Seriously?!: None Dare...pp 69-71

 One of the more funny underpinnings of this book is that the author is claiming that Nixon is too liberal. If you're new here, that's not a typo. Richard M Nixon was too liberal for Gary Allen and the John Birch Society. These are the type of people that thought Eisenhower was a Communist so we should be aware of how extremist they were. I say were, because today, they'd be right at home in the mainstream of the GOP. 

A friend of mine pointed out some of Nixon's accomplishments that the left would approve of today: he continued the policy of desegregation begun under Kennedy and continued under Johnson. He opened trade with China which we can debate about now, but such trade prevents wars. Nixon also created the EPA after a river in Ohio caught fire because of the pollution (there is an urban legend that it was Lake Erie). Nixon is famous for acting like a crazy person, which was on purpose...his plan was to act like this so that Ho Chi Minh would be afraid of nuclear attack. He's infamous for the manner in which he left office--resigning in order to dodge an impeachment conviction and be the first president forcefully removed from office. These two features do not play into Allen's criticism at all. Which is odd. 

I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time defending Richard Nixon, or explaining his presidency. That is outside the scope of this blog and my expertise. What I am going to do is defend him as a person from these strange accusations by the book. Last week we left off with the "treaty of 5th Avenue," and the accusation that Rockefeller used his money to influence the GOP's platform in the 1960 election. Which is what happened. To repeat, Rockefeller could have made the convention much more contentious by spending his billions. That's not a conspiracy that's what happens when money is able to influence democracy. 

The claims get weirder, because of course they do. The first problem is that it's unclear when Allen is talking about. He writes, "When Nixon left Washington, he, by his own claim, had little more than an Oldsmobile automobile, Pat's respectable cloth coat, and a government pension." 

Is this referring to when he left Washington in 1961 after being vice president and not winning the election or does he mean in 1974 after he resigned? I'm thinking that this is the former because we did just talk about the 1960 election, but, when people write "When Nixon left office..." I immediately think of Watergate and his resignation. If it's the 1961 option though, Nixon heads to California and practices law there. Why, then, does Allen talk about Nixon needing 100K to pay off an apartment in Rockefeller's New York building? Allen leaves out the California excursion for some reason. It's not until 1962 that Nixon goes to New York City, but that's after he loses the California Gubernatorial election. Is this important? Not to us, but to people like Allen there are questions. Did Nixon lose the election because he angered the liberals in California who fixed the election? Why didn't Rockefeller simply buy that one out? Why didn't the CFR do something since Nixon was their puppet? In Allen's worldview, these questions are not only fair game but are super important. 

What makes less sense is that we then flash to 1968 reports his net worth at 515K but only 45k is assigned to the partnership in his law firm. I don't know how finances work, but I do know that being a partner in a law firm requires you to pay upfront a certain amount of money. It could be, and I'm making assumptions here, that the 45k was what Nixon paid. I somehow doubt, that even in 1968, a former Vice President working as a lawyer in California was only being paid 45k/year. Either Allen misunderstands the evaluations or he's lying and at this point, both are just as likely. 

Allen pulls something that I'm going to coin as the conspiratorial syllogism. A normal syllogism goes like this a-->b, b-->c, therefore a-->c. The conspiratorial syllogism works the same way only with a lot of "maybe" and "perhaps" until the conclusion which is now a certainty. It could be that Nixon saved his money from the law firm or it could be that Rockefeller was paying him off, therefore the president is an "un-free agent (a term which I know that Allen gave himself a pat on the back over)."

We move on to John Mitchell. I'm going to pass over him, but to say that Allen claims that the WSJ reported in 1969 that Mitchell was Gov. Rockefeller's lawyer, but he wasn't. He worked some kind of legal bond position in the NY government when Rockefeller was governor. That's not the same thing at all. 

Now comes the biggest what the fuck of the book thus far. Allen claims that the man Nixon appointed as the National Security Advisor is an ultra-liberal. That man's name? Henry fucking Kissinger PhD. Kissinger is an ultra-liberal? It's probably because Kissinger knew things and was educated in a manner that Gary Allen cannot comprehend. Kissinger is regarded as a war criminal on the left for supporting the 1973 coup in Chile (the one that put the dictator Augusto Pinochet in charge), the Argenitian military junta (the one with the all the death squads), the bombing campaign in Cambodia, etc. I have opinions on all of these, but that's one of those things I'll leave aside. The issue I have is that those policies of the Nixon White House were influenced by him and are not anything that one might say were liberal. 

Even his academic work wasn't liberal. His dissertation was about separating realism from idealism in a manner similar to the Machiavelli's exhortations in the Discourses. Again, not a liberal policy. The only reason to claim that Kissinger is a liberal is to comment on his education and cosmopolitan attitude. Allen contrasts Nixon's campaign promise to stand up to Communism with Kissinger's recommendations on Detente and US-Sino relations. What Allen doesn't understand is that you can beat an enemy with more than guns. Opening up talks with the USSR and China, prevented nuclear war. A war which you either wanted or you didn't. IF you didn't you were clearly a liberal tool of the Rockefeller/CFR/NWO/UN/SOCIALISTs. That's the problem with Nixon and Kissinger, they didn't want to burn the world down so that the Soviets wouldn't get it.