Russian Readership of this blog. Foreign power on the prowl

The readership of my blog is surging. Normally there are 400 to 500 page views. Suddenly it is over 1300 and then yesterday 1793.  This might be good if it were largely American readers and I was informing the American public about the neo-Confederate movement.

However, when looking at it Pageviews by Countries I see that about 50% of my readers are in Russia.  See below. Blog continued after picture.

Now the partisan press that is opposed to Trump is reporting a lot about the Russians and Trump. I am concerned that the reader not think that this blog posting is part of that. I have had surges of Russian readers before recent elections and have blogged on Russian readers in the past. I think Donald Trump will be entirely and energetically opposed to secessionist movements.

Nor do I want to imply any Xenophobia about foreign readers. There might be interest in the neo-Confederate movement elsewhere of a curious or scholarly nature and that is fine. However, the large interest from just one country, widely reported to be interested in fostering separatist movements in the United States, is of concern.

So what exactly do I wish to say? What I wish to say is that there is a large foreign power that is prowling around looking for some means of weakening the United States through separatism. It isn't just an assertion by myself, it has been noted by a variety of media across the political spectrum.

I am not calling for a large major national campaign, but I think that there needs to be some program of modest resources devoted to countering separatism and taking proactive steps. Once a separatist movement gets underway and gets some measure of support among the public, it tends to persist for some time. It is always likely to have a resurgence like a herpes virus.

So what do I think needs to be done? In general all separatism needs to be considered in the context that there is Russian interest in fomenting it. I also suggest the following:

1. Stop reporting on separatist movements as amusing novelties. The Scottish National Party only got single digits in the polls in the 1940s and was a very small marginal movement. Now it seems Scotland might become an independent nation.

The belief in American exceptionalism I think leads to not recognizing that American can be subject to the same dangers as other nations. I suggest that people should consider that pride comes before a fall, or as the Greeks stated it, hubris nemesis, which translates as pride then destruction.

I have noticed that the reporting on secession has been changing. The media has been somewhat quick to report that the California secessionists are headed by a person in Russia.

2. As I have stated earlier we absolutely have to avoid oppressive measures. Nothing would be stupider than locking up a pro-secessionist or other like action. It immediately makes the secessionist a martyr and it makes the secessionist movement seem much more important since otherwise why would you arrest the individual.

Also arresting individuals does prove that the government is an oppressive organization and secession is a solution.

Finally, it attracts people who are against the current government, whatever it is.

3. However, the government should avoid aiding those who are or have worked against the American nation. Trump should not appoint people who have been supportive of secessionist measures to any post. There was a web page of scholars for trump. http://scholarsandwritersforamerica.org/

At this page of scholars for Trump, I see William Murchison, contributor to Southern Partisan magazine and former officer of the Texas League of the South.  Texas Republic magazine had an issue on whether it was a mistake that Texas jointed the Union and my reading of it is that the articles leave the reader to conclude that it was a mistake. It was published by the Lynn Landrum society, named after a racist columnist for the Dallas Morning News. William Murchison published an article praising Landrum. He was also active in Texas Republic magazine.

This is the masthead of the Sept.-Dec. 1995 Texas Republic double issue which discusses whether Texas should have joined the United States.

The editorial board members were Cathie Adams, John Alvis, William Caruth III, Marco Gilliam, J. Evetts Haley Jr., David Hartman, Charles R. Helms, Joseph Horn, Tex Lazar, Michael Muncy, William Murchison, and Joseph Sullivan.

The publisher was Joseph Sullivan. Senior editors were John Knaggs, Thomas H. Landess, and Michael Muncy. The managing editor was Mitchell Muncy. The assistant publisher was John A. McMillan. The art director was E. Taylor Owens. Correspondents were Marco Gilliam, Kelton Morgan, Kevin Southwick, Sabrina Haley Statton. Proof readers at large were Kathleen Alvis and Marjorie K. Haney.

Contributors listed were Robert Aguirre, Jerry Bartos, Austin Bay, Mark Blackwell, Jack Brocius, Barry Brown, Jane Brown, P.J. Byrnes, Paul Cameron, John Colyandro, Marguerite Starr Crain, John J. Dwyer, T.R. Fehrenbach, Paul Fenech, Evan Fitzmaurice, Richard Ford, Donald S. Frazier, H. Martin Gibson, John Goodman, Charles Goolsby, Lino A. Graglia, David Guenthner, Nancy Halsey, Charles R. Helms, J. Cameron Humphries, William Keffer, Elmer Kelton, Floy Lilley, Merrill Mathews Jr., Roger F. Meiners, Wayne Milstead, Priscilla Montgomery, Gary North, Marvin Olasky, Rob Peebles, Christopher Prawdzik, Sam Ratcliffe, Morgan O. Reynolds, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Matthew Sandel, Valerie Shank, Barbara Stirling, Paul Strohl, Michael Quinn Sullivan, Ken Towery, Yuri Waldo, Caroline Walker, James W. Walker, Thomas G. West, Kathleen Hartnett White, and Jim Wright.

I see more than one name on the list of Scholars for Trump which was on the masthead of the Sept.-Dec. 1995 Texas Republic double issue which discusses whether Texas should have joined the United States.

Not all the contributors should be assumed to be secessionists, but the editorial staff and board clearly approved this issue. For the others they should be rejected for having anything to do with a Lynn Landrum Society. Landrum was a rabid racist. http://jmichaelphillips.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html  I have PDFs of some of Landrum's editorials.

These are people who spoke at events of the Lynn Landrum Society. Again the readers should understand that Landrum was a rabid racist.

Name	Description
Phil Gramm	U.S. Senator
Dick Armey	U.S. House of Representatives
W.H. Hutt	Professor
William Murchison	Syndicated Columnist
J.Evetts Haley	Author
M.E. Bradford	Univ. of Dallas, Professor of English. (Leading neo-Confederate. Campaigner for George Wallace for president.)
Tom Pauken
Carolyn Wright	Judge
M. Stanton Evans	Director National Journalism Center
William Rusher	Former publisher National Review
Donald Hodel	U.S. Interior Secretary
Tom Phillips	Texas Chief Justice
Nathan Hecht	Texas Supreme Court Justice (Currently Chief Justice)
Raul Gonzalez	Texas Supreme Court Justice
Daniel Papeo	Washington Legal Foundation
Peter Huber	Manhatten Institute
Michael McCormick	Judge
Paul Pressler	Judge
Lino Graglia	University of Texas School of Law
Kenneth Cribb	Heritage Foundation and Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Steve Pejovich	Texas A&M University
Russell Kirk	“author and critic” (Major figure in conservative politics)
Morgan Reynolds	Texas A&M University
John Goodman	President, National Center for Policy Analysis
John Chubb	Brookings Institute
Joe Horn	University of Texas at Austin
Kent Grusendorf	Texas State Representative
Alan Gribben	University of Texas at Austin
Charles Sykes	“author”
Jim Wright	Senior columnist, Dallas Morning News
Alan Keyes	Ambassador
Richard Estrada	Dallas Morning News
Richard Rubottom	Ambassador
Michael Wilson	Heritage Foundation
Llewellyn Rockwell	Ludwig von Mises Institute
John Culberson	Texas State Representative
Odie Faulk	“author and historian”
Alan Parker	St. Mary’s Law School
John Alvis	University of Dallas
Rick Perry	Texas Agriculture Commissioner

But I am getting a little off topic here. The president should not appoint those who support secession to national positions.

4. The campaign for American nationality can't be just negatives against other things. It needs to be for something.  A proposal can be judged on its own merits. The fact that a bad person or organization supports it is just reason to examine the proposal very carefully, but if it is a good proposal it is a good proposal. So there needs to be some effort to show the positives of American nationality. It is a big country with a great deal of space and a wide choice of places to live. It has great scientific projects. You can drive for thousands of miles without encountering national boundaries. America's size allows great national enterprises and research institutions. Also, being one nation we don't have a continent with nationalist antagonisms. Large nations can usually protect themselves. 

5. Those who foment national divisions ought to be rejected by the federal government and the pubic. Now this can be subjected to abuse. Criticizing an elected official or the opposition isn't fomenting national division. The tool of dictatorships is to make illegal anything they call unpatriotic and suppress opinion. Also, various political commentators like to call one opinion or argument they don't like as unpatriotic rather than argue the facts of the issue.  The word "divisive" can be use to stigmatize discussing an issue that does need to be discussed.

However, separatist arguments should be recognized as such and rejected. In rejecting them it needs to be carefully shown how they are separatist, and not labeled as such just as an assertion.

Others who promote division also should be recognized as doing such and be rejected. In rejecting them it needs to be shown clearly that it is the intent of the writer to foment division or that the article clearly and dishonestly inflames a situation which results in the division of the American public which would also lead to separatists movements. 

Again, this charge should not be indiscriminatorily be used. If made indiscriminatorily the public will reject any claim of separatism.