Nixon, Federline and the High-Born

Skip to first unread message

Ilya Shambat

Nov 19, 2021, 3:25:25 PM11/19/21
For a long time I found Richard Nixon to be a very interesting person. I believe that he gets a bad rap. He did a lot of things that the Left should be grateful for. He opened the door to China. He started the EPA. He replaced the conscript army with a professional army. And he was also a loving husband and loving father.

There is however a problem that I have seen about Richard Nixon. It appears that at the core of his motivation was hatred of the high-born. I consider that to be wrong. The high-born did not choose to be high-born. They just happened to be high-born. You do not hate people for something that they have not chosen to be. It's as wrong as hating the Jews or hating the blacks.

I attended a private school on a full scholarship. My parents were immigrants who, being immigrants, weren't as wealthy as most other parents, and a number of people in that school treated me badly. However I have also had negative attention from any number of people who were not high-born, and that included people whom I once lionized: the self-made men. Probably my worst experience with anyone was with two people on the Internet who came from poor backgrounds and made good in the computer industry. Now there are certainly any number of people from high-born who act like jerks; but there are just as many jerks who were not high-born, as any woman who's had to deal with men from the inner city or men from the rural South would tell you.

I once knew a man from a similar background, a Reagan conservative and a millionaire named Gary who married a woman named Julia who was descended from English royalty. He was absolutely horrible to her. We see similar dynamics between Kevin Federline and Brittney Spears. These men appear to be of the opinion that they are better than the “elites.” They think that they have better morals and better understanding of life. Their solution is getting together with the most attractive woman out there and treating her like dirt. That way they get to be part of the elites while considering themselves better than the elites and while wiping their ass with their finest product.

On this matter Nixon made a much better choice than either of the above. He did not go for a princess. He went for a woman whom he could respect as a human being, and he and her had a great marriage. Instead he directed his hatred of the high-born to political pursuits. And he ended up becoming much more powerful than either of the preceding – rightfully.

I was with Julia as well, and I loved her. I wrote her a poetry book that became widely read in DC. I was also married to a woman who was descended from Irish royalty, and we remain on good terms even though we are no longer together. I am attracted to artistic women, and I also like them as people. And that makes a much better basis for relationship than does what Gary or Keven Federline did. As they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

So here we see three different people who came from the same psychology. They were driven by hatred of the high-born. And all of them found ways to be highly destructive. However while Kevin Federline was merely destructive, Nixon accomplished a number of important things, and he also had a good marriage, which neither of the other two were able to do.

All of the above were status-climbers. And status-climbing can be done in any number of ways, some more respectable than others. And while I have respect for Nixon, I have very little for Kevin Federline. As for Gary, he can be commended on his professional successes but not on how he treated his wife.

The position from which these people come is understandable. Understandable however is not the same thing as right. If not for the “elites,” America would not have existed in the first place. The people who founded America were high-born intellectuals. Their ideals made possible for there to be such a thing as America. And for American people to hate such people is to militate against what made America possible in the first place.

Far be it from me to attack the ideal of equality. But when some people are being hated and viciously mistreated for coming from one class rather than the other, someone needs to step in and say that this is wrong. It was wrong for Gary to brutally abuse Julia. It was wrong for Kevin Federline to treat Brittney Spears the way he treated her. And it was wrong for Nixon to make a lifetime cause of attacking the high-born.

Clinton came from humble background as well; but he was not driven by hatred of the high-born. He was one of the most benevolent presidents that America has seen, and under him America gained 23 million private-sector jobs and had the only surplus in decades. Clinton is the proof that men from poor backgrounds do not have to be bullies in order to rise in society. And it is a far more promising direction for people who come from humble backgrounds and seek a better life.

Ilya Shambat
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages