From the Easy Chair

Earthquake Reform

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Conversations, Panels and Sermons

Lesson: 189-214

Genre: Speech

Track:

Dictation Name: RR161M23

Year: 1980s and 1990s

Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, RR161M23, Earthquake Reform, from the Easy Chair, excellent colloquies on various subjects.

[ Rushdoony ] This is R. J. Rushdoony, Easy Chair number 92, March the fifth, 1984.

Well, today we have a treat for you. We have John Lofton from Washington, DC with us and John Saunders and Otto Scott and myself will interview him. We have a very important subject to deal with. John Lofton feels that this... it is high time that we had earthquake reform.

We have in the country today, in fact, the world over, an unfair allocation of resources. Why is it that Chile and Japan and California are getting two great a share of earthquakes and Moscow and Washington DC...

[ Saunders ] Here, here.

[ Rushdoony ] Are deprived? What Washington and Moscow need are some earthquakes. And it is high time Congress acted on this serious inequality.

[ Saunders ] Where is Ralph Nader when we really need him? By the way, I knew the time changed when I came out here, but I do not think it is March fifth, 1984 as you said.

[ Rushdoony ] Oh, 1985.

[ multiple voices ]

[ Rushdoony ] We have been a little high on humor all this morning and yesterday so I am a little addled.

[ Saunders ] A little giddy. What is the climate back in Washington, now, John?

[ Lofton ] Well, it is about like it is out here, kind of cool and damp and dangerous.

[ Scott ] I was... I was under the impression there were a lot of dreamers in Washington. I am surprised to hear there was a shortage.

[ Lofton ] Oh, there is no ... no shortage of those kids of tremors, I assure you.

[ Saunders ] No. I mean, what... what ... what ... you know, we were... we were an awful lot of... of discussion about the importance of the appointment of Pat Buchanan. And I have, you know, I have ... I ... I... you know, for conservatives... and I don’t know... I don’t really know if it... you know if it is going to have that much of an impact, but I... I would like to get your evaluation of it. You are right there.

[ Lofton ] Sure. Pat, of course, was... was the co host of the Cross Fire show on Cable News Network. He is a former syndicated columnist and also worked as a speech writer for Richard Nixon. Probably the speeches people would remember most were the ones that Vice President Agnew delivered attacking the national news media.

Pat is a veteran at this kind of thing. And while I don’t really have personal knowledge of the details that caused him to take the job, I would think that Pat got some guarantees about access to the president that he will have access to the president and that he will be a policy maker. I can’t imagine that he would have taken this job under any other circumstances.

But it is a cliché. Time will tell whether or not Pat has any impact on policy and I am convinced that if he... if he doesn’t he will quickly detect this, being the veteran the is and that he will leave, but it is ... I think it is a very good thing on its merits and I think it is also very good that Don Regan picked him.

[ Scott ] Well I think that it is good, too, because Regan comes from Wall Street and he is a businessman. And as we have said before, off mic, so to speak, one of the distinguishing characteristics of businessmen is that they don’t really respect ideas. One of the criticisms of Jim Baker as chief of staff was that he interfered with ideas instead of masterminding the traffic at the White House. He kept interfering with everyone’s ideas.

Now Regan, I believe, wants to streamline the process, but doesn’t... isn’t that interested in the ideas whereas Pat Buchanan is interested in the ideas only. And therefore I think this may stiffen the Reagan position.

[ Lofton ] We should point out, I guess, that Don ... Don Regan who hired Pat Buchanan is the new chief of staff at the White House replacing Jim Baker and he was formerly the secretary of the treasury. There was one report which read in the Washington Post just before I came out here that said that a speech draft that Pat had written for the president to be delivered at this annual conservative political action convention had been watered down and that he had written a pretty tough draft and that it had been ... had its sails trimmed considerably. And that was written by Lou Cannon of the Washington Post who, whatever else you think of him, he has excellent sources in the White House. So that is the first report I have seen as to how Pat is doing. And if it is accurate—and I stress if it is accurate—it is not a good sign.

[ Rushdoony ] Otto you said something that is very important, namely the fact that the business community—and we can add the political community—has no use for ideas. I think the reason for that is that we have been excluding religion from public life deliberately.

If you begin with a biblical perspective then you are going to say that what a man thinks is important. We saw President Kennedy begin this destruction of ideas in the public place when he said all our problems are technological problems, following Daniel Bell, I believe. And that we no longer had a question of issues, just developing the technology and furthering—although he didn’t say so—the bureaucratic implementation of certain things. So ideas were abandoned about 1960.

[ Scott ] I think I would go the... prior to Kennedy. I ... I ... I agree with what you said about Kennedy, but I think that was the distinguishing mark of the Eisenhower administration. General Eisenhower was a specialist and my experience with technical specialists is that they don’t respect ideas. Now business doesn't respect ideas because it is business is devoted to tangible products. They sell tractors. They sell automobiles. They sell buildings. They sell land. They sell things that can be measured and felt and carried around. Anything else is pizzazz. It is advertising and it is considered not only a lesser level, but almost on a feminine level as not worthy of the attention of serious grown men. And the whole United States was involved in that sort of an attitude in World War II where most Americans didn’t know why we were in the war because there was nothing tangibly promised as a result of the war. It was a war against. It was a war against Hitler. It was a war against Japan. But it wasn’t a war for. And because of that we allied ourselves with the Soviet devil.

Now this is a besetting problem and you put your finger on it, I think, when you said it is because we cut loose from our ecclesiastical roots. Cut loose from God. Then everything becomes tangible and it becomes power. It becomes money. It becomes things. And this is one of the arguments, I believe, that even the people who voted for Reagan, which is most of the people who voted, have against the present White House is that it seems to be lost in the area between ideas and action. And somehow or another the connection isn’t made clear to the people.

Now Pat Buchanan is very, very good. He gets to the heart of the subject generally and if he is going to be watered down I should say it would be equivalent to losing a war.

[ Lofton ] Well, you know, I sit here. I sit here thinking as you say these things of so many conversations I have had with administration aids and arguments I have had with them over the past four years plus. And in the mind of these individuals to have ideas is to be branded an ideologue or a purist, someone who without even any need to argue the point is automatically labeled someone who deals in a fantasy realm. One... one aid once said to me, “You know, your problem, Lofton, is you are out there screaming and yelling and raging and you are the ideological purist, whereas we are in here governing.”

[ Scott ] {?}

[ Lofton ] And, of course, yeah, yeah, I know. This was a ... I said, “Oh, really. And... and what do you think you are governing? You don’t...” This was at a time when there were massive leaks in the press by Reagan’s own aids stabbing him in the back. I mean they hadn't even pacified the White House grounds and for this aid to be telling me he was governing. But... but this is to put forth ideas or to defend principles is to be labeled some sort of a ... a

[ Scott ] unrealistic.

[ Lofton ] ... a person who is in a fantasy world. Yeah.

[ Saunders ] Yeah, but, John, that is... that is typical of an awful lot of Christian thinking today. Ok, in just a different form. Born again on the inside, but on the outside I live in the practical world.

[ Lofton ] Well, that is right. There are still conforming to other people’s realities, because I have had numerous conversations with presidential aids at all levels and they are prisoners of their poll data. Many times they will agree with you that something is a good idea, but don’t you understand, John, we can’t do that. They won’t let us do that. And the problem—there is many problems with that kind of defeatist surrender thinking—but one of the... those... those problems is that it is a static analysis of the cold data. In other words these numbers and percentages which show people against you they can be changed by effective leadership. These are not numbers that are chiseled in stone. Ronald Reagan, whatever else he is, is, perhaps, the most effective speaking president in the history of the country.

[ Scott ] Oh, no, no, not the history of the country.

[ Lofton ] In... he is...

[ Scott ] Singled Mr. Roosevelt.

[ Lofton ] Ok, fine.

And all too often he has not used what power he had to change thinking. He has trimmed his own sails to fit the thinking and it has been a big tragedy.

[ Scott ] Well, when ... even retroactively or especially retroactively, I am not going to defend Mr. Roosevelt, however, I recalled his administration and I recall the ... the fact that all of us knew who was in charge of the country. There was no doubt about it. And his management style was very strange. He didn’t tell his staff what he wanted. He would make them aware that he was interested in a certain area. And then a competition would begin on solutions in that area and he would brush aside the solution he didn’t like and smile encouragingly at the solutions he did. And by trial and error, then, a certain group would begin to shine in the White House. And that particular policy would evolve. In the process, the persons who proposed it were also saddled, of course, with the problem of selling it to the countryside. And Mr. Roosevelt would eventually get on the air and play the violin and he would sell it. In that way our state department in World War II gradually learned but through trial and error that his purpose in World War II was to destroy the British Empire.

[ Saunders ] You know, I... I ... just going back to just one thing about ideas just for a second. You destroy the god of ... of ... of a system or in this case if... if... if the Christian... if the God of Christianity is abolished from a system of thinking, then the first thing that falls naturally is the loss of meaning. And I think one of the things that businessmen they fear ideas because they don’t understand them and where they can lead. And I think that what you are talking about that is going on many times with the White House or people in the White House is really a kind of a political or a secular self justification along the lines of we live under grace and not under law. Ands I... I think... I think that it is just a... a political version of the same kind of thing. Christians often times justify not following God’s law by ... by making this artificial separation between the idealistic and the practical, see? And I think that is exactly what these people are doing in... in... I the White House in politics so many times, that there is this ideal... ideologue out there who is... who might be our critic, but we live in the practical world...

[ Lofton ] Well, the... the... the fable... I mean the... the ... the disastrous nature of that steady kind of thinking is this. It is says that it is ok to be principled and have ideas and to believe in things when you run for office, but they equate governing with the abandonment of every principle they ever held.

[ Saunders ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] And that... they just take their principles and throw them out the first window when they get in to public office and now then they become pragmatic and... and do what they say... what they call governing.

[ Rushdoony ] Let me say it is ... we have talked about this lack of ideas. It is really more than that. And that isn’t the proper term. It isn’t a lack of ideas and principles. It is a lack of faith. You can have a lot of ideas floating around, but what is important is a faith, because it is a faith that governs you. And we are told in the Old Testament where there is no vision the people perish. And the word vision there can, I believe, be translated as revelation. Where there is no revelation the people perish. And today, because they have no faith in the revelation which is the Word of God, the Bible, they are without anything, but Pragmatism. They ...

[ Saunders ] Well, you know...

[ Rushdoony ] ...are moving in a world of ... well, what is the technological answer? Let’s improvise here.

[ Lofton ] Well, see. I don’t even want to... I don’t even want to call it Pragmatism because it ... the general idea of Pragmatism is doing what works. And what they do doesn’t even work. That is one of Lofton’s laws. Pragmatism doesn’t work. I keep thinking of this verse in the book of Judges about I think it was Israel, wasn’t it, who had no king and everyone did what was right in his own eyes. And if that this not the present...

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] ...day government, I... I don’t know what is.

[ Scott ] Well the...

[ Saunders ] That is right.

[ Scott ] The reason I brought up the business of Roosevelt was that a lot of the observers apparently missed the key to his administrative method. They think now, they are... the comparisons have been made between Roosevelt and Reagan and they... the same thinking that... they think that Reagan should come out and tell everybody what he believes what the country should do and so on and so forth. Mr. Roosevelt never really did that. He did... he moved indirectly. He moved obliquely. But he did have a program in his mind. He was anti British Empire. He was anti colonial, the anti the colonial world. And he moved very adroitly to destroy that world which he was against. And he was... he was against it because he was raised and educated to be against it.

Mr. Reagan has grown up in a scrambled period. His ... his education was less direct. He grew up, if we listen to Rush—and I think I agree—in a less Christian period, far less clear and, therefore, he does what I was able to do when I was a young man and first wrote editorials. I have destroyed them a long time ago. I threw out all the scrap books, because they embarrassed me later on when I read them. They were the perfectly scrambled egg editorials that you still read in the New York Times and that is because at the time I was totally confused and I was doing my best. And what you are seeing is not Pragmatism. You are seeing confusion.

[ Lofton ] Well, now, you know, it is like we have choreographed this, but I can assure you this one has not been choreographed, this session. I have ... I wrote a piece recently about Ronald Reagan’s recent interview in the New York Times. It was maybe three weeks ago. The first question Ronald Reagan was asked was whether or not he is not going into arms controls talks with the Soviets in a position of military inferiority. Well, yes. Ronald Reagan said, “Yes, I am.” And then he helpfully enumerated the areas in which we are inferior.

Now this is worth talking about because this represents a major departure from what Ronald Reagan had said not only all of his life when he wasn’t president, but for a majority of his presidency. He talked about the ... the dangerous nature of negotiating with an enemy from a position of inferiority. We should never do it. He trashed Carter for doing it. It was just as basic rule to Ronald Reagan of history. And now with... without even beating around the bush or playing any games on the numbers of weapon systems or mega tonnage, the first question he was asked, he readily conceded. Yes, we are going into a... these negotiations from a position of military weakness.

So you talk about confusion. Yeah, with a capital C in Washington. You better believe it.

[ Saunders ] Well, I think... I think...

[ Lofton ] And that rhymes with P and that stands for president.

[ Saunders ] And I... ha, ha, ha... earthquake reform...

[ multiple voices ]

[ Scott ] Doggerel is not allowed.

[ multiple voices ]

[ Lofton ] Burn this tape.

[ Saunders ] I think... I think that he is... that... that... that more than anything else the driving motivation behind him going to the... the table with the Russians is because of pressure from the media. I... I think he is going there without the proper agenda. I think he is going there in a position of inferiority and a lot of other negatives. But I think he has been forced into the position by the media.

[ Lofton ] Oh there is no... there is no... there is no doubt about it. The media has been part of it. There is this... Reagan has this very strange person I think. I think that in his heart he still believes what he has always believed about the Russians, what he said early on that they are liars and cheaters and it makes no sense to sit down and sign a paper with him.

But, you see, he is now in this new environment where he is conforming to, quote, the reality as it is described to him...

[ Saunders ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] ... by his aids. So when the crunch comes Ronald Reagan may yell and scream and chew the carpet, but he goes over and he takes out his pen and he signs off and approves the other guy’s option. He does it every single time. He may swallow hard. He may have sleepless nights even. He... but he does it.

[ Scott ] Does he...

[ Lofton ] He basically conforms to their reality.

[ Scott ] The media is playing the role to the American people of the shrew. The nagging woman who works her husband over day and night, calls him up at the office and everything else until he finally says, ok, we will do it. We will buy a17,000 room house and...

[ Lofton ] That is {?} well, see...

[ Scott ] I will go into debt.

[ Lofton ] Well, but, see, this is...

[ Scott ] And he will do all kinds of crazy things, because the media is ... is forcing us into crazy and bizarre decisions.

[ Lofton ] Look, well, we... we all feel sympathy of the person nagged whether it be a husband or a wife, Otto, whichever sex the shrew is.

[ multiple voices ]

[ Scott ] But shrews come in two sexes.

[ Lofton ] That is true.

[ Scott ] That is how they multiply.

[ Lofton ] Well, in this day and age there might be some who aren’t even sure what they are, but this, of course—and I am sure we all agree—is a very dangerous thing when you are President of the United States to say, “Oh, give them the arms talks,” or, you know, don’t build the missile system because the... I mean it is a... it is a... it is a unique job that Mr. Reagan holds with the most serious of consequences for our country and, indeed, the world when he caves in. And that is what it is. He hasn’t changed his view, but it is like let them have it. They want that. We will go, you know, have these stupid talks, as if he can make them consequence free, when he can’t. He can’t.

[ Scott ] No.

[ Lofton ] Because frequently a gesture becomes the policy.

[ Scott ] Of course, it is part of the policy.

[ Lofton ] Exactly.

[ Scott ] And therefore your topic—and it is your topic of earthquake reform—is practical, because here in California millions, tens of hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to make buildings earthquake proof, which, of course is a contradiction in terms. If the ground open sup what is on top falls down.

[ Saunders ] Even out here.

[ Scott ] But the argument is that …

[ multiple voices ]

[ Scott ] The argument is that if... that is not so. I remember talking with the Badger Engineering Company when I was on the Raytheon book. And they did all the planning for a nuclear plant in Maryland, enormously expensive project. The man took me into a room that was about 25 feet long and about, maybe 15 feet wide and all the shelves, all the way up to the ceiling were lined with books representing the plans and the reports and the hearings and so forth of this particular plant. And at the final hearing after a number of years had gone by one of the environmentalists jumped up and said, “Suppose a plane falls on the roof. Then what?”

And they said, “Well, it isn’t in the plane pattern.”

Well, that is beside the point. Suppose a plane wanders out of the plane pattern and something happens to it when it is over the plant and it falls on the roof. Have you strengthened the roof against that possibility?

And they said, “No we haven’t.”

And back to the drawing board, boys.

[ Lofton ] Infallibility.

[ Scott ] So earthquake reform is not a joke. It is a... it is a living reality. The Pragmatists have brought it to us.

[ Saunders ] Yeah, I notice... I noticed that there was a... some county regulations that were passed here just recently in southern California, I think it is, where now if you build a new home that you have to dig a trench, what is it, six foot wide and six foot deep all the way around the proposed foundation. And then over ... over a set period of time you have to repack the earth back into the hole and this somehow or another forms a buffer to shock of the earthquake hitting the foundation of the house. I don’t know what, but every... but the new houses have to be done that way now and ... and in some of those areas down there. You stop and think about the incredible lengths that people will go to in order to perpetuate this ... this ideology of ... of infallibility. You know, it is just ... that... that adds 8500 dollars to the cost of a typical home.

[ Scott ] Yes, but...

[ Rushdoony ] True but..

[ Scott ] Would you say that this is an attempt to say that we can protect ourselves against acts of God?

[ Rushdoony ] I think up to a point it is legitimate because earthquakes of an intensity which in other countries kill tens of thousands may kill only a dozen in California. On the other hand, they are pushing it to unreasonable degrees. At the same time they are not taking care of an obvious thing. Filled ground is the most dangerous in an earthquake and they haven’t abolished construction on filled ground.

I think a very important area to explore now, Otto, you just returned yesterday from an important monetary conference, an international one at Arden House in New York state. How did these men see the future for this country and for the world economically?

[ Scott ] Well, the general consensus there was that we are on a toboggan from which we cannot get off, because the government of the United States has abandoned all constitutional restraints. It has ... beginning with Mr. Nixon and repeated again in 1972, one of the ... this is all, of course, the last stages. When Nixon closed the gold window the United States repudiated its obligations internationally. It did what the press now fears Mexico or Argentina might do. It repudiated its debts, because we lost 12 and a half tons of gold from Europeans and others who were presenting their dollars for ... for the gold. So we closed the gold window and we would no... our dollars no longer became redeemable in gold. And then later on we stopped printing silver certificates. So we have what is called irredeemable money, money which says I owe you nothing.

Now historically this has collapsed every time it has been tried. And the consensus at Arden House all the way from John Exeter who was a very high official with the fed and including international bankers and every other person that was there, is that we are going to pay a heavy price. We are being destroyed by the fact that we have no money. And the government... the government who has done this to us is a dishonest government. The people are being deceived and we will go through the same fires that Germany went through, that Hungary went through, that Israel is now going through...

[ Rushdoony ] And Bolivia.

[ Scott ] ... and Bolivia and other places. And there is no sign that we are going to avert it because the courts refuse to acknowledge the existence of the crisis. Now the Continental Illinois was brought up. As we all k now they were billions of dollars in the hole. There was a run started on the bank. The FDIC which insures deposits up to 100,000 exceeded its charter and exceeded its legal rights by guaranteeing everything that the bank owed whether it owed it internationally, whether it owed it to corporations or whether it owed it to individuals and poured 18 to 22, I think even more, billions of dollars into the bank. And what happened was an unofficial nationalization of the Continental Illinois Bank undertaken by a government agency that had no legal right to undertake it. And the action was, of course, praised by all and sundry.

[ Lofton ] Right.

[ Scott ] We have a government now which is living outside the law in a time of peace. What can we expect it to do in a time of great crisis?

[ Rushdoony ] Incidentally, Otto, just a minor correction. I think you unintentionally reversed the order or repudiation. The silver certificates were first repudiated by Johnson and then our gold payments by Nixon.

[ Scott ] Oh, yes.

[ Rushdoony ] Some people will say, “Well, all our gold would have flowed out.” But we had artificially priced our gold so low that it was sensational bargain. If we had allowed gold to hit a natural market price at that time we would not have had the problem.

[ Scott ] I think that is true. We... we... price controlled gold.

[ Lofton ] I take it there was nothing said at this conference that indicated that anyone there thought President Reagan was doing anything about this.

[ Scott ] Reagan’s... it was an interesting... interesting point. President Reagan’s name and all the... the talks did not arise. The John Volker’s... Paul Volker’s name raised... was brought up and quickly dropped as unimportant. The fed, of course, is a cookie monster to all sensible economists because we abandoned the capitalist system when the fed was created and we introduced the income tax.

To put a coalition of private bankers in charge of the currency of the country was an act, I guess you could say, of suicide.

[ Lofton ] Obviously I would say.

[ Rushdoony ] You spoiled my breakfast with mention of the income tax, Otto.

[ Scott ] Well, I...

[ Saunders ] Why do you suppose... well... What... what alternatives did they offer?

[ Scott ] Well, of course, if we were to pull up, if we were to go back to a gold standard and if we were to take the government’s hands off the market place we could still save ourselves, but that would require ... before a man can reform, he has to face up to the fact that he has not done right. And to find people who will admit... I... I... for instance, just... I... I... I remember a pre conversion period and I remember, of course, how can one forget his conversion and I remember the shame that struck over me when I realized how I had been living for so long.

[ Rushdoony ] A very good point, Otto. Confession of sins has to precede conversion and is a part of the reorientation of one’s whole life into a life of faith. And those religious groups which soft pedal that produce false conversions. And you have applied it to the economic sphere. And I think we need to recognize that what is true in the realm of faith is true in every realm, because every realm is ultimately a realm of faith. So in the world of economics there has to be a confession of sin.

[ Scott ] We are living in sin.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Scott ] Economically.

[ Lofton ] In a world of... of relativism, right and wrong being relative to the individual’s ... everything becomes a matter of opinion. There is no real strong conviction.

[ Saunders ] Well, I would like to know what... what was the feeling at the conference? And then I would like to know what anybody else here thinks about what the feeling... is the feeling that there has to be a tremendous crash before everyone sees the sin and then repents or that...

[ Scott ] Well...

[ Saunders ] ... or short of that...

[ Scott ] ...they... they feel that the crash is inevitable.

[ Saunders ] How will it manifest itself?

[ Scott ] Well, it is manifesting itself all the time.

[ Saunders ] Ok.

[ Scott ] The government has to continue to elaborate in order to continue... in order to maintain the deception.

[ Saunders ] So it is unlikely that there would just be one gigantic catastrophe and that it is just happening, it is an ongoing thing.

[ Scott ] It is an ongoing thing.

[ Saunders ] ... with people falling apart all...

[ Scott ] ... which continues to go. Anatov {?} is a ... an economics professor. It is a Hungarian name. And he was eight years old in Hungary when they had their great post World War II inflation. And he ... he... he brought up that dress shop in his neighborhood, that shoes and dresses, the proprietors had an enormous inventory, but they refused to sell shoes or dresses to any of the women for money, because the money was of no value. They would only sell it for barter, for some objects of ... of equivalent value. So something like a comparable worth theory.

But the awesome thing about the discussion, although it was mainly centered around the American situation, was that this is true of the entire West. Every western nation is operating without money and therefore the entire West is involved in this toboggan.

[ Saunders ] Grim.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes. Before we go too much further, because immediately after this meeting we have got to rush John to the airport where his private pilot Debbie is waiting...

[ Lofton } Wait a minute. My wife may be hearing this tape. Explain that. It may not be here. Now it is a rotation thing.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton } It is one out of three.

[ Rushdoony ] At any rate, to fly you to San Francisco to speak on Communism. Now Chuck...

[ Lofton } I am against it, by the way. I want to clear that up.

[ Rushdoony ] Church Wagner our silent partner who is in charge of this taping missed our breakfast yesterday morning and did not hear of your encounter by telephone with John Wayne.

[ Lofton } Uh, oh.

[ Rushdoony ] Let me add for our listeners...

[ Lofton } That is just the cue for the John Wayne story.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes. John has been with a great many of the greats and near greats and pseudo greats of our time interviewing them privately or spending a great deal of time alone with them. But this was something different.

[ Scott ] A pseudo grade of a P G.

[ Lofton } And which category is this crew in here?

[ multiple voices ]

[ Lofton } All right. The John Wayne story.

I think it was 1975 I worked for the American Conservative Union. I was the editor of its monthly publication called Babylon and I always wrote a syndicated column at the time. And this was.... I think... I am sure... I am pretty sure it was 75. This was at the height of the debate about the Panama Canal whether it should be not given away, because the proposal was to pay them to take it, which was, again, a bit strange. But...

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton } ...or... or whether we should...

[ Rushdoony ] Good Washington politics.

[ Lofton } That is right... we should pay them billions of dollars to take our canal, which we did. And one of the things I got in the mail one day was a five page single spaced letter from John Wayne which I thought before I opened it was good news. It was... this would be additional arguments against the ... the give away or the sell away of this... or our canal. And, of course, I was astonished to see that this was a five page single spaced letter advocating that we give them the canal, that we not keep the Panama Canal.

So I wrote an open letter column to John Wayne which was almost a caricature of his own style. It was a dear Duke... it was written in a very confrontational, macho type style and it just made... I picked apart some of his arguments and just told him, quite frankly, that I didn’t know where he had gotten all this information. He clearly didn't sit down at the typewriter and type it out, but he had been had. And it was sad to see a great patriot had. And, anyway, I forgot about the column I wrote three a week. You know, you put them in the mail and they go away and presumably they appear in print somewhere.

And one day I was sitting in the office and the secretary came in and said, “John Wayne is on the telephone.” And I said, “Sure, I will, you know, be right with him.” Because I have a lot of friends that call up an imitate people. So I got on the phone and said, “Ok, Duke, make it snappy. I am a very busy man.”

Yeah. And then I heard a voice that said, “Mr. Lofton?” And all of the sudden it hit me. This was John Wayne. Well, he ... you know for about two or three minutes it was a... it was almost a knock out. I mean, I could not get any punches off. My legs were not under me. I mean it was almost over. John Wayne. I mean, it literally took the breath away.

[ Rushdoony ] And you thought maybe he was downstairs calling for you...

[ multiple voices ]

[ Lofton ] That was my first concern. I wanted to say, you know, “Are you on like a house phone? Are you like in town, Mr. Wayne, Mr. Duke?”

But, no he was on the coast. So he was pretty far away, although still a... a menacing presence.

So after three or four minutes of I don’t even remember what he said much of in the first three or four minutes because I was just trying to realize it was, in fact, John Wayne. And, of course, all of the secretaries are congregated in the door way peering in to the office to see. I don’t know if a big fist comes out of the mouthpiece of the phone to... or what. But then ... then I began to get my legs a little bit and this was basically becoming just a ... a... another of many arguments I have ever day with a variety of screwballs advocating idiotic positions. I mean, this does happen to be a ... in a different category. And then we got on the issues and I more or less held my own and we talked for maybe 10 or 12 or 15 minutes and I remember vividly at the end somewhat disarming him, I... I... I think by the way he ... he responded by saying that there had been quite a bit of yelling, by the way. It was loud yelling and cursing and he... he talked just like you would think John Wayne would talk.

And that... and.... but at the end I said it was really an honor to have been chewed out by you and that I hope, you know, if you ever come to town we can get together or something. And I hung up the phone. And I was telling Rush and some others last night that it was literally almost months that every time there was a knock on my door at home or a noise, I just envisioned, you know, this door being kicked down and this guy with that hat and that neckerchief and these two spinning rifles are coming down my street in Laurel with every... all the neighbors running to the window to look out as the Duke came down my street, you know, or the wife saying, “Honey, John Wayne is at the door. He wants to see you.”

Now the tragedy is that when I tangle with a lot of folks, because a lot of the folks I tangle with are liars, I record my conversations. Occasionally I tell them, but I don’t think I owe liars much, so sometimes I don’t. And, of course, you are guessing the punch line. This day, of course, I had no tape recorder with me, so you have to take me at my word this happened.

[ Saunders ] Well, you see, what you do, John, is you simply leave your tape recorder at home and then all of the famous people will call you.

[ Lofton ] Well, it worked that time. John Wayne. But he was tough and he was hot and he was really smoking.

[ Rushdoony ] He never denied that ...

[ Lofton ] Well, he...

[ Rushdoony ] ... didn’t write it.

[ Lofton ] No. I just told him flat out, “Look, I mean, you didn’t write that letter.” I don’t know who wrote it, the state department. It was a robo type letter and I later learned that many other people... I think most of the conservatives had received this identical letter. But some one had... and some one was smart, had very cleverly used him and I think very effectively....

[ Scott ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] ... because I read later that he also called, you know, senators, because, let’s face it, man, when you ... when you have got a conservative campaign going and the other side rolls out John Wayne against you, this is not exactly the secret weapon you want to see unlimbered in your presence.

[ Scott ] It was tough.

[ Saunders ] Well, what was Wayne’s interest to you?

[ Lofton ] I don’t remember.... I don’t remember so much the substance of the letter. I... I... I remember at the time there were rumors ... well, I... I really don’t want to speculate on what they were, because I don’t know if it was true. There were stories that he had owned...

[ Scott ] They are big... the big argument was that we would gain friends.

[ Lofton ] That is right. That was basically it.

[ Scott ] ... in Hispanic America. And, of course, the psychology of that is absolutely perverse, because the one thing that is not admired in Latin America are men who give way.

[ Lofton ] One of the things our press is very weak on particularly when it is to their disadvantage is following up on stories. Now take... that was... what Otto just said was almost the entire rationale for giving away or selling away the Panama Canal is that, you know, we really will avoid a lot of trouble in that area and in fact some people who now hate us will begin to love us. And, of course, what is it, a decade now or roughly a decade since it has been given away and I don’t... I don’t see where anyone can ... in Latin or Central America is... is A) friendlier to us of anyone has said he is friendlier that he has cited the reason being every...

[ Scott ] That we can {?} ...

[ Lofton ] In other words Nicaragua didn’t say to the Soviets, “Oh, no, we don’t want those tanks, because, you see, they gave us the Panama Canal.” I mean it is ridiculous. I can’t imagine folks speaking of the canal, those tanks to Nicaragua, of course, are now going through the Panama Canal on Soviet ships which, because we don’t control it, we cannot demand that they be inspected. So that rationale just lies in rubble that we would buy friends by giving away the canal.

[ Saunders ] And that was... that was.... that was... that was the key.

[ Lofton ] It was the central thrust of the whole argument.

[ Saunders ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] You will.... you will buy friends and avoid a lot of meddling in this hemisphere. You will.... you will remove a lot of the ... the rationale that the Soviets could whip up, you know, arguments against the United States because you kept the canal. So just do the easy thing, the right thing and the thing that will bring peace. Give them the canal.

[ Scott ] I remember the turning point in our relationships with Hispanic America. It was when Mr. Kennedy decided to send Perez Jimenez, former dictator of Venezuela back to Caracas. Now Eisenhower had given Perez Jimenez sanctuary, refuge and Perez had a big home in Miami. And periodically the Venezuelans asked for is return because they said he stole money and things like that.

It never dawned on them that the request would be taken seriously. But Kennedy was advised that this was a good way to become friendly with a friendly nation. So he announced that Perez Jimenez would be returned. The Venezuelans are horrified and all Latin America was horrified. They said, “The Americans have no honor,” because they had never heard of an exile being sent back to the country from which he was exiled. But, of course, they had to take Perez Jimenez. So they gave him two rooms at the ... at an expensive hotel and said it was house arrest and he had his entourage up there and they went to some kind of farce of several months of a trial and they found him guilty of some misdemeanor or another and then the re exiled him, this time to Madrid. Because they weren’t going to put a former president of their country in prison. Only an American liberal would want a thing like that.

[ Lofton ] Well, see it is... it is... it is part of the ... it is... it is really one of the... one of the fundamental crimes that ... that... the... the American media and American politicians and what have you have made when they refuse, absolutely refuse to pay any real attention to the real nature of ... of the people to the north and the south and the east and the west of us.

[ Scott ] Of other cultures.

[ Saunders ] You know... of other cultures. They don't understand. They are always talking about how important it is to preserve black culture in America or Spanish culture in America or some other minority culture in America, but they are almost completely and totally ignorant of every other culture in the world and even when they are aware of maybe one or two of the premises of these other cultures, they refuse to acknowledge them or take them into account, because that doesn’t fit the liberal ideal of what peace and harmony between men should be. It is like the macho thing that we talked about. You know, now the liberal, particularly the Feminist, would heavily deny the validity of that premise, you see? And so there would be a condition placed upon any kind of... of dealings with those people over there which would fail to recognize that. And as a result, we would blunder, you know, because of this ideal that we want to impose on someone else.

[ Rushdoony ] I think it would be very important, Otto, if you told everyone about, let’s say Venezuela. You have a great deal of experience there. What constitutes a man, the jaguar hunting...

[ Scott ] Oh, oh, oh.

[ Rushdoony ] The whole bit.

[ Scott ] There is...

[ Rushdoony ] So that the idea of manhood there as it is contrasted with ours and our failure to understand how they view what we do, I think that would be important to get on to the record.

[ Scott ] Well, the ... it was... it is really not much different than the idea of manhood and womanhood in the United States, let’s say a century ago. But manhood in... in Venezuela... Venezuela, by the way, for many long time in Latin America was called by other countries down the barracks, because it is not a soft country. But you run to... you run into... or used to run into the well to do Venezuelan. He had a little pencil mustache. He had a handkerchief in his sleeve. He was very well dressed and he as soft spoken. If he had a jaguar skin on the office wall, however, a certain amount of caution was advocated in dealing with him because the way they hunt jaguar in Venezuela is that they take a plane into the interior and they have Indian beaters who beat the jaguar to you. You have to kill the jaguar with a spear, not a gun and the spear has to be in your own hand.

[ Saunders ] Why are you looking at me?

[ Scott ] Well, I am not looking at you.

[ Saunders ] I want a jaguar tie now when I stare him over.

[ Scott ] So then you are... you are... then you are entitled to put the jaguar skin on the wall.

Homosexuality is a ... is a sufficient reason to shoot a man. And at least when I was last there everybody had a gun. A cousin of mine said let’s go somewhere and I said, “Fine.” He said, “Do you have a gun?” I said, “No.” He said, “Here.” And he threw one at me. I said, “What?”

The one thing about carrying a gun down there is that it... it validates a system of courtesy so that you don't insult other people wildly.

[ multiple voices ]

[ Scott ] And ... and you... and you would be surprised how courteous it makes everything.

Now the women... the women are very powerful as everywhere. There has never been any ... any... any artificial means of reducing female power as far as I know. Cato the elder has told the Roman Senate when they were discussing equal rights for women, that if their natural superiority we add equal rights, he said, we are undone and the empire will be destroyed.

[ Lofton ] In other words, you take back the other remark about the shrew.

[ Scott ] Well it was your assumption that I was talking about female shrews only.

[ Lofton ] Well, it...

[ Scott ] You corrected me on that. We have male shrews, too. But there is one thing. Just to conclude this little chalk talk is that it is a very comforting thing in a way to have a clear masculine and a clear feminine profile because then people don’t have to worry or wonder about what is right and what is appropriate and what is not.

[ Lofton ] And so you would suggest that Boy George not add Venezuela to his tour, right? Unless he wants it to be his last stop.

[ Scott ] Ono of the things that pleased my father was that when the {?} came through Caracas, six of the girls refused to leave the city.

[ Lofton ] I get it.

[ Saunders ] Well, that is only... that is only one aspect, though, of the differences between the cultures. You know, one of the things that the American media, for example, is constantly harming... harping on the necessity for government by the people, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera in Central and South America, which totally fails to recognize the fact that the people in southern and central America have never learned to be individual self governing people as the Americans once did, that they historically for over 1000 years all government in Venezuela and the... and the majority of the other countries down there has not been from the bottom up, it has been from the top down. And that is a fundamental difference. That is why they are so susceptible to dictatorships.

You go back to the Incan, the Mayan and then Aztec Indians. You go back to the invasion by the Spanish. You go back to all the history that we know of in terms of Central America and the have always been ruled from the top down by strong dictators.

[ Scott ] Well...

[ Saunders ] ...and not from the bottom, not the... there wasn’t any bottom up. It was top down government.

[ Scott ] Well, their idea is that the country progresses by being united. They don’t understand the idea of a loyal opposition. Them an opposition is an opposition against the goals of the country. And this is very steeply implanted in their attitudes so that they would read in the newspapers where an American Senator would say something and they immediately assume that was an official policy of the government. Our loud mouths up here have done more to derange our relationships with other nations than any other single factor. And then, of course, there is the abandonment of the educational institution of teaching what is crucial to know not the similarities between people, but the differences.

[ Lofton ] Well...

[ Scott ] If you don’t know the differences you don’t know how to conduct yourself with somebody else.

[ Lofton ] That is taken for granted in America. It is forbidden everywhere else.

[ Scott ] They keep talking about the fact that the Russians are people just like us. Well, they are people, but they are not just like us.

[ Rushdoony ] John, how about organizing a jaguar hunt in Venezuela for Senators Kennedy, Baker and a few others in Washington?

[ Lofton ] And forget to give them the sticks.

[ Scott ] Do you remember when Robert Kennedy climbed the mountain by being dropped off onto the peak by a helicopter?

[ Lofton ] Was that in...

[ multiple voices ]

[ Lofton ] They wondered how he had gotten up there so fast. No jaguar hunting does not... unless you meant the car.

[ Scott ] Well...

[ Lofton ] Did you ever go jaguar hunting?

[ Scott ] No, I didn’t.

[ Lofton ] You obviously...

[ Scott ] But I would have it I had been asked, because if you...

[ Lofton ] You would have?

[ Scott ] Oh, certainly. I would rather have died than refuse to go.

[ Lofton ] Oh, I see. Ok. All right. That would have been... it would have raised serious questions.

[ Scott ] Oh, indeed.

[ Lofton ] About you had you said now.

[ Scott ] Absolutely.

[ Saunders ] Yes, better to face the jaguars...

[ Scott ] Absolutely.

[ Saunders ] ... than to be turned down Venezuelans who offered.

[ Scott ] Because the jaguar might miss.

[ Saunders ] And there are many more Venezuelans than there were jaguars.

[ Scott ] Absolutely.

[ Lofton ] Ok. I get it. That is a good answer.

[ multiple voices ]

[ Saunders ] You know, Otto, it... it occurs to me that there might be this whole area of discussion in terms of Central American foreign policy and what have you and South American foreign policy that might be a very, very fruitful area of investigation for you because of your background, having been born... or having lived in ... having your family from Venezuela and et cetera. It might be a very interesting...

[ Rushdoony ] And Argentina, too.

[ Saunders ] Argentina. It might be ... it might be a very important area for investigation.

[ Lofton ] Have you been back lately... or...?

[ Scott ] No, I haven’t. I have... relatives still there.

[ Lofton ] Have you ever though about going back?

[ Scott ] No. I... I was not fond of Latin America. My father was and my grandfather. And ...

[ Lofton ] I am talking about a trip, just a fact finding thing to come back and do a report.

[ Rushdoony ] You were in Nicaragua a few years ago.

[ Scott ] Oh, I was in... I was in Nicaragua just before the blow off there.

[ Lofton ] Oh is that right?

[ Scott ] Oh, yes. I was the last fellow to interview Pedro Joaquin Chamorro who was editor of the {?} and he was an unpleasant fellow. He ... he was very wealthy. He came from the same set as Somoza. They grew up together as boys. And his real problem was that he wanted to be President of Nicaragua. He thought Somoza and his family had served their time. So he was picked up by Castro and he was willing to accept help from anybody, being the wealthy liberal. He saw no danger.

When I got back to San Diego as it happens then and had finished the article, I got a call from Washington saying Pedro Chamorro was shot dead this morning on his way to work. And I said, “Who did it?” And he said, “Three Cubans, his friends.”

And that was the signal for the revolution. Well, Mr. Carter they blamed, of course, Chamorro’s death on Somoza just like they blamed Aquino in the Philippines on Marcos and so forth as though anybody would be dumb enough to kill his most conspicuous enemy and to do it in public.

Well, at any rate Mr. Carter embargoed Nicaragua and Israel broke it... broke the embargo for a while because Venezuela... Nicaragua was one of the few countries to give unrestricted refuge to the victims of Jewish victims of Hitler. And there were 50 very wealthy Jewish families in Nicaragua at the time.

Carter got very sever with Israel over that so Israel stopped and the Somoza’s national guard ran out of bullets. That is how the Sandinistas won. And incidentally one of the things that the Sandinistas did was to confiscate all the property of those 50 Jewish families and throw them out of the country.

[ Rushdoony ] Our time is just about gone. John, anything you would like to say by way of conclusion before we end this session?

[ Lofton ] Well, not really. How is that? It is nice to be out here again. I appreciate you having me on the program.

[ Rushdoony ] Well, we trust your talk this afternoon will go over well and that you will have a safe flight back to Washington, DC...

[ Lofton ] Thank you.

[ Rushdoony ] And the...

[ Voice ] Authorized by the Chalcedon Foundation. Archived by the Mount Olive Tape Library. Digitized by ChristRules.com.