This is an extract from the Citizens Informer, official publication of the Council of Conservative Citizens, Vol. 24 No. 3, 1993.
"Ark. Lt. Governor Mike Huckabee, unable to leave Arkansas by law because the Governor was absent from the state, sent a terrific videotape speech, which was viewed and extremely well received by the audience. The celebrities and candidates present were introduced, including Dan Ivy, esq., Republican primary candidate for Arkansas Governor."
Now the Council of Conservative Citizens www.cofcc.org has rejected Huckabee for his stances on the issues. Too bad Huckabee didn't reject the Council of Conservative Citizens then for their stance on the issues.
Someone should see if they can find Arkansas Council of Conservative Citizens publications to see if there was more involvement by Huckabee with the Council of Conservative Citizens.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Ron Paul whistles Dixie
Normally politicians with links to neo-Confederates keep it under the table. George Allen didn't bring it up his fraternization with the Council of Conservative Citizens in his last campaign, and Trent Lott initially denied active involvement with the Council of Conservative Citizens.
However, Ron Paul, on meet the press, was up front with his neo-Confederate beliefs. This is the link to the story and at that web page you can get the entire transcript.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/
I am not surprised by this. If you want to learn about the libertarian wing of the neo-Confederate movement go to http://www.mises.org/ or http://www.lewrockwell.com/.
Not surprisingly, they are big supporters of Ron Paul.
In regards to the historical arguments that Ron Paul makes.
1. There was a proposal to sell the public lands and use the money to purchase the slaves and free them. The State of Georgia was livid over the proposal and fulminated against it, passing a resolution against it.
One reason the United States didn't use funds to free the slaves is that the slave states were against it.
2. Ron Paul comments about the abolition of slavery elsewhere misrepresents history. In Brazil the Imperial Army was called out to support slavery towards the end, and slavery began to end when the army announced that it would refuse to capture runaway slaves.
There was violence against abolitionists in Brazil. The whole process of abolition in Brazil wasn't as peaceful as neo-Confederate apologists like to make out.
However, the thing to consider is that abolition of slavery elsewhere falls under one or more of these five categories.
A. The slave holders in many Latin American countries were a small minority of the larger polity and didn't have the political strength or resources to fight abolitionism and certainly not the resources to carry out an insurrection.
B. Some slave holders were dependent on the larger polity to maintain slavery. Without the British Empire the British West Indies slave holders would not be able to maintain their systems of slavery. When the Empire decided to abolish slavery, they could hardly resist militarily, and being tiny white elites over large slave populations they could hardly risk disorder of any type or the lack of the law supplied by the British empire.
C. Slavery in many cases was abolished after the Civil War as the blockade of trans-Atlantic slave trade became more efficient and slavery couldn't support itself without the easy importation of slaves.
D. Unfortunately, in some cases the abolition of slavery was merely the founding of some other type of bondage, such as peonage.
E. After the American Civil War it was fairly obvious that slavery was on the way out and abolitionism meant modernism for nations.
The United States on the other hand had a body of slave holders that represented a large geographic region of major economic resources with a population to raise an army, they had the means to resist. At the time of the Civil War it wasn't obvious that slavery was the dead past. The trans-Atlantic slave trade was still going since the slave states would block effective American actions against it. The American slave owners were also of violent temperament as shown in the case of Preston Brooks.
The slave states also made it clear from the Constitutional Convention onward that any effort at abolition in their states would result in violent resistance. The proposals to avoid a Civil War during 1861 involved adding more amendments on the Constitution to fasten slavery on America forever. Reading the Crittenden Convention minutes makes you glad that the compromise didn't go through, because it would have eventually resulted in the discrediting and end of America.
It would of course been better that the United States didn't not have a Civil War, but the slave states were committed to violence.
However, Ron Paul, on meet the press, was up front with his neo-Confederate beliefs. This is the link to the story and at that web page you can get the entire transcript.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/
I am not surprised by this. If you want to learn about the libertarian wing of the neo-Confederate movement go to http://www.mises.org/ or http://www.lewrockwell.com/.
Not surprisingly, they are big supporters of Ron Paul.
In regards to the historical arguments that Ron Paul makes.
1. There was a proposal to sell the public lands and use the money to purchase the slaves and free them. The State of Georgia was livid over the proposal and fulminated against it, passing a resolution against it.
One reason the United States didn't use funds to free the slaves is that the slave states were against it.
2. Ron Paul comments about the abolition of slavery elsewhere misrepresents history. In Brazil the Imperial Army was called out to support slavery towards the end, and slavery began to end when the army announced that it would refuse to capture runaway slaves.
There was violence against abolitionists in Brazil. The whole process of abolition in Brazil wasn't as peaceful as neo-Confederate apologists like to make out.
However, the thing to consider is that abolition of slavery elsewhere falls under one or more of these five categories.
A. The slave holders in many Latin American countries were a small minority of the larger polity and didn't have the political strength or resources to fight abolitionism and certainly not the resources to carry out an insurrection.
B. Some slave holders were dependent on the larger polity to maintain slavery. Without the British Empire the British West Indies slave holders would not be able to maintain their systems of slavery. When the Empire decided to abolish slavery, they could hardly resist militarily, and being tiny white elites over large slave populations they could hardly risk disorder of any type or the lack of the law supplied by the British empire.
C. Slavery in many cases was abolished after the Civil War as the blockade of trans-Atlantic slave trade became more efficient and slavery couldn't support itself without the easy importation of slaves.
D. Unfortunately, in some cases the abolition of slavery was merely the founding of some other type of bondage, such as peonage.
E. After the American Civil War it was fairly obvious that slavery was on the way out and abolitionism meant modernism for nations.
The United States on the other hand had a body of slave holders that represented a large geographic region of major economic resources with a population to raise an army, they had the means to resist. At the time of the Civil War it wasn't obvious that slavery was the dead past. The trans-Atlantic slave trade was still going since the slave states would block effective American actions against it. The American slave owners were also of violent temperament as shown in the case of Preston Brooks.
The slave states also made it clear from the Constitutional Convention onward that any effort at abolition in their states would result in violent resistance. The proposals to avoid a Civil War during 1861 involved adding more amendments on the Constitution to fasten slavery on America forever. Reading the Crittenden Convention minutes makes you glad that the compromise didn't go through, because it would have eventually resulted in the discrediting and end of America.
It would of course been better that the United States didn't not have a Civil War, but the slave states were committed to violence.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Interesting article from Charleston "City Paper'
An interesting article from the Charleston "City Paper"
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A37621
It shows how selective and self-serving neo-Confederate heritage is.
I see that I have had quite a break in my blogging. Busy writing and writing and writing.
Got a copy from one of my co-editors of the final manuscript going to the publishers with the acknowledgements and table of contents etc. all put together. It will appear in the Fall 2008 catalog of a major university press.
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A37621
It shows how selective and self-serving neo-Confederate heritage is.
I see that I have had quite a break in my blogging. Busy writing and writing and writing.
Got a copy from one of my co-editors of the final manuscript going to the publishers with the acknowledgements and table of contents etc. all put together. It will appear in the Fall 2008 catalog of a major university press.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Screening Trial venues for white supremacy
Defense attorneys, when they have a minority client do screen prospective jurors for membership in the KKK and other like groups. However, they don't screen for banal white nationalism. www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm
For example is the juror a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, United Daughters of the Confederacy. It is a fairly obvious screening for a public defender to do, and one has to ask why isn't it being done. Is the public defender defending the client or defending his or her career?
Well, it seems that Wesley Snipes' lawyers are doing their job and screening a venue for banal white nationalism as reported in this article.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-snipes0907nov09,0,7302864.story
http://www.wftv.com/news/14539134/detail.html?rss=orlc&psp=irresistible
Of course the local leaders are bawling about how it is not a fair characterization of their community.
Seems rather obvious, in an area where they celebrate the white nationalist Confederacy an African American won't get a fair trial because the jury pool is full of white nationalists.
I would also like to see public defenders question jurors on their attitudes towards the Confederacy.
Also, why aren't judges screened also? If they are members of neo-Confederate groups, why should anyone suffer to have them a judge in their trial, black or white?
This brings up the larger question of what is the relationship of the citizen to Confederate identified government. If the municipality is Confederate identified should they not be treated as an occupier and not something you belong to? You will pay your taxes as a practical necessity, but give no more than what is the law. However, for what you are able to withhold, you will.
I think that jurors should consider the trial carefully. Does the public defender screen for banal white nationalism in the jurors, or is the public defender just following the established methods and defending his or her career. Did the public defender check the background of the judge?
If not, then the juror ought to consider if it is fair trial and act accordingly. If our so-called public defenders can't do their job, they someone needs to.
For example is the juror a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, United Daughters of the Confederacy. It is a fairly obvious screening for a public defender to do, and one has to ask why isn't it being done. Is the public defender defending the client or defending his or her career?
Well, it seems that Wesley Snipes' lawyers are doing their job and screening a venue for banal white nationalism as reported in this article.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-snipes0907nov09,0,7302864.story
http://www.wftv.com/news/14539134/detail.html?rss=orlc&psp=irresistible
Of course the local leaders are bawling about how it is not a fair characterization of their community.
Seems rather obvious, in an area where they celebrate the white nationalist Confederacy an African American won't get a fair trial because the jury pool is full of white nationalists.
I would also like to see public defenders question jurors on their attitudes towards the Confederacy.
Also, why aren't judges screened also? If they are members of neo-Confederate groups, why should anyone suffer to have them a judge in their trial, black or white?
This brings up the larger question of what is the relationship of the citizen to Confederate identified government. If the municipality is Confederate identified should they not be treated as an occupier and not something you belong to? You will pay your taxes as a practical necessity, but give no more than what is the law. However, for what you are able to withhold, you will.
I think that jurors should consider the trial carefully. Does the public defender screen for banal white nationalism in the jurors, or is the public defender just following the established methods and defending his or her career. Did the public defender check the background of the judge?
If not, then the juror ought to consider if it is fair trial and act accordingly. If our so-called public defenders can't do their job, they someone needs to.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Local Republican candidate in Virginia in trouble for SCV involvement
The story is here:
http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2033&Itemid=33
The Republican is Joe May, you may want to use the Find function to find the paragraph of interest.
It is good to see that the Democrats are finally picking up on the issue of Neo-Confederacy in their campaigns and not deferring to the Lost Cause. Also, good is to see that local papers are reporting Republican involvement with Neo-Confederacy.
On the other hand, the Dallas Morning News is giving a neo-Confederate a free pass in this story.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-patterson_03tex.ART.North.Edition1.428a24a.html
http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2033&Itemid=33
The Republican is Joe May, you may want to use the Find function to find the paragraph of interest.
It is good to see that the Democrats are finally picking up on the issue of Neo-Confederacy in their campaigns and not deferring to the Lost Cause. Also, good is to see that local papers are reporting Republican involvement with Neo-Confederacy.
On the other hand, the Dallas Morning News is giving a neo-Confederate a free pass in this story.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-patterson_03tex.ART.North.Edition1.428a24a.html
Friday, November 02, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
National Secession convention, isn't that self-contradictory?
There has been a lot of reporting on a "national secession convention." Isn't that self-contradictory? By making it a "national" activity, aren't they admitting that they are just playing games within the "national" context. A North American secession convention might make sense, or an anti-national convention might make sense. However, secession is about leaving a nation and not being national at all.
What I see is some "Ruritanian" fantasy playing. "What if we had our own toy Republic," is the fantasy without considering that when the day is over, you are on your own.
What I see is some "Ruritanian" fantasy playing. "What if we had our own toy Republic," is the fantasy without considering that when the day is over, you are on your own.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
They eat their own. Another SCV faction fight. James-Younger Camp, a real piece of work.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has this report on the latest factional fighting in the SCV between far-right and farther-right factions. The farther right it seems is called the "lunatics" in the Neo-Confederate movement, a very apt name.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=813
Look at the lead photo. As you might imagine, the current Commander-in-Chief, Christopher Sullivan, editor of the Southern Partisan, a Neo-Confederate publication, doesn't want this group to be the public face of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).
Especially since they were T-shirts promoting the Turner Diaries, a race war white supremacist novel as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=637
The Lunatic faction is actually calling Sullivan a "granny" which is a term of derision for those who are not seen as neo-Confederate enough.
This will be a destructive conflict of the entire Neo-Confederate movement. The first phase of the fighting will be in the SCV. One faction will be the Neo-Confederates who realize that if the James-Younger Camp is the face of the SCV, the organization is finished for credibility. If they win, the SCV will be pitted against the Southern Partisan and it will be a competition who is the most Neo-Confederate and true. This competition will involve attacks on the Southern Partisan as being politically correct etc. and pressuring it to take ever more extreme positions.
Even if the "lunatics" as the more Neo-Confederate faction is called, fails to take over the SCV, it will result in an ongoing conflict in the SCV and against the Southern Partisan for years. Every organization will be forced to attempt to navigating between these extremes. The League of the South http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/index.shtml (LOS) will have to choose which side to be on. The LOS was one of the groups that attacked the old "moderate" leadership and was a force in the SCV take over. It will be ironic to see the LOS attacked by the very extreme forces it unleashed.
As for Christopher M. Sullivan, I can't think of a more appropriate person to have to face attacks by the Lunatics.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=813
Look at the lead photo. As you might imagine, the current Commander-in-Chief, Christopher Sullivan, editor of the Southern Partisan, a Neo-Confederate publication, doesn't want this group to be the public face of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).
Especially since they were T-shirts promoting the Turner Diaries, a race war white supremacist novel as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=637
The Lunatic faction is actually calling Sullivan a "granny" which is a term of derision for those who are not seen as neo-Confederate enough.
This will be a destructive conflict of the entire Neo-Confederate movement. The first phase of the fighting will be in the SCV. One faction will be the Neo-Confederates who realize that if the James-Younger Camp is the face of the SCV, the organization is finished for credibility. If they win, the SCV will be pitted against the Southern Partisan and it will be a competition who is the most Neo-Confederate and true. This competition will involve attacks on the Southern Partisan as being politically correct etc. and pressuring it to take ever more extreme positions.
Even if the "lunatics" as the more Neo-Confederate faction is called, fails to take over the SCV, it will result in an ongoing conflict in the SCV and against the Southern Partisan for years. Every organization will be forced to attempt to navigating between these extremes. The League of the South http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/index.shtml (LOS) will have to choose which side to be on. The LOS was one of the groups that attacked the old "moderate" leadership and was a force in the SCV take over. It will be ironic to see the LOS attacked by the very extreme forces it unleashed.
As for Christopher M. Sullivan, I can't think of a more appropriate person to have to face attacks by the Lunatics.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Questions for the Presidential Candidates./ Is Ron Paul really a friend of the Confederacy.
I came up with 25 questions for the presidential candidates regarding Neo-Confederacy. What I am putting in this blog is just the draft versions. I will try to get them in the mail this month.
A lot of Neo-Confederates think Ron Paul is their friend. I wonder if Ron Paul will be willing to answer these questions and how would he answer. I think most of the candidates, Republican and Democrat would not want to answer these issues, but I would think that Ron Paul, who is supposed to be something other than a usual politician would be glad to answer these questions. Or maybe not.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON NEO-CONFEDERACY
Though these questions are written for a yes, no answer, please feel free to elaborate on them or give an answer other than yes or no, either in the space provided beneath the question or with an attached sheet of paper. Please make sure if an attached sheet of paper is used, it is clear to which question you are responding.
1. Are you a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
2. Would you nominate for attorney general someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
3. Would you nominate for attorney general someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
4. For other cabinet positions would you nominate someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
5. For other cabinet positions would you nominate someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
6. Would you nominate for the Supreme Court or some other Federal judgeship someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
7. Would you nominate for the Supreme Court or some other Federal judgeship someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
8. Would you nominate for the United States Commission on Civil Rights someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
9. Would you nominate for the United States Commission on Civil Rights someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
10. Would you nominate to the National Endowment for the Humanities or other such Federal boards regarding arts, crafts, cultural activities, and the humanities someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
11. Would you nominate to the National Endowment for the Humanities or other such Federal boards regarding arts, crafts, cultural activities, and the humanities someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
12. Would you nominate for an ambassadorship someone who was a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
13. Would you nominate for an ambassadorship someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
14. As President would you allow the participation of the United States military in Neo-Confederate events?
15. As President would you place a wreath at the Arlington Confederate Memorial or other Confederate memorial?
16. As President would you accept awards from Neo-Confederate organizations?
17. As President would you attend events held by Neo-Confederate organizations?
18. As President would you send letters of commendation, congratulations or similar to Neo-Confederate organizations?
19. As President would you observe a Confederate holiday?
20. As President would you display Confederate symbols at the White House?
21. As President would you display or commemorate Confederate leaders in the White House?
22. As President would you allow a United States ship to be named after a Confederate leader?
23. As President would you allow a United States public building, park, or public facility to be named after a Confederate leader?
24. As President would you allow a stamp to be issued by the United States Postal Service commemorating a Confederate leader?
25. As President would you allow a coin to be issued by the United States Mint commemorating a Confederate leader?
A lot of Neo-Confederates think Ron Paul is their friend. I wonder if Ron Paul will be willing to answer these questions and how would he answer. I think most of the candidates, Republican and Democrat would not want to answer these issues, but I would think that Ron Paul, who is supposed to be something other than a usual politician would be glad to answer these questions. Or maybe not.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON NEO-CONFEDERACY
Though these questions are written for a yes, no answer, please feel free to elaborate on them or give an answer other than yes or no, either in the space provided beneath the question or with an attached sheet of paper. Please make sure if an attached sheet of paper is used, it is clear to which question you are responding.
1. Are you a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
2. Would you nominate for attorney general someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
3. Would you nominate for attorney general someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
4. For other cabinet positions would you nominate someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
5. For other cabinet positions would you nominate someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
6. Would you nominate for the Supreme Court or some other Federal judgeship someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
7. Would you nominate for the Supreme Court or some other Federal judgeship someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
8. Would you nominate for the United States Commission on Civil Rights someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
9. Would you nominate for the United States Commission on Civil Rights someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
10. Would you nominate to the National Endowment for the Humanities or other such Federal boards regarding arts, crafts, cultural activities, and the humanities someone who is a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
11. Would you nominate to the National Endowment for the Humanities or other such Federal boards regarding arts, crafts, cultural activities, and the humanities someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
12. Would you nominate for an ambassadorship someone who was a member, honorary or otherwise, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens or other neo-Confederate organization?
13. Would you nominate for an ambassadorship someone who has lent support to the Neo-Confederate movement or is otherwise active in it?
14. As President would you allow the participation of the United States military in Neo-Confederate events?
15. As President would you place a wreath at the Arlington Confederate Memorial or other Confederate memorial?
16. As President would you accept awards from Neo-Confederate organizations?
17. As President would you attend events held by Neo-Confederate organizations?
18. As President would you send letters of commendation, congratulations or similar to Neo-Confederate organizations?
19. As President would you observe a Confederate holiday?
20. As President would you display Confederate symbols at the White House?
21. As President would you display or commemorate Confederate leaders in the White House?
22. As President would you allow a United States ship to be named after a Confederate leader?
23. As President would you allow a United States public building, park, or public facility to be named after a Confederate leader?
24. As President would you allow a stamp to be issued by the United States Postal Service commemorating a Confederate leader?
25. As President would you allow a coin to be issued by the United States Mint commemorating a Confederate leader?
Monday, October 01, 2007
Son of Confederate Veterans (SCV) goes Christian Reconstructionist
They now have a Chaplains Corp newsletter and have announced a religious political program of action which you can read in the following newsletter which is online.
http://www.scv.org/documents/ChaplainsChronicleSept07.pdf
The editorial, lead article of the newsletter, asks the members to work "to establish the rule of Christianity in America." The call for this is by the Chaplain-in-Chief of the SCV, originally made in the Confederate Veteran, the official publication of the SCV.
The general web page for this newsletter and evidently for the Chaplain Corps itself is at this web page.
http://www.scv.org/chaplainsChronicle.php
The idea of the Civil War as a holy war is in an article by Mark W. Evans.
My article on the Confederate Christians is online at this web page:
http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf
It was published by the Canadian Review for American Studies at the Univ. of Toronto.
http://www.scv.org/documents/ChaplainsChronicleSept07.pdf
The editorial, lead article of the newsletter, asks the members to work "to establish the rule of Christianity in America." The call for this is by the Chaplain-in-Chief of the SCV, originally made in the Confederate Veteran, the official publication of the SCV.
The general web page for this newsletter and evidently for the Chaplain Corps itself is at this web page.
http://www.scv.org/chaplainsChronicle.php
The idea of the Civil War as a holy war is in an article by Mark W. Evans.
My article on the Confederate Christians is online at this web page:
http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf
It was published by the Canadian Review for American Studies at the Univ. of Toronto.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Ron Paul's Speeches for Lew Rockwell.
Ron Paul is turning out to be the favorite of Neo-Confederates at such websites as:
www.lewrockwell.com , www.southerncaucus.org (Dixie Daily News) and others.
They have all his speeches which were posted on www.lewrockwell.com available on CD. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-speeches.html
I am not sure how the Republican presidential candidates are faring. It seems that there isn't real enthusiasm among Republicans for most of them. I think Ron Paul represents a fair segment of grass roots Republican attitudes. It will be interesting if he can achieve some type of breakthrough where is he one of the front runners.
Interesting is that the Neo-Confederates report that Fox News hates him. I am afraid that some reflexive (reacting) liberals and leftists will think that Ron Paul is a good thing.
There is still considerable time left before the primaries and the situation is still fluid. I think it might become a situation where there is Romney representing the non-ideological faction. Whether the ideological candidate will be Ron Paul, I have no way of knowing.
www.lewrockwell.com , www.southerncaucus.org (Dixie Daily News) and others.
They have all his speeches which were posted on www.lewrockwell.com available on CD. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-speeches.html
I am not sure how the Republican presidential candidates are faring. It seems that there isn't real enthusiasm among Republicans for most of them. I think Ron Paul represents a fair segment of grass roots Republican attitudes. It will be interesting if he can achieve some type of breakthrough where is he one of the front runners.
Interesting is that the Neo-Confederates report that Fox News hates him. I am afraid that some reflexive (reacting) liberals and leftists will think that Ron Paul is a good thing.
There is still considerable time left before the primaries and the situation is still fluid. I think it might become a situation where there is Romney representing the non-ideological faction. Whether the ideological candidate will be Ron Paul, I have no way of knowing.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Merril Lynch involved in fund raising effort to honor Ku Klux Klan Leader
You can read it here in a report of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, SCV.
http://www.scv.org/pdf/2007SCVBookOfReports.pdf
It is in the FORREST BOYHOOD HOME COMMITTEE report.
Gene Andrews reports:
"Our Forrest Homecoming and Southern Heritage Festival raised over $4,300.00 on the 23rd of June and we have over $5,000.00 in our Merrill Lynch Forrest Home Account."
The Neo-Confederates are able to advance due to the complicity of many institutions.
http://www.scv.org/pdf/2007SCVBookOfReports.pdf
It is in the FORREST BOYHOOD HOME COMMITTEE report.
Gene Andrews reports:
"Our Forrest Homecoming and Southern Heritage Festival raised over $4,300.00 on the 23rd of June and we have over $5,000.00 in our Merrill Lynch Forrest Home Account."
The Neo-Confederates are able to advance due to the complicity of many institutions.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Catholic Church hosts Neo-Confederate ceremony
The SCV convention this year was in Mobile, Alabama. They had a service for a former crewman of the CSS Alabama at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Mobile, Alabama. http://www.mobilecathedral.org/index.php
They had pictures of the service available for sale online. http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/ and I direct your attention to these photos, the first one listed in particular.
http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/memsvc/source/memsvc-229.html
http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/memsvc/source/memsvc-232.html
http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/memsvc/source/memsvc-273.html
http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/memsvc/source/memsvc-274.html
It brings into question how seriously the Catholic Church supports civil rights.
Is your church collaborating with the Confederacy? Don't be so sure that it isn't, or that a co-religionist isn't a Confederate enthusiast.
They had pictures of the service available for sale online. http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/ and I direct your attention to these photos, the first one listed in particular.
http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/memsvc/source/memsvc-229.html
http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/memsvc/source/memsvc-232.html
http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/memsvc/source/memsvc-273.html
http://www.myshotz.com/pics/cssal/memsvc/source/memsvc-274.html
It brings into question how seriously the Catholic Church supports civil rights.
Is your church collaborating with the Confederacy? Don't be so sure that it isn't, or that a co-religionist isn't a Confederate enthusiast.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Jos. A. Banks and others, Corporations working with Neo-Confederacy
At this link you can see the companies working with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
http://www.scv.org/benefits.php
Maybe Jos. A. Banks will offer Confederate uniforms. They are listed towards the bottom of the page.
I see that Enterprise car rental is involved also.
http://www.scv.org/benefits.php
Maybe Jos. A. Banks will offer Confederate uniforms. They are listed towards the bottom of the page.
I see that Enterprise car rental is involved also.
Corporations working with Neo-Confederacy
They may not take American Express at slave markets, but they might take Confederate Visa cards. check this web page out.
http://www.scv.org/creditCard.php
http://www.scv.org/creditCard.php
Monday, August 20, 2007
Neo-Confederates & a Financial Crash
Despite all the cheery talk and optimistic pronouncements of the last few months, it is fairly apparent that the financial markets are in real trouble. It seems that the theory was that if you created really complex financial instruments out of bad loans that they were then some how not bad loans. That you could spin gold out of straw by making financial instruments so complex few people understand them.
Also, that ever disastrous method of speculation, leverage, was used heavily and extensively.
Amusing as it is to watch the pretensions of various speakers of nonsense come tumbling down, it does have implications for American politics of a serious nature if the economy crashes. More specifically for crack pot and extremist political groups.
Extreme groups are fascinated by potential break downs of society. They see signs of it everywhere, and they are the prey of the sellers of gold. Though I am not really sure what I would do with gold coins in a meltdown of society or the economy. Would a grocer accept a gold coin, how could he know it was gold and how would he price it? If someone offered me a gold coin, how would I know how much it weighed, what percentage of gold it was (fineness, or carats) and whether I was being cheated by a coin with a base metal core? However, extremists are often gold bugs.
Extremists, or any outgroup with different ideas on how to run society and the economy, can find themselves locked out if society and the economy seems to be working fairly well. Outgroups, extreme and otherwise are not likely to get very far with their ideas as long as things work well. With a disaster, the mainstream ideas become discredited in the minds of many, and there is the opportunity for alternative ideas to get a hearing. Indeed, if there is a disaster, alternative ideas should be considered and will be. If it is obvious that the current way of running things doesn't work, then a better method does need to be found.
HOWEVER, the discrediting of one crazy idea doesn't justify another. So of the many alternatives that might be proposed, the challenge is to find the better alternative and shut out the ideas of crazies, extremists, and crack pots.
The Neo-Confederates are very adept at pointing out that some things that are said by people in positions of authority is rubbish. So do a lot of other people who aren't extremists or crazies. Of course the Neo-Confederates explain current problems in the frame work of their ideology. To them society and the economy have these problems because government, society, etc. has been set on the wrong path due to the results of the Civil War and the failure of the United States to follow the ides of their Neo-Confederate conceptualized South, that is a reactionary ideology with "orthodox" Christianity.
However, with there being a crash in the economy, alternative ideas, whether extreme or reasonable will tend to get a hearing. The representatives of mainstream ideas become discredited and unable to defend the status quo, indeed they may be tied up with just defending themselves.
History has abundant examples of this, where disaster overturns the old order and opens the opportunity for negative as well as postive change. Regarding negative change, it would be very unlikely that the communists would have taken over Russia without World War I and the disasterous handling of it by the Czar. The communists would not have likely taken over China without World War II. Other historical regime changes could be sited.
Positive developments are often only enabled through a crash of the old order. The Republicans had run the country for most of the time since the Civil War up to the Great Depression. It was a time of a cyclical economy with big crashes. However, in 1929, there was a really big crash. In 1932 the Democrats won 3/4ths of the seats in the House of Representatives.
I have always tended to think that claims of impending economic doom are the follies of right wing extremists. Ever since 1960s before I went to college and since, I have run across some prediction of economic doom frequently with the offer to sell gold coins. However, I do wonder what is going to happen this time. It isn't just the subprime market.
My conceptualization is that the economy has been kept afloat by cheap credit and dubious financial speculations and financial instruments. The credit is a way to recycle the trade deficit dollars. That is the money goes to East Asia and elsewhere and it is loaned back to the United States, so the economy can keep running. It seems the economy now days is mostly retail, financial things, and housing, and not much in actually producing things. I see the housing market as just one way of recycling the trade deficit. The money then would run through the economy to suppliers, workers, financial institutions, etc. and keep the economy afloat.
With the collapse of cheap credit, how does the money get recycled, besides China and Japan deciding to just give us the money to spend again?
I guess the Federal Reserve can just flood the economy with money to make it easier for banks ect. to meet their obligations and lower interest rates, but wouldn't it result in inflation? Also, wouldn't the dollar fall? Might it block the recycling of the trade deficit?
If there isn't a recycling of the trade deficit, wouldn't there be an unwinding of the whole economy.
I am not a trained economist, but what I do know is that the economic establishment, various financial news reporting organizations just crank out optimism like so much ground sausage. I don't trust the various economic authority figures. I think a lot of them are shills for the financial markets. I think CNN must have a Sunshine and Silver Linings group. It may be that the economy will have a few hiccups and go on. However, I tend not to think so.
The trade deficit of 600 to 700 billion dollars a year requires that many nations are willing to reinvest it all in the United States and keep it here. At some point this won't be sustainable. With the problems in the credit markets how do these countries recycle their money. How many U.S. Treasury bonds do they need? Why would they invest in things of declining value, valued in a declining currency.
I think we live in a sort of bubble economy beyond just the housing markets. However, like I said it might be that we have a just a period of economic turbulence like we have during the Savings & Loan crisis. Though during the Savings & Loan crisis the United States wasn't massively dependent on foreign credit, China was still Red China, and the cold war was on, where would investors put their money?
If instead, we have a real economic disaster, massive unemployment, I think we can expect that extremists will flourish, including Neo-Confederates. In fact, I think that the Neo-Confederates will do better than a lot of extremist groups, since the Neo-Confederates avoid presenting an image with the markings of extremism. It could be a world where American Conservative was the mainstream magazine of conservatism and National Review the descredited journal of conservatism.
There would be an impact on the left also. Socialists might make a comeback. Or what I think is more likely, some new ideology might arise to challenge capitolism.
All in all it would not be good. Probably the governments will find a way out of this mess and muddle through, lets hope so.
Also, that ever disastrous method of speculation, leverage, was used heavily and extensively.
Amusing as it is to watch the pretensions of various speakers of nonsense come tumbling down, it does have implications for American politics of a serious nature if the economy crashes. More specifically for crack pot and extremist political groups.
Extreme groups are fascinated by potential break downs of society. They see signs of it everywhere, and they are the prey of the sellers of gold. Though I am not really sure what I would do with gold coins in a meltdown of society or the economy. Would a grocer accept a gold coin, how could he know it was gold and how would he price it? If someone offered me a gold coin, how would I know how much it weighed, what percentage of gold it was (fineness, or carats) and whether I was being cheated by a coin with a base metal core? However, extremists are often gold bugs.
Extremists, or any outgroup with different ideas on how to run society and the economy, can find themselves locked out if society and the economy seems to be working fairly well. Outgroups, extreme and otherwise are not likely to get very far with their ideas as long as things work well. With a disaster, the mainstream ideas become discredited in the minds of many, and there is the opportunity for alternative ideas to get a hearing. Indeed, if there is a disaster, alternative ideas should be considered and will be. If it is obvious that the current way of running things doesn't work, then a better method does need to be found.
HOWEVER, the discrediting of one crazy idea doesn't justify another. So of the many alternatives that might be proposed, the challenge is to find the better alternative and shut out the ideas of crazies, extremists, and crack pots.
The Neo-Confederates are very adept at pointing out that some things that are said by people in positions of authority is rubbish. So do a lot of other people who aren't extremists or crazies. Of course the Neo-Confederates explain current problems in the frame work of their ideology. To them society and the economy have these problems because government, society, etc. has been set on the wrong path due to the results of the Civil War and the failure of the United States to follow the ides of their Neo-Confederate conceptualized South, that is a reactionary ideology with "orthodox" Christianity.
However, with there being a crash in the economy, alternative ideas, whether extreme or reasonable will tend to get a hearing. The representatives of mainstream ideas become discredited and unable to defend the status quo, indeed they may be tied up with just defending themselves.
History has abundant examples of this, where disaster overturns the old order and opens the opportunity for negative as well as postive change. Regarding negative change, it would be very unlikely that the communists would have taken over Russia without World War I and the disasterous handling of it by the Czar. The communists would not have likely taken over China without World War II. Other historical regime changes could be sited.
Positive developments are often only enabled through a crash of the old order. The Republicans had run the country for most of the time since the Civil War up to the Great Depression. It was a time of a cyclical economy with big crashes. However, in 1929, there was a really big crash. In 1932 the Democrats won 3/4ths of the seats in the House of Representatives.
I have always tended to think that claims of impending economic doom are the follies of right wing extremists. Ever since 1960s before I went to college and since, I have run across some prediction of economic doom frequently with the offer to sell gold coins. However, I do wonder what is going to happen this time. It isn't just the subprime market.
My conceptualization is that the economy has been kept afloat by cheap credit and dubious financial speculations and financial instruments. The credit is a way to recycle the trade deficit dollars. That is the money goes to East Asia and elsewhere and it is loaned back to the United States, so the economy can keep running. It seems the economy now days is mostly retail, financial things, and housing, and not much in actually producing things. I see the housing market as just one way of recycling the trade deficit. The money then would run through the economy to suppliers, workers, financial institutions, etc. and keep the economy afloat.
With the collapse of cheap credit, how does the money get recycled, besides China and Japan deciding to just give us the money to spend again?
I guess the Federal Reserve can just flood the economy with money to make it easier for banks ect. to meet their obligations and lower interest rates, but wouldn't it result in inflation? Also, wouldn't the dollar fall? Might it block the recycling of the trade deficit?
If there isn't a recycling of the trade deficit, wouldn't there be an unwinding of the whole economy.
I am not a trained economist, but what I do know is that the economic establishment, various financial news reporting organizations just crank out optimism like so much ground sausage. I don't trust the various economic authority figures. I think a lot of them are shills for the financial markets. I think CNN must have a Sunshine and Silver Linings group. It may be that the economy will have a few hiccups and go on. However, I tend not to think so.
The trade deficit of 600 to 700 billion dollars a year requires that many nations are willing to reinvest it all in the United States and keep it here. At some point this won't be sustainable. With the problems in the credit markets how do these countries recycle their money. How many U.S. Treasury bonds do they need? Why would they invest in things of declining value, valued in a declining currency.
I think we live in a sort of bubble economy beyond just the housing markets. However, like I said it might be that we have a just a period of economic turbulence like we have during the Savings & Loan crisis. Though during the Savings & Loan crisis the United States wasn't massively dependent on foreign credit, China was still Red China, and the cold war was on, where would investors put their money?
If instead, we have a real economic disaster, massive unemployment, I think we can expect that extremists will flourish, including Neo-Confederates. In fact, I think that the Neo-Confederates will do better than a lot of extremist groups, since the Neo-Confederates avoid presenting an image with the markings of extremism. It could be a world where American Conservative was the mainstream magazine of conservatism and National Review the descredited journal of conservatism.
There would be an impact on the left also. Socialists might make a comeback. Or what I think is more likely, some new ideology might arise to challenge capitolism.
All in all it would not be good. Probably the governments will find a way out of this mess and muddle through, lets hope so.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
U.S. House Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) attends John Randolph Club event
U.S. House Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) attends John Randolph Club event which you can read about at this link:
http://rockfordinstitute.org/events/?p=8#more-8
John Randolph was a anti-democratic reactionary crank and pro-slavery advocate and racist. I have read one of his lengthy speeches in the Congressional Record. It is interesting since it is the essential Neo-Confederate philosophy.
The following is a link to the online Congressional Record from 1774 to 1874, a very good online resource. You can read a speech by John Randolph given in the Senate:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html
The speech is on March 1st and 2nd, 1826, 19th Congress, 1st session, Gales & Seaton's Register of Debates in Congress.
Unfortunately it doesn't give you links to pages. They really ought to make it available on CD and extend the Congressional Record to the present.
http://rockfordinstitute.org/events/?p=8#more-8
John Randolph was a anti-democratic reactionary crank and pro-slavery advocate and racist. I have read one of his lengthy speeches in the Congressional Record. It is interesting since it is the essential Neo-Confederate philosophy.
The following is a link to the online Congressional Record from 1774 to 1874, a very good online resource. You can read a speech by John Randolph given in the Senate:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html
The speech is on March 1st and 2nd, 1826, 19th Congress, 1st session, Gales & Seaton's Register of Debates in Congress.
Unfortunately it doesn't give you links to pages. They really ought to make it available on CD and extend the Congressional Record to the present.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Campaigned against the Confederate flag in 1968, obituary in the "Washington Post."
Campaigned against the Confederate flag in 1968, obituary in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/10/AR2007081002268.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/10/AR2007081002268.html
Saturday, August 04, 2007
The Politically Confederate guide to Thomas E. Woods, Jr. OR Two dozen things you should know about Woods' history
I have finally done a Thomas E. Woods page with his full Neo-Confederate publishing record. He also was and editor for Latin Mass and wrote some real reactionary things.
I have it online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/ThomasEWoods.htm
I will include it here also. Though it is much better organized on the webpage.
Thomas E. Wood's Neo-Confederate Curriculum Vitae
In reviewing Thomas E. Woods' web site http://www.thomasewoods.com/ I noticed that many of his essays published in Southern Partisan and Southern Patriot, the latter the publication of the League of the South, <http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php>, are not mentioned. Also, his articles in Chronicles are missing. To remedy this deficiency I have written this web page. (Editing in progress, I am going to add the full page range and also vol. and no. in some cases and some description of contents.) An article on the Confederate Christian nationalists is online at: http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf; “The U.S. Civil War as a Theological Struggle: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South," Canadian Review of American Studies, vol. 32 (3) 253-283
ARTICLES
Southern Partisan Note: The system of naming the issues changes over time.
Vol. 16, 1st Quarter 1996, page 48-49, book review of "Derailing the Constitution" by Edward B. McLean, editor. Upset that one of the contributors to this volume thinks the 14th amendment to the constitution was a good thing in a criticism of Indiana University Professor William F. Harvey. Woods in particular doesn't think the application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th amendment is a good thing and thinks Harvey is wrong for saying so. Sees Radical Republicans destroyed the constitution during the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Vol. 17, 2nd Quarter 1997, page 26-29, "Christendom's Last Stand." Cover Article. Sees Civil War as a theological war between an Orthodox Christian south and a heretical North. See Canadian Review of American Studies article above.
2nd Quarter 2001, page 16, "Sitting Amidst The Ruins: The South Versus the Enlightenment." Cover Article. The table of contents of the magazine aptly summarizes the article as follows, "Professor Woods explains how the South and the Enlightenment are at odds, and the Age of Reason is destroying civilization."
4th Quarter 2001, page 12, "A New Strategy Against Terrorism."
Sept. - Oct. 2002, page 31-34, book review of "Revolt from the Heartland" by Joseph Scotchie. About paleoconservatives versus neoconservatives. Woods sees Lincoln having given America a mission of equality which he thinks is a negative development.
Vol. 24 Vol. 1, page 27-29, book review of "Speaking of Liberty" by Lew Rockwell. Praise for Lew Rockwell's book. Lew Rockwell has a web site http://www.lewrockwell.com/ and he is the head of the Ludwig von Mises Institute http://www.mises.org/ which is neo-Confederate. Woods is a frequent contributor to the Lew Rockwell website. Woods reviews book from Neo-Confederate perspective.
Vol. 24 No. 5, page 30-31, book review of "Reclaiming Liberty" by James Ronald Kennedy, Pelican Publishing. They have a web page for their books at http://www.kennedytwins.com/. Kennedy is one of the major founding figures in the Neo-Confederate movement.
Vol. 26 No. 2, page 20-21, book review of "Lincoln Unmasked: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, published by Random House/Crown Forum. Praises book enthusiastically. Woods claims that Hitler was a fan of Lincoln. Sees legacy of Lincoln as tyranny of a centralized state.
Southern Patriot (official publication of the League of the South)
Woods was a founding member of the League of the South, then known as the Southern League, from Vol. 1 No. 1, page 7, and was on the membership committee.
Vol. 2 No. 1 - Jan.-Feb. 1995, page 3-5, "Copperheads" About northern conservatives who he sees as supporters of what he sees as southern conservatism, which is posed as Orthodox Christianity versus Northern heresy. Feels 14th Amendment is "ill-begotten" and abused by "militant egalitarians." Feels that "No Northerner who makes any pretence to conservatism can therefore fail to sympathize with the South," such as the Southern Agrarians and John C. Calhoun.
Vol. 2. No. 5 - Sept. - Oct. 1995, page 36-37, "The Abolitionists," Portrays them as murderous revolutionaries.
Speaker at the 3rd Annual League of the South convention announced in Vol. 3 No. 2, outside back cover.
Audio Tapes of Speaking Engagements with Neo-Confederate groups.
2003 Confederate Heritage Conference (13th) : Richard Weaver: Historian of the South
Apologia Books http://www.apologiabooks.com/
2003
2003 Confederate Heritage Conference (13th) : The Philosophical Legacy of Abraham Lincoln
Apologia Books http://www.apologiabooks.com/
2003
3rd Annual Southern League National Conference - Christendom's Last Stand
All Points South, Inc. http://pointsouth.com/index.htm Currently this tape is sold by Apologia Books.
1996
League of the South - 1998 Convention in Birmingham - The Spirit of the South vs. The Spirit of this Age
All Points South, Inc. http://pointsouth.com/index.htm Currently this tape is sold by Apologia Books.
1998
The above tapes are still for sale from Apologia Books.
United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine
Vol. 57 No. 5, May 1994, page 27, by a Tom Woods, reprinted from Peninsula Magazine, November 1993 at Harvard, titled "Peninsula's Women." Woods was an undergraduate student there, but the name is given as Tom Woods.
Scholar of the Abbeville Institute http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/Scholars.htm
Chronicles (publication of the Rockford Institute, run by Neo-Confederates)
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
Vol. 20 No. 5, May 1996, page 49, "Battling Cyberhate." Woods disparages efforts to battle "cyberhate" as some leftist effort to suppress free speech.
Vol. 20 No. 7, July 1996, page 37, "Ron Paul and the Two GOPs." Article asserting that Ron Paul is a true conservative and his defeat of Republican incumbent Greg Laughlin in the Republican primary in the Texas 14th district was a victory for true conservatism.
Vol. 24 No. 1, January 2000, page 32-33, book review of "The Roosevelt Myth" by John T. Flynn, 50th anniversary republishing. Books attacks Franklin Delano Roosevelt which Woods feels well observed.
Vol. 26 No. 9, September 2002, page 26-28, book review of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated" by Gore Vidal. Likes the book.
Vol. 27 No. 5, May 2003, page 28-30, book review of "God and the World" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doesn't approve of him since he is not orthodox by Woods' standards.
I have it online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/ThomasEWoods.htm
I will include it here also. Though it is much better organized on the webpage.
Thomas E. Wood's Neo-Confederate Curriculum Vitae
In reviewing Thomas E. Woods' web site http://www.thomasewoods.com/ I noticed that many of his essays published in Southern Partisan and Southern Patriot, the latter the publication of the League of the South, <http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php>, are not mentioned. Also, his articles in Chronicles are missing. To remedy this deficiency I have written this web page. (Editing in progress, I am going to add the full page range and also vol. and no. in some cases and some description of contents.) An article on the Confederate Christian nationalists is online at: http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf; “The U.S. Civil War as a Theological Struggle: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South," Canadian Review of American Studies, vol. 32 (3) 253-283
ARTICLES
Southern Partisan Note: The system of naming the issues changes over time.
Vol. 16, 1st Quarter 1996, page 48-49, book review of "Derailing the Constitution" by Edward B. McLean, editor. Upset that one of the contributors to this volume thinks the 14th amendment to the constitution was a good thing in a criticism of Indiana University Professor William F. Harvey. Woods in particular doesn't think the application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th amendment is a good thing and thinks Harvey is wrong for saying so. Sees Radical Republicans destroyed the constitution during the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Vol. 17, 2nd Quarter 1997, page 26-29, "Christendom's Last Stand." Cover Article. Sees Civil War as a theological war between an Orthodox Christian south and a heretical North. See Canadian Review of American Studies article above.
2nd Quarter 2001, page 16, "Sitting Amidst The Ruins: The South Versus the Enlightenment." Cover Article. The table of contents of the magazine aptly summarizes the article as follows, "Professor Woods explains how the South and the Enlightenment are at odds, and the Age of Reason is destroying civilization."
4th Quarter 2001, page 12, "A New Strategy Against Terrorism."
Sept. - Oct. 2002, page 31-34, book review of "Revolt from the Heartland" by Joseph Scotchie. About paleoconservatives versus neoconservatives. Woods sees Lincoln having given America a mission of equality which he thinks is a negative development.
Vol. 24 Vol. 1, page 27-29, book review of "Speaking of Liberty" by Lew Rockwell. Praise for Lew Rockwell's book. Lew Rockwell has a web site http://www.lewrockwell.com/ and he is the head of the Ludwig von Mises Institute http://www.mises.org/ which is neo-Confederate. Woods is a frequent contributor to the Lew Rockwell website. Woods reviews book from Neo-Confederate perspective.
Vol. 24 No. 5, page 30-31, book review of "Reclaiming Liberty" by James Ronald Kennedy, Pelican Publishing. They have a web page for their books at http://www.kennedytwins.com/. Kennedy is one of the major founding figures in the Neo-Confederate movement.
Vol. 26 No. 2, page 20-21, book review of "Lincoln Unmasked: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, published by Random House/Crown Forum. Praises book enthusiastically. Woods claims that Hitler was a fan of Lincoln. Sees legacy of Lincoln as tyranny of a centralized state.
Southern Patriot (official publication of the League of the South)
Woods was a founding member of the League of the South, then known as the Southern League, from Vol. 1 No. 1, page 7, and was on the membership committee.
Vol. 2 No. 1 - Jan.-Feb. 1995, page 3-5, "Copperheads" About northern conservatives who he sees as supporters of what he sees as southern conservatism, which is posed as Orthodox Christianity versus Northern heresy. Feels 14th Amendment is "ill-begotten" and abused by "militant egalitarians." Feels that "No Northerner who makes any pretence to conservatism can therefore fail to sympathize with the South," such as the Southern Agrarians and John C. Calhoun.
Vol. 2. No. 5 - Sept. - Oct. 1995, page 36-37, "The Abolitionists," Portrays them as murderous revolutionaries.
Speaker at the 3rd Annual League of the South convention announced in Vol. 3 No. 2, outside back cover.
Audio Tapes of Speaking Engagements with Neo-Confederate groups.
2003 Confederate Heritage Conference (13th) : Richard Weaver: Historian of the South
Apologia Books http://www.apologiabooks.com/
2003
2003 Confederate Heritage Conference (13th) : The Philosophical Legacy of Abraham Lincoln
Apologia Books http://www.apologiabooks.com/
2003
3rd Annual Southern League National Conference - Christendom's Last Stand
All Points South, Inc. http://pointsouth.com/index.htm Currently this tape is sold by Apologia Books.
1996
League of the South - 1998 Convention in Birmingham - The Spirit of the South vs. The Spirit of this Age
All Points South, Inc. http://pointsouth.com/index.htm Currently this tape is sold by Apologia Books.
1998
The above tapes are still for sale from Apologia Books.
United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine
Vol. 57 No. 5, May 1994, page 27, by a Tom Woods, reprinted from Peninsula Magazine, November 1993 at Harvard, titled "Peninsula's Women." Woods was an undergraduate student there, but the name is given as Tom Woods.
Scholar of the Abbeville Institute http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/Scholars.htm
Chronicles (publication of the Rockford Institute, run by Neo-Confederates)
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
Vol. 20 No. 5, May 1996, page 49, "Battling Cyberhate." Woods disparages efforts to battle "cyberhate" as some leftist effort to suppress free speech.
Vol. 20 No. 7, July 1996, page 37, "Ron Paul and the Two GOPs." Article asserting that Ron Paul is a true conservative and his defeat of Republican incumbent Greg Laughlin in the Republican primary in the Texas 14th district was a victory for true conservatism.
Vol. 24 No. 1, January 2000, page 32-33, book review of "The Roosevelt Myth" by John T. Flynn, 50th anniversary republishing. Books attacks Franklin Delano Roosevelt which Woods feels well observed.
Vol. 26 No. 9, September 2002, page 26-28, book review of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated" by Gore Vidal. Likes the book.
Vol. 27 No. 5, May 2003, page 28-30, book review of "God and the World" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doesn't approve of him since he is not orthodox by Woods' standards.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
McCain Picketed by Confederate Flag Wavers
A McCain speaking engagement was picketed by Confederate flag waivers.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/28/ap3963357.html
This South Carolina League of the South is probably behind it. They have already had one "flagging," as they call it, of McCain before. Go down the web page for the two McCain items.
http://www.sclos.org/
Other organizations and individuals might be involved also.
I think we are going to see more of this as the presidential campaign continues. I think the democrats will likely be targeted, since it seems no Republican candidate besides McCain can take a stance against the Confederate flag.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/28/ap3963357.html
This South Carolina League of the South is probably behind it. They have already had one "flagging," as they call it, of McCain before. Go down the web page for the two McCain items.
http://www.sclos.org/
Other organizations and individuals might be involved also.
I think we are going to see more of this as the presidential campaign continues. I think the democrats will likely be targeted, since it seems no Republican candidate besides McCain can take a stance against the Confederate flag.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
"Yankee Governor with Southern Values" Romney campaigns in the South
(The above are some scans of a T-shirt that was sold by Southern Partisan magazine.)
This two articles mention how Romney is being touted as the "Yankee governor with Southern values." (Spartanburg Herald, in South Carolina.)
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070720/NEWS/707200322/-1/BUSINESS
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070719/NEWS/70719007/1051/NEWS01
Of course with "Southern" values there is the implication that there are unsouthern values. The articles don't really spell out what "Southern values" are.
The Neo-Confederates are very clear that Southern values are reactionary values. I think Romney is trying to say that he has religious right values, but it is interesting to see how the ideology of the Neo-Confederates is being mainstreamed.
I recommend to the reader my essay on white banal nationalism at this link:
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070720/NEWS/707200322/-1/BUSINESS
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070719/NEWS/70719007/1051/NEWS01
Of course with "Southern" values there is the implication that there are unsouthern values. The articles don't really spell out what "Southern values" are.
The Neo-Confederates are very clear that Southern values are reactionary values. I think Romney is trying to say that he has religious right values, but it is interesting to see how the ideology of the Neo-Confederates is being mainstreamed.
I recommend to the reader my essay on white banal nationalism at this link:
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm
Monday, July 23, 2007
SPLC has a blog!
The Southern Poverty Law Center blog is at:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/
I am on the blog roll. I am going to put this link on the right side bar also as one of my links.
Ed
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/
I am on the blog roll. I am going to put this link on the right side bar also as one of my links.
Ed
Friday, July 20, 2007
Anti-Confederate flag cartoons
There are several dozen anti-Confederate flag cartoons at this link.
http://www.cagle.com/news/flag/
Many are quite hilarious.
http://www.cagle.com/news/flag/
Many are quite hilarious.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Another United Daughters of the Confederacy Ku Klux Klan postcard
Well I think this shows what the meaning of "Confederate heritage" is about.
I blogged on the other United Daughters of the Confederacy KKK post card last year and have it online at this link.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
A picture of the pulling down of the statue of King George III
Sometimes when it is proposed that a Confederate statue be removed some one will counter that in America we don't remove statues. This picture will show that is not true. During the American Revolution the statue of King George III was pulled down by the Americans.
http://independence.nyhistory.org/item.php?item_no=77&seq=0
A lot of times when you hear various rationalizations in defense of Confederate monuments and statues, etc. the historical claims are just made up out of thin air.
http://independence.nyhistory.org/item.php?item_no=77&seq=0
A lot of times when you hear various rationalizations in defense of Confederate monuments and statues, etc. the historical claims are just made up out of thin air.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Mentioned on "Nation" magazine website in article on Rudy Giuliani's South Carolina Campaign head, Arthur Ravenal Jr.
The link to the article is at:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=210015
I was able to dig up the Council of Conservative Citizens http://www.cofcc.org/ article, the Southern Partisan article, and the congressional record entries. As the blog says, I have the congressional record entries on my Presidential candidates web page which I provide a link to on the right margin of my blog.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
Incidentally, I have made a minor modification to my web site to explain that my resume is a source of online articles. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/resume.htm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=210015
I was able to dig up the Council of Conservative Citizens http://www.cofcc.org/ article, the Southern Partisan article, and the congressional record entries. As the blog says, I have the congressional record entries on my Presidential candidates web page which I provide a link to on the right margin of my blog.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
Incidentally, I have made a minor modification to my web site to explain that my resume is a source of online articles. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/resume.htm
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Rudy Giuliani's White Powder/White Power Problem.
Max Bluementhal has this article on Yahoo from Nation magazine.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070628/cm_thenation/45209093
Arthur Ravenal, who is heading Giuliani's campaign, had a speech defending secession in the Congressional Record, June 25, 1991. It was reprinted in the Vol. 11, 2nd Quarter 1991 issue of Southern Partisan, page 10.
This is the Congressional Record entry for the 102nd Congress:
SUPPORT FOR SECESSIONISTS (House of Representatives - June 25, 1991)
[Page: H4950]
(Mr. RAVENEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Speaker, I know that those who win the wars write the histories. However, I must take exception to a remark made by Mr. Solarz last week wherein he said,
Abraham Lincoln made the point that once the Southern States joined the Union, they were part of it permanently.
The fact was and still is that no constitutional prohibition of secession exists. Faced with this dilemma, Mr. Lincoln provoked the infant Confederacy into foolishly attacking Fort Sumter. He then declared the departing States to be in rebellion and called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress it. North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia refused the call and joined their southern sisters. I join those who applaud todays secessions in the Soviet Union and around the world. But where were they in 1861? We're content, but we still stand when the bands play Dixie!
[Page: H4951]
[TIME: 1230]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070628/cm_thenation/45209093
Arthur Ravenal, who is heading Giuliani's campaign, had a speech defending secession in the Congressional Record, June 25, 1991. It was reprinted in the Vol. 11, 2nd Quarter 1991 issue of Southern Partisan, page 10.
This is the Congressional Record entry for the 102nd Congress:
SUPPORT FOR SECESSIONISTS (House of Representatives - June 25, 1991)
[Page: H4950]
(Mr. RAVENEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Speaker, I know that those who win the wars write the histories. However, I must take exception to a remark made by Mr. Solarz last week wherein he said,
Abraham Lincoln made the point that once the Southern States joined the Union, they were part of it permanently.
The fact was and still is that no constitutional prohibition of secession exists. Faced with this dilemma, Mr. Lincoln provoked the infant Confederacy into foolishly attacking Fort Sumter. He then declared the departing States to be in rebellion and called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress it. North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia refused the call and joined their southern sisters. I join those who applaud todays secessions in the Soviet Union and around the world. But where were they in 1861? We're content, but we still stand when the bands play Dixie!
[Page: H4951]
[TIME: 1230]
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Possible implications of the recent failure of the Senate to pass an immigration bill.
The U.S. Senate failed to pass legislation on immigration, a couple weeks ago, (or was it three weeks ago?). Legislation on immigration seems to have stalled out and it doesn't appear that another bill on immigration is in the works. Though there might be some legislation being worked on and not being discussed publicly.
The one thing that is sure is that the failure of any legislation to pass continues the status quo. The status quo seems to fuel discontent among the base of the Republican party and pit social conservatives against the business interests in the Republic party. I think it will also pit the grassroots of the Republican party against the national Republican party establishment.
I think it could have serious ramifications for the Republican party besides divisive fights and disunity. The credibility of the Republican party leadership and elites could completely disintegrate with the rank and file conservatives. The grassroots might conclude that they need another political vehicle besides the Republican party. Or they might take over the Republican party in multiple states. It could be that in many states the Republican party will have its own agenda in opposition to the national party. For the South, the Republican party might be the Republican equivalent of Dixiecrats, and in reality a separate sectional party.
The break down in the authority of the national Republican party elites will provide an opportunity for Neo-Confederates to enter their agenda into the Republican party.
However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the national Republican party has one thing in their favor, they have money and money pays for elections and brings influence. But as the immigration issue boils over it may not be enough. In the South, and perhaps elsewhere, the candidate who seems to be aligned with the national Republican party elites, may find that getting elected or re-elected very difficult when perceived as pro-immigration. The underfunded candidate who is anti-immigration can win with poor funding and the opposition of the local media, or because of the opposition of the local media. In short there might be a revolt by social conservatives that overwhelms the management of Republican party politics by local and national Republican party elites.
If George W. Bush and the Republicans had passed immigration election, they could have presented a done deed, that would be very difficult to overturn by anti-immigration activists and directed a campaign to some other issue. There could be some hysteria worked up over something like, "Muslim Lesbians are teaching evolution in our schools." However, they didn't pass any immigration legislation, since it seems it is each Republican for him/herself in the upcoming elections. This seems rather foolish of the Republicans, since this issue isn't going to be a problem for the Democrats, but could really tear up the Republican party and bring chaos to Republican party politics.
In summary the issue of immigration may breakdown establishment authority in the Republican party and provide openings for out groups like the Neo-Confederates in the Republican party. It will be very interesting to see how the campaigns at the local level in the South develop for the 2008 elections. The national Republican party elites are not stupid and they might have some strategy to manage this issue. I don't see one, but that doesn't mean that there might not be one.
The one thing that is sure is that the failure of any legislation to pass continues the status quo. The status quo seems to fuel discontent among the base of the Republican party and pit social conservatives against the business interests in the Republic party. I think it will also pit the grassroots of the Republican party against the national Republican party establishment.
I think it could have serious ramifications for the Republican party besides divisive fights and disunity. The credibility of the Republican party leadership and elites could completely disintegrate with the rank and file conservatives. The grassroots might conclude that they need another political vehicle besides the Republican party. Or they might take over the Republican party in multiple states. It could be that in many states the Republican party will have its own agenda in opposition to the national party. For the South, the Republican party might be the Republican equivalent of Dixiecrats, and in reality a separate sectional party.
The break down in the authority of the national Republican party elites will provide an opportunity for Neo-Confederates to enter their agenda into the Republican party.
However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the national Republican party has one thing in their favor, they have money and money pays for elections and brings influence. But as the immigration issue boils over it may not be enough. In the South, and perhaps elsewhere, the candidate who seems to be aligned with the national Republican party elites, may find that getting elected or re-elected very difficult when perceived as pro-immigration. The underfunded candidate who is anti-immigration can win with poor funding and the opposition of the local media, or because of the opposition of the local media. In short there might be a revolt by social conservatives that overwhelms the management of Republican party politics by local and national Republican party elites.
If George W. Bush and the Republicans had passed immigration election, they could have presented a done deed, that would be very difficult to overturn by anti-immigration activists and directed a campaign to some other issue. There could be some hysteria worked up over something like, "Muslim Lesbians are teaching evolution in our schools." However, they didn't pass any immigration legislation, since it seems it is each Republican for him/herself in the upcoming elections. This seems rather foolish of the Republicans, since this issue isn't going to be a problem for the Democrats, but could really tear up the Republican party and bring chaos to Republican party politics.
In summary the issue of immigration may breakdown establishment authority in the Republican party and provide openings for out groups like the Neo-Confederates in the Republican party. It will be very interesting to see how the campaigns at the local level in the South develop for the 2008 elections. The national Republican party elites are not stupid and they might have some strategy to manage this issue. I don't see one, but that doesn't mean that there might not be one.
Alexander P. Napolitano scheduled speaker at Ludwig von Mises Insitute 25th anniversary event.
Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox news legal commentator is a scheduled speaker at the Ludwig von Mises 25th anniversary celebration. http://www.mises.org/upcomingstory.aspx?Id=97
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the Libertarian faction of the Neo-Confederate movement and its head, Lew Rockwell, runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ .
Andrew P. Napolitano's book, "The Constitution in Exile," has a chapter of Neo-Confederate nonsense in it, so Napolitano and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are a match.
What is interesting, is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the http://www.lewrockwell.com/ site are very much against the war in Iraq and very critical of president George W. Bush in contrast to Fox news which is very much has the opposite opinions. Are some of the Fox news conservatives bailing?
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the Libertarian faction of the Neo-Confederate movement and its head, Lew Rockwell, runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ .
Andrew P. Napolitano's book, "The Constitution in Exile," has a chapter of Neo-Confederate nonsense in it, so Napolitano and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are a match.
What is interesting, is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the http://www.lewrockwell.com/ site are very much against the war in Iraq and very critical of president George W. Bush in contrast to Fox news which is very much has the opposite opinions. Are some of the Fox news conservatives bailing?
Confederate Reenacting gets ugly.
I came across this latest from the web site, Save the SCV, http://www.savethescv.org/Index.htm .
It seems the Neo-Confederates are getting ugly with Walter C. Hilderman at Civil War re-enacting events. It also tells how some Confederate re-enactors are seeing themselves are a real Confederate force. Hilderman reports the following:
"One of the most startling expressions of this attitude among SCV re-enactors came from Robert "Rock" Edmiston, the 1st Sergeant of the SCV dominated 63rd North Carolina Troops reenactment group. He is a longtime leader in the Rowan Rifles SCV Camp in Salisbury, North Carolina. In May, 2004, Edmiston stated that, "If need be, the 63rd will be that unreconstructed thin grey line against a tyrannical federal government and the yankeeazation of our Southland." There is no statement that is more dangerous to the hobby of Civil War reenacting. In making this statement, Edmiston, now the 63rd’s commander, made it clear that his Confederate reenacting group is willing to fight the United States government. "
It seems it isn't all about "living history" or "heritage not hate." Hilderman's website is a good website to track what is going on in the SCV and amongst Confederate re-enactors. Evidently, Confederate reenacting is a form of anti-government militia training.
It seems the Neo-Confederates are getting ugly with Walter C. Hilderman at Civil War re-enacting events. It also tells how some Confederate re-enactors are seeing themselves are a real Confederate force. Hilderman reports the following:
"One of the most startling expressions of this attitude among SCV re-enactors came from Robert "Rock" Edmiston, the 1st Sergeant of the SCV dominated 63rd North Carolina Troops reenactment group. He is a longtime leader in the Rowan Rifles SCV Camp in Salisbury, North Carolina. In May, 2004, Edmiston stated that, "If need be, the 63rd will be that unreconstructed thin grey line against a tyrannical federal government and the yankeeazation of our Southland." There is no statement that is more dangerous to the hobby of Civil War reenacting. In making this statement, Edmiston, now the 63rd’s commander, made it clear that his Confederate reenacting group is willing to fight the United States government. "
It seems it isn't all about "living history" or "heritage not hate." Hilderman's website is a good website to track what is going on in the SCV and amongst Confederate re-enactors. Evidently, Confederate reenacting is a form of anti-government militia training.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
A Struggle for the United Daughters of the Confederacy?
Some years back before the radical Neo-Confederate movement took over the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), the leadership would issue in the Confederate Veterans bulletins of what the purpose of the SCV was and that a radical path would discredit the SCV. The membership didn't seem to be concerned.
Recently in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine, the President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), had a full page bulletin informing the readers what the purpose of the UDC was and more importantly what it wasn't. What it wasn't was involvement with other groups. The bulletin has a border like those for a certificate. It reminded me of the SCV warnings before they fell to the Neo-Confederates.
The UDC did issue a message in its magazine to the membership similar to this recent message during the 1950s during the struggle over civil rights.
Is the UDC going to be captured by the radical Neo-Confederate movement? I am sure the radical Neo-Confederates would very much like to have it under their control. UDC has various buildings and resources. The very fact that the UDC has to issue this warning is revealing that there is a concern that the UDC might be directed to radical Neo-Confederate avenues.
However, there are reasons a take over might be difficult. The UDC has been continuously operating through out the 20th century. They have a pre-existing membership and leadership. The SCV in contrast nearly disappeared in the 60s and 70s and had a huge expansion in membership during the 80s and 90s. The UDC is a women's organization and the radical Neo-Confederate movements are largely men, with few women. It would be harder to get enough members into the UDC to take it over. The UDC also has been more for upper class and middle class women.
The SCV has organized a women's auxiliary, the Order of the Confederate Rose, http://www.confederate-rose.org/. I have wondered what the need for this group is, when there is already the UDC. Why the SCV wants to organize women outside the UDC. The question arises if it is a vehicle to organize women to take over the UDC.
Another weakness of the UDC, is its aging membership. Now it may not be such a weakness. Often genealogical interests and historical interests start when people reach middle age and think about eternity. An organization will have an older membership, but it being continuously replenished by new middle aged members and not facing a decline. But if the UDC really doesn't have a problem with aging membership, the next generation to inherit it might be a smaller group of radical Neo-Confederate women.
Finally, there have been discreet promotions of Neo-Confederacy in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine of radical Neo-Confederacy by Clara Erath in her column "Confederate Notes."
The UDC organizational struggles are kept out of public view and so it is hard to know what is happening in it. It could well be that the UDC is in no danger of take over, and it is just taking a precautionary measure against a few stray elements. I think that either nothing will happen or one day there will be a take over and we will find out after the fact. Or at a convention there could be a full scale squabble and news coverage if the police are called. Police have been called to a UDC local convention before. We will have to watch and wait.
Recently in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine, the President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), had a full page bulletin informing the readers what the purpose of the UDC was and more importantly what it wasn't. What it wasn't was involvement with other groups. The bulletin has a border like those for a certificate. It reminded me of the SCV warnings before they fell to the Neo-Confederates.
The UDC did issue a message in its magazine to the membership similar to this recent message during the 1950s during the struggle over civil rights.
Is the UDC going to be captured by the radical Neo-Confederate movement? I am sure the radical Neo-Confederates would very much like to have it under their control. UDC has various buildings and resources. The very fact that the UDC has to issue this warning is revealing that there is a concern that the UDC might be directed to radical Neo-Confederate avenues.
However, there are reasons a take over might be difficult. The UDC has been continuously operating through out the 20th century. They have a pre-existing membership and leadership. The SCV in contrast nearly disappeared in the 60s and 70s and had a huge expansion in membership during the 80s and 90s. The UDC is a women's organization and the radical Neo-Confederate movements are largely men, with few women. It would be harder to get enough members into the UDC to take it over. The UDC also has been more for upper class and middle class women.
The SCV has organized a women's auxiliary, the Order of the Confederate Rose, http://www.confederate-rose.org/. I have wondered what the need for this group is, when there is already the UDC. Why the SCV wants to organize women outside the UDC. The question arises if it is a vehicle to organize women to take over the UDC.
Another weakness of the UDC, is its aging membership. Now it may not be such a weakness. Often genealogical interests and historical interests start when people reach middle age and think about eternity. An organization will have an older membership, but it being continuously replenished by new middle aged members and not facing a decline. But if the UDC really doesn't have a problem with aging membership, the next generation to inherit it might be a smaller group of radical Neo-Confederate women.
Finally, there have been discreet promotions of Neo-Confederacy in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine of radical Neo-Confederacy by Clara Erath in her column "Confederate Notes."
The UDC organizational struggles are kept out of public view and so it is hard to know what is happening in it. It could well be that the UDC is in no danger of take over, and it is just taking a precautionary measure against a few stray elements. I think that either nothing will happen or one day there will be a take over and we will find out after the fact. Or at a convention there could be a full scale squabble and news coverage if the police are called. Police have been called to a UDC local convention before. We will have to watch and wait.
Homophobia and Confederate Heritage
I think that this blog at a major Neo-Confederate website says it all.
http://shnvalerts.blogspot.com/2007/06/crime-for-pastors-and-churches-to-speak.html
The article referred to is an American Family Association website with its founder and chairman Donald E. Wildmon. Wildmon interviewed in Southern Partisan, 2nd Quarter 1989 issue.
Neo-Confederates are in the anti-gay movement in this country.
http://shnvalerts.blogspot.com/2007/06/crime-for-pastors-and-churches-to-speak.html
The article referred to is an American Family Association website with its founder and chairman Donald E. Wildmon. Wildmon interviewed in Southern Partisan, 2nd Quarter 1989 issue.
Neo-Confederates are in the anti-gay movement in this country.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Thomas E. Woods says he is not Neo-Confederate
Thomas E. Woods, who wrote cover articles for Southern Partisan and other articles for the League of the South, claims he isn't Neo-Confederate in this letter to the editor of The Depaulia, the student newspaper of DePaul University in Chicago. The link to the article is as follows:
http://thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2323§id=4
It is in response to a letter to the editor by Euan Hague, a professor there, that Thomas Woods was a neo-Confederate. Euan Hague's letter unfortunately is no longer online. I printed out copies of both letters from my records.
Thomas E. Woods has a website http://www.thomasewoods.com/ which omits in his resume his articles in Southern Partisan and elsewhere in the Neo-Confederate movement. In his biography, in the lengthy list of periodicals he has contributed to he omits Southern Partisan. His helping to found the League of the South http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php and his activities in the League of the South is omitted.
Also, the Abbeville Institute http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/ is omitted from his resume. http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/Scholars.htm
Woods does admit to being involved in www.lewrockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org and yet claims not to be neo-Confederate. This is a link to his articles at the Lew Rockwell website. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods-arch.html
Well, I am rather busy now, but I do definitely plan to do a Thomas E. Woods web page and include a bibliography of many of his articles that he has omitted from his web page.
I am curious if he is the same Tom Woods who at Harvard authored an article in Penisula attacking Carol Moseley-Braun for her blocking the renewal of the United Daughters of the Confederacy patent and had his article reprinted in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine.
http://thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2323§id=4
It is in response to a letter to the editor by Euan Hague, a professor there, that Thomas Woods was a neo-Confederate. Euan Hague's letter unfortunately is no longer online. I printed out copies of both letters from my records.
Thomas E. Woods has a website http://www.thomasewoods.com/ which omits in his resume his articles in Southern Partisan and elsewhere in the Neo-Confederate movement. In his biography, in the lengthy list of periodicals he has contributed to he omits Southern Partisan. His helping to found the League of the South http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php and his activities in the League of the South is omitted.
Also, the Abbeville Institute http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/ is omitted from his resume. http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/Scholars.htm
Woods does admit to being involved in www.lewrockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org and yet claims not to be neo-Confederate. This is a link to his articles at the Lew Rockwell website. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods-arch.html
Well, I am rather busy now, but I do definitely plan to do a Thomas E. Woods web page and include a bibliography of many of his articles that he has omitted from his web page.
I am curious if he is the same Tom Woods who at Harvard authored an article in Penisula attacking Carol Moseley-Braun for her blocking the renewal of the United Daughters of the Confederacy patent and had his article reprinted in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Ron Paul and the Neo-Confederates
Since the Republican presidential candidate debate the American public that cares anything at all about politics knows who Ron Paul is. Rudy Giuliani did Paul a great favor by angrily attacking him. What better publicity could Ron Paul get? So I have added Ron Paul to my Presidential Candidates 2008 page at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm .
I haven't put the Neo-Confederate material in.
He has an extensive record with the Neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) http://www.mises.org/ and actually attended a LvMI secession conference . Lew Rockwell the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ also. You can visit their website and see what their opinion is of Ron Paul. I will have to spend an hour to get all Ron Paul's involvements on the Presidential Candidates 2008 page. Look for Paul, Ron on my web page.
Some political pundits have said that Giuliani won because he supposedly put Ron Paul in his place. It strikes me as a lot of pious humbug to me. A lot of commentators trying to strike some type of pose, like Giuliani himself. The real winner is Ron Paul. As I said, the American public that cares anything at all about politics now knows Paul exists and prior to the Giuliani outburst not too many people new who he was or had any idea what Paul stood for. Then the Republican establishment media had to denounce Ron Paul since it was a news item. So Ron Paul got additional publicity.
My guess is that even among Republicans the Iraq war is losing its popularity. The three front runners in the Republican party have luke-warm support from a large section of the Republican party on other issues. A lot of Republican and conservative leaders probably are not so happy that their political futures are going to go down with Iraq. A Republican U.S. Senator facing election in 2008 is probably not very happy. A Republican governor up for re-election in 2008 is probably not very happy either. The front runners can't count on the incumbent president to campaign for them in the primaries since that would bring them down for the general elections. The candidates want to be a "Reagan" and not a Bush. Finally, I have a hunch that the public is fed up with focus-group driven candidates.
I don't think that things are locked down. If by this Fall things in Iraq are still going badly Ron Paul may do fairly well in the Republican primaries. The Republicans may be in turmoil.
I do think Ron Paul's election would be a disaster for the nation. However, I don't think that is likely. The same failure of the war in Iraq that might drive Ron Paul to the front ranks of the Republican presidential candidates, will likely drive the Democrats to victories in 2008. However, after the election Ron Paul may no longer be an outsider in Republican party politics.
In watching developments in politics and the Republican party being more and more a regional party of the South and West, I wonder what potential there is for it to be a party with a more Neo-Confederate agenda. Also, by what avenue this may happen. As, I have blogged before, I think the Republican party defeats in 2006 and the falling popularity of the Bush administration has weakened the Republican party establishment's hold on the Republican party agenda. Some development, Ron Paul's success in the primaries or something else might break it and I think a Neo-Confederate agenda might well come rushing into the Republican party. This is all very speculative.
I will get some of Ron Paul's information online over the next few months.
I haven't put the Neo-Confederate material in.
He has an extensive record with the Neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) http://www.mises.org/ and actually attended a LvMI secession conference . Lew Rockwell the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ also. You can visit their website and see what their opinion is of Ron Paul. I will have to spend an hour to get all Ron Paul's involvements on the Presidential Candidates 2008 page. Look for Paul, Ron on my web page.
Some political pundits have said that Giuliani won because he supposedly put Ron Paul in his place. It strikes me as a lot of pious humbug to me. A lot of commentators trying to strike some type of pose, like Giuliani himself. The real winner is Ron Paul. As I said, the American public that cares anything at all about politics now knows Paul exists and prior to the Giuliani outburst not too many people new who he was or had any idea what Paul stood for. Then the Republican establishment media had to denounce Ron Paul since it was a news item. So Ron Paul got additional publicity.
My guess is that even among Republicans the Iraq war is losing its popularity. The three front runners in the Republican party have luke-warm support from a large section of the Republican party on other issues. A lot of Republican and conservative leaders probably are not so happy that their political futures are going to go down with Iraq. A Republican U.S. Senator facing election in 2008 is probably not very happy. A Republican governor up for re-election in 2008 is probably not very happy either. The front runners can't count on the incumbent president to campaign for them in the primaries since that would bring them down for the general elections. The candidates want to be a "Reagan" and not a Bush. Finally, I have a hunch that the public is fed up with focus-group driven candidates.
I don't think that things are locked down. If by this Fall things in Iraq are still going badly Ron Paul may do fairly well in the Republican primaries. The Republicans may be in turmoil.
I do think Ron Paul's election would be a disaster for the nation. However, I don't think that is likely. The same failure of the war in Iraq that might drive Ron Paul to the front ranks of the Republican presidential candidates, will likely drive the Democrats to victories in 2008. However, after the election Ron Paul may no longer be an outsider in Republican party politics.
In watching developments in politics and the Republican party being more and more a regional party of the South and West, I wonder what potential there is for it to be a party with a more Neo-Confederate agenda. Also, by what avenue this may happen. As, I have blogged before, I think the Republican party defeats in 2006 and the falling popularity of the Bush administration has weakened the Republican party establishment's hold on the Republican party agenda. Some development, Ron Paul's success in the primaries or something else might break it and I think a Neo-Confederate agenda might well come rushing into the Republican party. This is all very speculative.
I will get some of Ron Paul's information online over the next few months.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Jerry Falwell and Neo-Confederacy
Just for the record.
Jerry Falwell interviewed in Southern Partisan, Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1982, starting page 22 I believe.
Liberty University has Neo-Confederate activities. One year the History department put Jefferson Davis on trial and found him innocent by finding secession legal and justified. Southern Partisan liked the mock trial so much they ran an article on it. (Southern Partisan, Vol. 22 No. 3, May/June 2002, pages 28,39.) Liberty University actually did advance promotion in the Southern Partisan for the event. They had a full page inside back cover ad. (Southern Partisan Vol. 22 No. 2, March/April 2002, page 41.)
A trial of Abraham Lincoln was done also and Lincoln was found guilty of war crimes. See this link http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=13208&NewsID=49
This year in 2007 Liberty University is having a Robert E. Lee event. That in itself isn't a problem, you could discuss his violation of his sworn oath of allegiance to the United States as an officer. His losing the war. (I know this is being somewhat picky, but he was a general after all.) However, I think it will be a lot of glorification of Lee.
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=12471
Jerry Falwell interviewed in Southern Partisan, Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1982, starting page 22 I believe.
Liberty University has Neo-Confederate activities. One year the History department put Jefferson Davis on trial and found him innocent by finding secession legal and justified. Southern Partisan liked the mock trial so much they ran an article on it. (Southern Partisan, Vol. 22 No. 3, May/June 2002, pages 28,39.) Liberty University actually did advance promotion in the Southern Partisan for the event. They had a full page inside back cover ad. (Southern Partisan Vol. 22 No. 2, March/April 2002, page 41.)
A trial of Abraham Lincoln was done also and Lincoln was found guilty of war crimes. See this link http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=13208&NewsID=49
This year in 2007 Liberty University is having a Robert E. Lee event. That in itself isn't a problem, you could discuss his violation of his sworn oath of allegiance to the United States as an officer. His losing the war. (I know this is being somewhat picky, but he was a general after all.) However, I think it will be a lot of glorification of Lee.
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=12471
Cheating in School - OFF TOPIC
I have been reading what percentage of students admit to cheating. I am not surprised that some majors have a high percentage of cheating, but I was astounded to read 54% of engineering graduates admit to cheating. I am sure there would be some cheaters in any profession, but 54%!
The person you hurt when you cheat is yourself.
I know very well that this sounds like something that your teacher might say as some saying or lesson. However, it is entirely true and profoundly true. The hurt, the victimization of yourself is profound and deep.
Cheating is wrong also. However, I doubt the efficacy of saying that cheating is morally wrong is sufficient to limit it. I have never cheated, nor even contemplated cheating in the least. I think to cheat would be horrible, you would have to associate with a crummy person -- yourself.
However, back to victimization. If you cheat you will not drive yourself as hard to study to master a topic. You will not learn as much as if you resolved to study hard. This is the lessor loss of cheating. The major loss is that you will not master yourself, challenge yourself, nor test yourself.
To master a topic and get good grades you will have to study hard, and push yourself. You will have to resist doing other activities that might give an evening's fun instead of grinding through and comprehending something. You will have to manage time. You will have to control yourself and know yourself.
If you will feed back on tests and papers and learn your limits, learn what you need to do to be better, you will grow in abilities.
If you cheat you will never know if you have the wherewithal to take a challenge and overcome.
How much preferable to learn skills of learning, tackling tough problems, managing your time and yourself, in learning Chemistry 101, or Medieval History or some other class, than having to start learning these things during a serious challenge in your life after you graduate.
Finally, I don't think cheating will give you much better grades. The students who don't cheat, have discipline, work harder, are abler learners with more effective study habits. You will be mostly competing with the other cheaters.
In the end you will be someone who will cheat again. After all if you rationalize cheating once, why not a thousand times? You will be a person who is ill-equipped to meet hard challenges. A person who can't really push themselves when faced with a tough problem. A person who will instead focus on the easy angle to reach some goal. A person that is not likely to do anything with their lives.
Also, you are a person who isn't that well educated since you didn't learn as much as your grades might indicate and not likely to get much better educated.
Back to the moral reason not to cheat. If you cheat in one activity why wouldn't you cheat in another? Like your significant other?
The person you hurt when you cheat is yourself.
I know very well that this sounds like something that your teacher might say as some saying or lesson. However, it is entirely true and profoundly true. The hurt, the victimization of yourself is profound and deep.
Cheating is wrong also. However, I doubt the efficacy of saying that cheating is morally wrong is sufficient to limit it. I have never cheated, nor even contemplated cheating in the least. I think to cheat would be horrible, you would have to associate with a crummy person -- yourself.
However, back to victimization. If you cheat you will not drive yourself as hard to study to master a topic. You will not learn as much as if you resolved to study hard. This is the lessor loss of cheating. The major loss is that you will not master yourself, challenge yourself, nor test yourself.
To master a topic and get good grades you will have to study hard, and push yourself. You will have to resist doing other activities that might give an evening's fun instead of grinding through and comprehending something. You will have to manage time. You will have to control yourself and know yourself.
If you will feed back on tests and papers and learn your limits, learn what you need to do to be better, you will grow in abilities.
If you cheat you will never know if you have the wherewithal to take a challenge and overcome.
How much preferable to learn skills of learning, tackling tough problems, managing your time and yourself, in learning Chemistry 101, or Medieval History or some other class, than having to start learning these things during a serious challenge in your life after you graduate.
Finally, I don't think cheating will give you much better grades. The students who don't cheat, have discipline, work harder, are abler learners with more effective study habits. You will be mostly competing with the other cheaters.
In the end you will be someone who will cheat again. After all if you rationalize cheating once, why not a thousand times? You will be a person who is ill-equipped to meet hard challenges. A person who can't really push themselves when faced with a tough problem. A person who will instead focus on the easy angle to reach some goal. A person that is not likely to do anything with their lives.
Also, you are a person who isn't that well educated since you didn't learn as much as your grades might indicate and not likely to get much better educated.
Back to the moral reason not to cheat. If you cheat in one activity why wouldn't you cheat in another? Like your significant other?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Richard T. Hines in the News.
Richard T. Hines was an editor for Southern Partisan and is an active Neo-Confederate.
This is a very interesting article about him and lobbyists overseas in Nigeria.
Link to New York Times article.
This article gives more back ground on Richard T. Hines.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/blumenthal
This is a very interesting article about him and lobbyists overseas in Nigeria.
Link to New York Times article.
This article gives more back ground on Richard T. Hines.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/blumenthal
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Council of Conservative Citizens 2008 Election page/ CCC at Presidential Events in South Carolina
The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) has added a blog and has tagged some of the items as 2008 election items. This is the link.
http://cofcc.wordpress.com/tag/election-08/
However, they don't seem to have all the election 2008 items tagged.
For example, at this link they talk about being at a McCain campaign event but it isn't tagged.
http://cofcc.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/charleston-cofcc-on-site-at-mccain-rally/
This item has a "Read More" link to the following:
http://heritagelost.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/charleston-cofcc-on-site-at-mccain-rally/
I think we can expect the neo-Confederates to be active in South Carolina campaigning against candidates they don't like. The South Carolina CCC report mentions that the League of the South was there also. Whether it will continue to be 3 or 10 people or will have more people involved, we will have to just wait and see.
I am going to put the link to the tagged items on my presidential page which is at:
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
http://cofcc.wordpress.com/tag/election-08/
However, they don't seem to have all the election 2008 items tagged.
For example, at this link they talk about being at a McCain campaign event but it isn't tagged.
http://cofcc.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/charleston-cofcc-on-site-at-mccain-rally/
This item has a "Read More" link to the following:
http://heritagelost.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/charleston-cofcc-on-site-at-mccain-rally/
I think we can expect the neo-Confederates to be active in South Carolina campaigning against candidates they don't like. The South Carolina CCC report mentions that the League of the South was there also. Whether it will continue to be 3 or 10 people or will have more people involved, we will have to just wait and see.
I am going to put the link to the tagged items on my presidential page which is at:
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Article on Thomas Woods at DePaul University
The DePaul University campus has been alerted that there is more to Thomas Woods than being some conservative Catholic historian. This article was printed in the student newspaper for that university.
http://www.thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2287§id=4
The Thomas Woods website is http://www.thomasewoods.com/ The URL given in the article forgot the middle "e". Wood's website omits the articles he wrote for the League of the South and which were published in their periodical, Southern Patriot.
Thomas Woods is Associate Editor of Latin Mass magazine. http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/
http://www.thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2287§id=4
The Thomas Woods website is http://www.thomasewoods.com/ The URL given in the article forgot the middle "e". Wood's website omits the articles he wrote for the League of the South and which were published in their periodical, Southern Patriot.
Thomas Woods is Associate Editor of Latin Mass magazine. http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/
Friday, April 13, 2007
I am mentioned in the "New York Sun"
I am mentioned in the "New York Sun" concerning presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and his stance on the Confederate flag.
http://www.nysun.com/article/52276
I am mentioned on page 3 at the end.
http://www.nysun.com/article/52276
I am mentioned on page 3 at the end.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Giuliani takes position on Confederate flag
These are some articles on Rudy Giuliani and his position relating to the Confederate flag.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/politics/11rudy.html?ref=politics
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4703442.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6547495,00.html
Giuliani feels it should be left to the states. He side steps the issue of what the Confederate flag means or that it is a symbol of white supremacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/politics/11rudy.html?ref=politics
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4703442.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6547495,00.html
Giuliani feels it should be left to the states. He side steps the issue of what the Confederate flag means or that it is a symbol of white supremacy.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Oh Please! Columbia, SC publication public relations blather
In this article in The State, the major paper of South Carolina, the city of Columbia urges the media not to have all the interviews in front of the Confederate flag on the state house grounds.
http://www.thestate.com/426/story/29377.html
The flag was put there to be prominent, to be seen, and so as a consequence it is being seen. The purpose of a flag is to declare identity.
So to whine about the media coverage that includes the flag is somewhat hypocritical. It is like putting up a bill board and complaining that people are reading it. I think this news story is one of those managing public opinion news stories that major dailies put out. If the Confederate flag gives the state of South Carolina a negative image, it isn't because the state of South Carolina did something stupid, but it is the fault of the big bad news media.
Note to The State, state of South Carolina, you made your bed, now you sleep in it.
http://www.thestate.com/426/story/29377.html
The flag was put there to be prominent, to be seen, and so as a consequence it is being seen. The purpose of a flag is to declare identity.
So to whine about the media coverage that includes the flag is somewhat hypocritical. It is like putting up a bill board and complaining that people are reading it. I think this news story is one of those managing public opinion news stories that major dailies put out. If the Confederate flag gives the state of South Carolina a negative image, it isn't because the state of South Carolina did something stupid, but it is the fault of the big bad news media.
Note to The State, state of South Carolina, you made your bed, now you sleep in it.
Bilboization of the Republican Party & Neo-Confederacy
As reported in the Dallas Morning News and other publications, Republican State Senator Dan Patrick of Houston boycotted a prayer by Imam Yusuf Kavakci.
The story is reported at the following websites.
Link to article in San Antonio paper.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4689405.html
For those who don't know who Bilbo was, I have these two links
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf
Bilbo was a viciously racist individual and the above link gives a back ground of his life. The following link is his congressional career.
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000460
First there are some aspects of this story that show that Dan Patrick talks out both sides of his mouth or is incapable of logical thinking.
Patrick explains his walk out as follows in the Houston Chronicle.
"Republican Sen. Dan Patrick on Wednesday boycotted the first prayer delivered in the Texas Senate by a Muslim cleric, and then praised religious tolerance and freedom of speech in an address at the end of the day's session.
"I think that it's important that we are tolerant as a people of all faiths, but that doesn't mean we have to endorse all faiths, and that was my decision," he said later.
"I surely believe that everyone should have the right to speak, but I didn't want my attendance on the floor to appear that I was endorsing that."
Evidently both Eagle Forum and the Harris County Republican Party criticized having an Imam speak, on the pretext that it was too close to Easter. (Houston is in Harris County.) The Imam was asked to do the opening prayer by State Sen. Florence Shapiro - Republican Plano (suburb north of Dallas).
Dan Patrick is also a right wing radio talk show host in Dallas and Houston.
I see this as an erosion of control of the Republican party agenda by the Republican party establishment. They may in certain venues pander to various extreme elements in the Republican party, but I doubt that they want these elements setting the agenda. If in 2008 Dan Patrick and his wing of the Republican party get re-elected and Florence Shapiro loses out in the primaries because of this issues and others like it, the Texas Republican party will really go off the deep end. Bilboization will be seen as the ticket to political success and there will be competition to be more Bilbo than the other candidate. On the other hand, the Republican party may edge Patrick out some way. Looking into the future is like looking through some wavy and murky piece of glass. Mostly we have to wait and see. However, I think that in waiting we should observe whether the Republican party is going to evolve into a Solid South type of party that has marched way off the mainstream of America.
The Neo-Confederates are hoping to capture popular political support by advancing an agenda appealing to various hostilities. However, they may be beaten to the punch by the Republican party. The Neo-Confederate impact may not be directly through electoral politics, but instead through shaping of public opinion. What happens in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2008 will be especially interesting to see what impact the Neo-Confederates have. They appear to have some political strength there and are organized there. The Confederate flag issue is still alive there. The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) is now run by outspoken Neo-Confederates. The Commander-in-Chief (C-i-C) is the editor of Southern Partisan magazine. The South Carolina primary affords a huge opportunity to get the Neo-Confederate in the news and have an impact.
When the Republican party has their convention in 2008, it will be interesting to see if delegates from some of the former Confederate states fly Confederate flags in the convention hall. With the Republican establishment control over the Republican party eroding, I am not so sure they will be able to manage the convention and produce the big show.
The story is reported at the following websites.
Link to article in San Antonio paper.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4689405.html
For those who don't know who Bilbo was, I have these two links
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf
Bilbo was a viciously racist individual and the above link gives a back ground of his life. The following link is his congressional career.
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000460
First there are some aspects of this story that show that Dan Patrick talks out both sides of his mouth or is incapable of logical thinking.
Patrick explains his walk out as follows in the Houston Chronicle.
"Republican Sen. Dan Patrick on Wednesday boycotted the first prayer delivered in the Texas Senate by a Muslim cleric, and then praised religious tolerance and freedom of speech in an address at the end of the day's session.
"I think that it's important that we are tolerant as a people of all faiths, but that doesn't mean we have to endorse all faiths, and that was my decision," he said later.
"I surely believe that everyone should have the right to speak, but I didn't want my attendance on the floor to appear that I was endorsing that."
Evidently both Eagle Forum and the Harris County Republican Party criticized having an Imam speak, on the pretext that it was too close to Easter. (Houston is in Harris County.) The Imam was asked to do the opening prayer by State Sen. Florence Shapiro - Republican Plano (suburb north of Dallas).
Dan Patrick is also a right wing radio talk show host in Dallas and Houston.
I see this as an erosion of control of the Republican party agenda by the Republican party establishment. They may in certain venues pander to various extreme elements in the Republican party, but I doubt that they want these elements setting the agenda. If in 2008 Dan Patrick and his wing of the Republican party get re-elected and Florence Shapiro loses out in the primaries because of this issues and others like it, the Texas Republican party will really go off the deep end. Bilboization will be seen as the ticket to political success and there will be competition to be more Bilbo than the other candidate. On the other hand, the Republican party may edge Patrick out some way. Looking into the future is like looking through some wavy and murky piece of glass. Mostly we have to wait and see. However, I think that in waiting we should observe whether the Republican party is going to evolve into a Solid South type of party that has marched way off the mainstream of America.
The Neo-Confederates are hoping to capture popular political support by advancing an agenda appealing to various hostilities. However, they may be beaten to the punch by the Republican party. The Neo-Confederate impact may not be directly through electoral politics, but instead through shaping of public opinion. What happens in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2008 will be especially interesting to see what impact the Neo-Confederates have. They appear to have some political strength there and are organized there. The Confederate flag issue is still alive there. The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) is now run by outspoken Neo-Confederates. The Commander-in-Chief (C-i-C) is the editor of Southern Partisan magazine. The South Carolina primary affords a huge opportunity to get the Neo-Confederate in the news and have an impact.
When the Republican party has their convention in 2008, it will be interesting to see if delegates from some of the former Confederate states fly Confederate flags in the convention hall. With the Republican establishment control over the Republican party eroding, I am not so sure they will be able to manage the convention and produce the big show.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Republicans and the Council of Conservative Citizens
The Council of Conservative Citizens have the following memorial for Samuel Francis:
http://www.cofcc.org/memoriam/sam_francis.htm
What you will find at this page is a link to Republican Congressman John J. Duncan, TN, 2nd District, at this link:
http://www.house.gov/duncan/2005/fs030905.htm
I think we can expect more of this as George W. Bush and the Republican party management loses all control over the direction of the Republican party.
http://www.cofcc.org/memoriam/sam_francis.htm
What you will find at this page is a link to Republican Congressman John J. Duncan, TN, 2nd District, at this link:
http://www.house.gov/duncan/2005/fs030905.htm
I think we can expect more of this as George W. Bush and the Republican party management loses all control over the direction of the Republican party.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Secession silliness
The secessionist branch of Neo-Confederacy is only a particular plan of action for one small faction of those holding Neo-Confederate beliefs. One concern about discussing secession is that it tends to make it seem like that is the central issue of Neo-Confederacy. It isn't. The overwhelming impact of Neo-Confederacy is through other venues besides secessionism. The Council of Conservative Citizens doesn't advocate secession.
However, a couple things bear pointing out about the Neo-Confederates references to secessionism.
The various secessions and national breakups of European nations are pointed out by Neo-Confederates. What should be pointed out also, is that these new nations promptly join the European Union. It is the exchange of one union for another. They also join NATO. All of this is in the context of other transnational groups like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. It is more a rearrangement of connectedness than separation. Ireland has a huge influx of immigrants from Poland because the European Union has the free movement of labor. The new nations of Europe are not islands.
"United We Stand, Divided We Fall" seems to be a concept lost on Neo-Confederates, but it is not surprising since this concept is inherently in opposition to white patriarchal supremacy. We live in a shrinking world. I remember being told that in the 1960s when it was amazing even then how with jet travel and the telecommunications of that era had really brought together the world. How much more now the world is interconnected, with the Internet, cheaper air travel, GPS, modern telecommunications.
In this world all sorts of people are brought together and will need to live together constructively. It won't be a world where one group is going to be on top, and that world is a threat to the Neo-Confederates.
However, a couple things bear pointing out about the Neo-Confederates references to secessionism.
The various secessions and national breakups of European nations are pointed out by Neo-Confederates. What should be pointed out also, is that these new nations promptly join the European Union. It is the exchange of one union for another. They also join NATO. All of this is in the context of other transnational groups like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. It is more a rearrangement of connectedness than separation. Ireland has a huge influx of immigrants from Poland because the European Union has the free movement of labor. The new nations of Europe are not islands.
"United We Stand, Divided We Fall" seems to be a concept lost on Neo-Confederates, but it is not surprising since this concept is inherently in opposition to white patriarchal supremacy. We live in a shrinking world. I remember being told that in the 1960s when it was amazing even then how with jet travel and the telecommunications of that era had really brought together the world. How much more now the world is interconnected, with the Internet, cheaper air travel, GPS, modern telecommunications.
In this world all sorts of people are brought together and will need to live together constructively. It won't be a world where one group is going to be on top, and that world is a threat to the Neo-Confederates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
