-Nazi sentiments that might have existed in his youth -- his father was a
public apologist for Hitler -- evaporated with time. Still, this man was one of
the most prominent men of the 20th century. How could this not be of interest
to the media?
You can hear the explanations. They are what the press
had to say to justify not reporting the late Senator Robert Byrd's membership
in the KKK.
It's not news. He was young and naive. This is in some
respects true. There is no "hard" news here, but how often do we find
news reports about a prominent person's past? George W. Bush for one would find
this curious. How many stories -- hundreds? -- were filed about his wild
partying days at roughly the same age?
It's not news. These clearly were not his views during
his public years. Again, a defensible position. Yet when former Senator Trent
Lott said in 2002 that when, as a young man at approximately the same time
(1948) he'd supported the segregation agenda of Strom Thurmond, a position he'd
come clearly to repudiate, there followed an avalanche of negative press and he
was forced to resign in disgrace.
It's speculative. Admiration does not necessarily an
endorsement make. I'll buy that one, too. Clearly when this young man evinced
his admiration for the "superiority" of the Nordic races, he had no
idea that Hitler would make this a justification to slaughter six million Jews.
We could state just as emphatically that to declare Hitler would be "one
of the most significant figures that ever lived" is, in fact, accurate. He
was "the stuff of legends" -- and so was Nero.
But what if this man's name was Ronald Reagan? None of
this would apply. Youthful ignorance would be no excuse. A man of his historic
importance? Admiring the "superiority" of Nazism? You betchum we're
going to cover it!
Taken further, they would argue, Who are we to declare
these views had no impact on his thinking? After all, in some circles, his name
is synonymous with radical right, even fascistic, leanings.
Most importantly, the news media would tell us, It is
precisely because it is speculative that it should be reported. At best, it's a
simple curiosity, at worst, a bombshell of Nagasaki proportions. Don't the
American people deserve to be told, and shouldn't they be allowed to judge for
themselves?
If this young man's name was Ronald Reagan, it is
undeniable that this new book would be a top-shelf media story everywhere. But
his name wasn't Reagan.
It was John F. Kennedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment