Is Newt a Historian or Propagandist?

     “What is this silly motherfucker yapping about?”

 Reflections on a Lying Fat Fraud

Newt Gingrich tells us that he was paid 1.6 million dollars by the quasi-government mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack for his skills as a “historian.”  But Newt has no standing among professional historians.  Dr. Gerald Horn, the John and Rebecca Moores Professor of History at the University of Houston, the most broadly learned and prolific historian presently writing in America, considers Newt a joke, a shameless poseur.

Newt was paid grand theft dough for peddling his influence with former colleagues; the was a ho for dough!  I regard his claim to be a historian as equally bogus: he is a propagandist!  The difference between the two roles is vast.  Who and what a historian is are questions that only professional colleagues can decide based on the standards they set, and one’s work is evaluated through the process of peer review.

Newt constantly refers to his Ph.D. in history, but that’s a credential: It’s the product that matters.  Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a distinguished historian, never got a Ph.D., and Barbara Tuchman – who twice won the Pulitzer Prize for her historical texts – does not hold a Ph.D. either!  Yet I know of no distinguished…or even important historical studies that are cited by professional historians which were authored by Newt.

He is a pompous poot-butt with a Ph.D.  I say he is full of Bullshit: Piled high and Deep….that’s what Ph.D. means when attached to Newt’s name!  A point of clarification is in order here.  While “Bullshit” is the term of art employed by the untutored in order to describe people with diarrhea of the mouth who constantly talk shit, I am also referencing the term as defined by Princeton Philosopher, Dr. Harry G. Frank, in his learned book on the subject aptly titled “Bullshit.”

When I listen to Newt speak, I hear a master bullshit artist and an unprincipled propagandist who will say anything for political advantage; not a careful objective historian whose motive is ferreting out the truth of the matter by the unbiased judicious weighting of the evidence. The dispassionate reading of the record.

This is fundamental to meeting the standards demanded by professional historians, whose primary objective is a faithful rendering of the past so that we might better understand from whence we have come, in the hope that it might shine some light on how we became what we are today.  And the best of all outcomes would be if that knowledge can help us find a way to a better future!  True historians understand that if we lie about it, or attempt to manipulate the facts, we will have defeated our purpose.

On the other hand there are others who claim the mantle of the historian but are labeled “Special Pleaders” by their peers.  The worst thing one who pretends to practice the historians craft can be called is “a propagandist!”  This is because propaganda perverts the objectives of the honest historian.

Whereas historians are studying the past to cast an objective light on the present, the propagandist distorts the past, even lies about it, in order to justify actions in the present.  It is a perfect definition of what Newt is about. The pompous fat fool is a virtual one man propaganda machine, who shamelessly plunders the past in order to fashion lies and half-truths that will serve his political ambitions.

He is convinced that the vast majority of Americans will have no clue as to whether he knows what he is talking about….and on this he is right.  As the cultural critic/political theorist/historian Harold Cruse pointed out, the average American is “anti-historical, anti-cultural and anti-intellectual.”  Hence a pie faced, poot-butt, pretentious propagandist can pass himself off as “a historian.”

There are an abundance of examples I could cite to demonstrate that Newt is more propagandist than historian; but Newt’s recounting of his relationship with the late icon of modern Republicanism, Ronald Reagan, says it all!  In a recent debate Newt cited Ronald Reagan 50 times, yet researchers have produced a record of Newt’s comments during Reagan’s tenure as President that showed utter contempt for Reagan’s key ideas and policies on critical foreign and domestic issues. For instance, he totally dissed Ronnie’s most significant achievement: Détente with a nuclear armed Soviet Union.

I was no fan of Ronald Reagan’s; in fact I think that Clarke Clifford, the ultimate Washington insider and power broker, got it exactly right when he called Reagan “an amiable dunce!”  But as one who served in the Strategic Air Command with a “Top Secret” security clearance, no one understood better than I the real danger of life on earth being extinguished as a consequence of an accidental nuclear war.

Hence I applauded Reagan’s attempt at Rapprochement with Communist Russia, it removed the world away from the precipice of nuclear disaster.  But that’s how a Reagan hater felt about the Gipper’s diplomacy; what about his contemporary acolyte Dr. Newt?  Writing at the website, The National Review Online, Elliot Abrams, a Reagan insider who was an Assistant Secretary of State, recalls “Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

The outrageousness of this statement is completely lost on the average American – even college educated Americans – but those who study the causes of World War II will recognize just how outrageous a statement that is.  It is a consensus of opinion that Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, failed to recognize the evil of Nazism and instead of confronting him appeased him and this gave Hitler a Red light to invade Europe because he considered chamberlain a wimp.  Reflecting on his meeting with Hitler Neville Chamberlain wrote:

 “However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted.

Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.”

Clearly this was a man trying to avoid a second world war in a generation, but he badly misjudged Hitler’s character and intentions, and disaster ensued.  When events are viewed from the perspective of history hindsight is always 2020, but nobody could have foreseen the full extent of the catastrophe Hitler’s forces inflicted upon the world.

This is the root of the bogus “appeasement” label the Republicans are trying to pin on President Obama…a label that clearly doesn’t fit.  Barack has a record of engaging our enemies that any Commander-In-Chief would be proud to claim. It is the same label that Newt put on Ronnie Reagan.

Hence this was no picayune charge Gingrich leveled against President Reagan, the man he now attempts to channel for legitimacy among right-wing zealots.  But this joker seems to forget there are video tapes, newspapers, radio shows, and living souls who are willing to testify to the perfidy of this shameless charlatan posing as a dedicated public servant.

Reagan insider Elliot Abrams recalls: “As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.”  Enough said, you heard it from the horse’s mouth!  Newt is a lying fat fraud!!!

His attempt to pass off propaganda as history, an exercise in which ideology is substituted for fact, in the Reagan incident, mirrors what he is now attempting to do with President Obama now.   His present knock down drag out fight with Mitt Romney –  who is contesting Newt in the GOP primary for the position of Charlatan in Chief, reveals that he is willing to say anything in his quest for power.  And he is a mouthpiece for hire.  Pay him enough money and he will concoct a version of history to suit your prejudices.

Hence the arch Zionist billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adeslson, promises Newt a few million dollars – 10 mil thus far – for his campaign to win the Oval Office, and Newt comes up with a convoluted interpretation of Middle East history which concludes that “The Palestinians are an “invented people!”  Every professional historian I know scoffs at “Heavy G’s” tirade; they point out that using his standards of evidence and twisted logic it is fairly easy to construct a narrative where the Israeli’s are an “invented people,”  Americans too!

But this  kind of Bullshit is the stock-in-trade of Nasty Newt: a shameless charlatan, and dangerous propagandist who pose as a historian.  The Republican big-wigs know he is a low down dirty Georgia dog; that’s why they are uniting to oppose him and try to wipe him out in Florida.  The Grand Obstructionist Party  is cannibalizing itself and Newt is the Big Barracuda….I love it!  Can’t get enough of it!!!!!!!

Ugly Plastic People

Newt and his Home Wrecking Harlot!



Playthell Benjamin

Harlem, New York

Janurary 27, 2012

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: