Saturday, November 26, 2016

Robert E. Lee Park blog documents the racism of Lee

I have added to it the historical record of the racism of Robert E. Lee. His cruelty to his slaves.

This is the Facebook page for an upcoming "Reject Racist Robert E. Lee" event on Dec. 31st. in Dallas at 1pm.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Stupid California secessionists, here is one of your supporters.


Here is one of your supporters.

Of course the California secessionists can't support who supports them, but they should reflect on the old adage, "Birds of a feather flock together."

That is a reactionary effort attracts reactionary supporters. Also, what is good about this article it shows exactly the reactionary ideas inherent in the idea of California secession.

Council of Conservative Citizens Considers Steve Bannon a Friend

Quoting from the article

Steve Bannon isn’t one of us, but he isn’t an enemy either. He has gone out of his way to stick up for the Deplorables. If politics is about friend vs. enemy, then we definitely count Steve Bannon as a friend. He is on the side of the national populist revolution. His enemies are our enemies.

Globalism is here regardless

With the Alt-Right and neo-Confederates, the original Alt-Right, there is a great deal of talk about the end of globalism.

If you mean a certain set of global arrangements run by a certain set of political actors and groups then it might or might not happen that a particular global arrangement might continue or come to an end.

If on the other hand you look at the arrangement of things, the world is global already and will continue to be so. The question is only how this global world is arranged.


There is a material basis to human arrangements. In the 18th century where transportation was on horseback, maybe carriage on some rough roads where there were roads, and by boat powered by sail or oar or pulled along a canal by horses, geographical distance was tremendous. Communication then was limited. Canals were considered a tremendous thing since they could reduce the cost of transport.

Cursive was invented so that a handwritten letter could be written faster so writing a long letter to someone without taking up an inordinate amount of time could be done. Compared to today the amount of publishing and periodicals were limited. Also, you have to be a member of a class which had the time to read and the time to write. That wasn't too exhausted by the end of the day to do either.

Newspaper were circulated by mail and another editor might learn of something weeks latter.

Education for the great majority of the population was very limited. So even if something was given to them they would likely not be able to take advantage of it.


The whole planet is being connected by email, text messaging, Skype and other video communications, and the World Wide Web which is really world wide and which is available most everywhere. If I go online I can read a page from the other side of the globe in a few seconds.

The current means of transportation are tremendously more advanced than the 18th century. There are automobiles, some self-driving, and a huge system of highways  and roads for them to transverse over. There are trucks. There are bus companies to transport people. There has been built a railroad transportation system. There are more canals than in the 18th century. There are airplanes and jet planes. In cities there are mass transit systems.

There are orbiting satellites doing a wide variety of functions traveling around the earth or in geostationary orbits. There are proposals for supersonic and hypersonic planes.

Some nations have high speed trains to transport people.

Boats now have powerful engines and are of a variety of sizes including extremely large sizes to transport materials.

If you got on a jet in the morning in the United States you could have dinner in Paris or London easily.

There are alternatives to transportation such as web conferencing, conference calls, and other means such that traveling doesn't need to be done.

There are keyboards to rapidly type messages, and systems that guess at what word you are intending to type. There are systems which recognize voice. Cursive is dying out.

Land line telephone has come and gone and cellphones communicate by voice or by text message or by email. The means of communication are in as many forms as we might imagine.

There is a wealth of published material both in print and online accessible forms from most everywhere. Large numbers of people have the time to read after since they now work an eight hour day. If they work shift they just have to wait for their days off. Many people earn enough to buy many books.

Email and the Internet connect everyone. Advanced communication systems also facilitate activities and organization that simply would not be possible.

Even language is being affected as English becomes the defacto global language. The sad thing is that thousands of languages are dying out with ethnolingists rushing to record them from elderly speakers. However, with fewer languages there are fewer language barriers to communication. With a defacto global language we can communicate with each other.

Native English speakers have been advised that their use of slang might make them less comprehensible to a group of second language English speakers. There is a global English out there.

Even where there is a language barrier you can use translation programs to get a good idea what is being said. With the global demand for books being high, there are many translators translating books into different languages.

We live in a global system that is triumphant. It is just a question how globalism will be organized.


Anti-globalists comment on the secession of Scotland and Catalan but they omit that the secession plans of these places include being members of the European Union (EU). That is how these secessionists think that they can exist as small states in a world order is by being within a framework of the EU. In fact one of the driving forces of Scottish separatism is that Britain has left the EU and Scotland wants to remain in the EU.

Secessionists wish to put all secession movements and secession from the EU into one undifferentiated bucket for their discussion, and certainly this tactic works well to obscure what is really happening.


Anti-Globalists will be attempting to command the tide to go out.

There is an inter-connectivity in many forms.

With communication and information it is much easier for people to migrate. With a global economy the economic system will work to equalize the supply of labor. Businesses will relentlessly push for labor where they perceive shortages, or they will move their facilities where there is labor.

Nationalists will be in the situation of trying to defy economic forces.

With communication and information it is much easier for ideas to be shared, exchanged on a global basis.

With the internet there are no gate keepers to block the exchange of ideas.

This will lead to a world of global minded individuals. They will read the local papers, the national papers, and overseas papers online. They will choose from a variety of papers. Online publishers will want to publish opinions not dealt with by the local print media.

Even secessionists are thinking globally by discussing secession from a global view point and going to secession conferences in other nations to meet other secessionists from multiple nations.

There is also a much more critical awareness of what nationalism is, that it is to some extent, if not entirely, a contrived thing. Also, that it leads to violence.

People are not going to want to be cut off from the global system.

With economic nationalism there will be barriers to purchasing things from overseas and being able to sell over seas.

Young people, the best and brightest of them will find that their small country doesn't have large scientific projects to get involved with. There won't be other major projects to get involved in. They will have to hope that their small nation was able to strike a deal of participation in a major scientific project where they will have limited opportunities.

They won't be in a nation which have the headquarters of major multinational corporations for job opportunities. Instead they will have opportunities in a local facility of the major multinational corporation very likely headquartered elsewhere.

Great multinational corporations will seek headquarters locations where they won't be cut off from the world. The business of business is business.

Globalization does decentralize some things, but  being there will still count, especially if there is a national barrier between you and the opportunity.

Nations not integrated into global systems will become backwaters.

An increasingly global public will like less and less being a prisoner of some local nationalist movement.

Also, some of this resentment of globalization is racial. The world European empires are now all gone, the Soviet Empire is gone, a European empire. It is a multipolar world where one won't be privileged just because you are white. Though other resentments of globalization is that the old order passes away and this will have uneven effects and not everyone will benefit. Globalization maybe inevitable, but it might need some effort at transition.

Skills and hard work, knowledge, and the ability to think will be the skills to have in the future.

Some of the anti-globalization is that of local groups which hope to restore a position of privilege just because they are white by forming a local political entity or with drawing from global arrangements so they can dominate locally. They chose being a back water in which they dominate rather than swim in global oceans.  If you are poor swimmer perhaps this is a winning strategy.

This older generation that seeks some local ethnic state is passing away. It is revealed in opinion polls everywhere.

I think the consequences of anti-globalism are going to play out in Britain and they will become a scare crow to warn the nations.


I provide this video trailer. I am not endorsing the movie necessarily. I might see it as light entertainment. I am putting it here since I think it represents everything neo-Confederates hate.

It is a movie with a liberal globalist view of the universe.

This video has had over 9,000,00 viewers. Expand it to full screen to see all of it.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

"Breitbart" John Nolte's misrepresentation of film critic Lou Lumenick UPDATE:

The Breitbart readers might whine and complain that this or that person or group is "politically correct," a phrase that seems to mean something which annoys them, but they themselves are concerned with whether something is Politically Confederate. 

John Nolte has a June 24, 2015 article "Confederate Frenzy: NY Film Critic Calls for Banning of 'Gone With the Wind,'" in Breitbart.

Breitbart lists him as Editor-at-Large.

At the head of the article is a scene from the movie "Fahrenheit 451" showing books being burned.

The article starts out with a column of single words like, "Hitler, Stalin" and phrases "Book burning, Movie banning."

Nolte says, "it is always only a matter of time before they show their fascist colors." Nolte also states that there is a "frenzy" which "is now a full-blown mob waging a bullying witch hunt to completely memory-hole the flag."

Perhaps language like this is the stuff of Breitbart. A rabid, foam flecked style to give the readers their daily ration of rage.

HOWEVER, in reading Lou Lumenick's film review he  doesn't call for banning of the film.

Lumenick is not calling for the banning of the film. No he is not.

Lou Lumenick is asking his readers to critically re-evaluate their view of "Gone With the Wind," and consider that this racist film shouldn't be one of their favorites. Lumenick states:
But what does it say about us as a nation if we continue to embrace a movie that, in the final analysis, stands for many of the same things as the Confederate flag that flutters so dramatically over the dead and wounded soldiers at the Atlanta train station just before the “GWTW’’ intermission?
That is what film critics do, they criticize films, they evaluate them. Sometimes they don't like a film. In this case Lumenick doesn't like "Gone With the Wind" and in the review as a whole details the racism in "Gone With the Wind" and shows that the film is racist garbage. In the conclusion of the article Lumenick states:

That studio sent “Gone with the Wind’’ back into theaters for its 75th anniversary in partnership with its sister company Turner Classic Movies in 2014, but I have a feeling the movie’s days as a cash cow are numbered. It’s showing on July 4 at the Museum of Modern Art as part of the museum’s salute to the 100th anniversary of Technicolor — and maybe that’s where this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact really belongs.

Not liking a film is not banning it. Asking others to consider that it is a bad film is not banning a film. Speculating that with the decline of racism and the end of the Lost Cause understanding of slavery and the Civil War, that a film based on the Lost Cause would have declining future prospects is not banning it.

What I think we see here is that an article is written full of inflammatory passages to get the reader all worked up to accept some assertion that the Breitbart reader wants to accept anyways without closely sticking to the facts or not having a relationship to the facts at all.

In short a lot of white nationalist raging and cauterwauling when someone has an opinion that is not in agreement with white nationalism.


Here is another Breitbart article by John Nolte about the Gay pride flag.

His writing style seems to be to just assert hysterical statements.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Right to Petition, The Gag Rule against anti-slavery petitions, and race baiting Donald Trump. UPDATE: UPDATE2

The right to petition is an ancient one among English speaking peoples. 


In America it is a right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance. (Bold face added.)
The right to petition goes back centuries. It has British origins. Blackstone's Commentaries, published in 1765-69, states that the right to petition the king or parliament was a "right appertaining to every individual."

The Declaration of Independence listed as one of the reasons to declare independence was King George III of England response to the petition of the colonists.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

I think Donald Trump has answered the Hamilton cast's petition with injury by misrepresenting their petition to Pence as as harassment.

The Bill of Rights of 1689, an Act of Parliament of England, set out the right of subjects to petition the king, and held that prosecutions for such petitioning were illegal.

The Petition of Right in 1628 written by a committee headed by Sir Edward Coke and given to Charles I is still a part of liberties of the British people and shows further an example of this ancient right to petition.

Indeed the right to petition is held to be developed out of Clause 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215 which provided for the application and observation of the charter by twenty-five of the barons. This is that they could petition that the Magna Carta be observed, but it was restricted to 25 barons. However, it was a germ of an idea that would grow.


The infamous exception to the right of petition is the notorious Gag Rule of 1836. Proslavery members of the House of Representatives got this passed in 1836 which suppressed the discussion of anti-slavery petition in the House of Representatives.

Quick read the web page, link shown below, since it might be taken down during an administration by a person who doesn't understand or respect the right to petition. It gives a history of the notorious Gag Rule.

It caused an outrage at that time since it was the denial of an ancient right of petition. Persons who might not have much opinion about slavery were outraged by this. It alerted the general public that slave power was a threat to freedom for everyone. It greatly aided the abolitionist movement.


Hamilton is a Broadway play about American Revolutionary hero Alexander Hamilton.

It won eleven Tony awards including Best Musical.

It is notable for casting a great many African Americans. It has done wonders for generating interest in the history of the American Revolution and early American history.

This is a video of Bradon Victor Dixon addressing Vice President-Elect Mike Pence.

You can see that it is respectful and thoughtful. This is the statement read by Dixon:

Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you, and we truly thank you for joining us here at ‘Hamilton: An American Musical.’ We really do,” Dixon said to further applause. “We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us. Again, we truly thank you truly for seeing this show, this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men and women of different colors, creeds and orientations.

Also, in theaters it is not all unusual for a theater goer to be addressed by someone on the stage.

It is our ancient liberty to petition elected officials.


Donald Trump could have just ignored it. Or he could have stated that he and his administration welcome input from the American public.

Indeed, normally the smart thing to do would be to ignore it or say input was welcomed and the whole thing would disappear in a news cycle. This would be the smart thing to do unless you had an agenda which would be served by responding otherwise.

What Donald Trump chose to do instead was to  misrepresent this petition as harassment and demanded an apology from the Hamilton cast.

Trump states in a tweet on Twitter: "The cast of Hamilton was very rude to a very good man" and demanded an apology.

What I think is really happening here is that Donald Trump might be spoiling for a fight with African Americans to get support from a portion of his base of supporters. Brandon Victor Dixon is African American.

With Donald Trump's choice of Stephen K. Bannon, former executive director of Breitbart, which publishes pro-Confederate articles, and selection of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, who defended Southern Partisan magazine, we are getting a good idea of what type of administration we face.

Breitbart is trying to push the idea that Pence was indeed harassed.

Perhaps Donald Trump is not prepared to get talked back to by African Americans and just  reacted.

I think we need to be prepared to defend our liberties. You might say it can't happen here. Well Trump happened and who thought that would happen?

UPDATE: Trump is continuing his denunciations of the Hamilton cast Sunday 11/20/2016.

He also is upset with the show Saturday Night Live.

I don't understand why Trump wants to get engaged in a debate with Saturday Night Live. It brings attention to the satire of him. He is making his opponents attack on him news. Millions, perhaps tens of millions will view this SNL skit because it is news that otherwise wouldn't have.

I see that the SNL skits involving Trump have had over 20,000,000 views.

He has also probably extended the life of the Hamilton play and given it a tremendous amount of publicity and given it a minor role in history.


Trump supporter is drunk and at the Hamilton play in Chicago.

Theater in Toronto named Hamilton is object of Trump supporters ire.

Then there is this racist tirade


They really do. Here are some examples.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Alabama U.S. Senator Jeff Session's defense of "Southern Partisan" magazine. An apologist for neo-Confederacy will be the next Attorney General UPDATE: Quoted in "The Grio" about Sessions.

It has been reported that Donald Trump has offered U.S. Senator Jeff Session,, (Republican - Alabama) the position of Attorney General of the United States. This is a disaster, another example of the Confederacy in the White House. 

This is Jeff Session's defense of Southern Partisan magazine back in 2001 when John Ashcroft was nominated for Attorney General.

You will need to word search for Southern Partisan.

This was Session's comments on Southern Partisan.

Mr. President, I have received a statement from the editor of the Southern Partisan magazine that has been attacked here to some degree. I have never read the magazine. But it is a refutation of many of the statements made about the magazine. It certainly is proof that the magazine is in a much better light than it has been reported to be here on the floor.
I note that Senator Ashcroft, when he was interviewed by it, simply did a telephone interview with the magazine. There was no evidence he ever read it, or saw it, or knew much about it.
I think it would be healthy for the statement of Chris Sullivan, editor of the Southern Partisan, to be made part of the Record in which he flatly denies that he favored, or the magazine favored, segregation or other kinds of racially—discriminatory activities.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
In the Congressional Record there is the letter from Chris Sullivan which is, in my opinion, a total misrepresentation of the Southern Partisan magazine.  It is also in the link above. Just word search down to the statement.


Thursday, November 17, 2016

Jurors questioned about Confederate "heritage" in trial of John Wiley Price

The use of the term "heritage" by the "Dallas Morning News" says something about them.

This was my article about selecting jurors and excluding members of neo-Confederates groups and other persons sympathetic to the Confederacy.

I don't know if the lawyers mountain the defense of John Wiley Price ever read or heard of my paper. They might have, on the other hand not having neo-Confederates or Lost Cause believes as jurors in the case where an African American is a defendant is sort of an obvious thing to do.

Of course Price can afford paid lawyers and it remains to be seen if public defender lawyers will start making inquiries.

This case at least sets a precedent for other lawyers to follow.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Stephen Bannon in the White House

The rise of the alt-right with recent events made me think of this video.

Raising up of all sorts of things. Lets hope for a similar ending.

Click on the screen below to see the whole thing.

Breitbart seems to be something like "Southern Partisan" magazine. I wonder if the Confederate flag will be flown at the White House UPDATE; UPDATE 2 "Breitbard" isn't the "Southern Partisan"

UPDATE2:  I have been printing out maybe 200 articles from "Breitbart" regarding the 14th Amendment, neo-Confederates, the Confederacy, Confederate flags & monuments, Lincoln, etc. Breitbart is nationalistic and will be against secession.

There are important differences between "Breitbart" and the "Southern Partisan." "Breitbart" doesn't condemn Lincoln. I am not saying "Breitbart" is better or worse, nor am I saying that "Breitbart" isn't a problem. I am just saying that these two magazines are different.

I am reading "Breitbart" and seeing what they have to say about neo-Confederacy and the Confederacy.

My mind just reels seeing what is put forth as fact in reading "Breitbart."

Richard Quinn, the editor of "Southern Partisan," never made it to the White House, though he helped Ronald Reagan get elected.

But Steve Bannon, executive director of Breitbart, will be part of the White House staff.

I am browsing through Breitbart and recognizing names.

For example there is this article by Ron Maxell, director of the movie, "God and Generals."

In this speech he says:
I myself am neither a Confederate nor a neo-Confederate, whatever that means. I am simply an American — and that’s enough for me. I belong to no organizations, clubs, round-tables or societies related to the Civil War or indeed to anything else. But I will not be intimidated from speaking at memorials for Confederate or Yankee soldiers – nor silently stand by as others heap insult and scorn on anyone who does. I am no one’s mouth-piece or propagandist. I have no axe to grind or grievance to nurse. I am no more and no less than a free man.


He gave an interview in "Southern Partisan" magazine, Vol. 22 Issue No. 6, (Nov./Dec. 2002)

He contributed a movie review to "Southern Partisan," March/April 2002, Vol. 22 No. 2.

This was done after the reputation of "Southern Partisan" was generally known to the public.

Then I have this review of his anti-Muslim anti-Hispanic article in "Chronicles" magazine.

His movies are ridiculed by those who have some knowledge of history and Maxwell's movies are in my opinion neo-Confederate propaganda.

There are some reviews of "Gods and Generals."

More about Ron Maxwell.

1. Attended the 108th reunion in 2003 of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

2. Announced as speaker at the Stephen D. Lee Institute meeting in 2007 in "Confederate Veteran" magazine. The Stephen D. Lee Institute is an organization of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

3. When Ron Maxwell spoke in 2009 at the Arlington Confederate Monument it was an event for which the Sons of Confederate Veterans was one of the sponsors.

An article about the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The fact that his Confederate folderol is published by "Breitbart" says  a lot about "Breitbart."

The Confederacy will be in the White House. We should ask whether the Confederate flag will be flown at the White House.


Breitbart seems to have a Romance of Reunion thing, maybe not quite like "Southern Partisan." The idea is that it doesn't matter what white men were fighting for, it just matters that they were fighting and therefore brave and therefore heroes. I am still digging in.

Also, I have added more information above about Ron Maxwell.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Saturday, November 12, 2016

You can follow this blog by email. See new feature to the right.

Please note that to your right you can submit your email and be kept notified of postings to this blog.

I am implementing this on all my blogs.

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

Election Results and Texas Nationalism and Neo-Confederacy

In case you haven't hear, Donald Trump won the presidential election.

The implications of this in terms of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) is that their prospects are  on hold until there is a Democratic administration.

This is the response of Daniel Miller regarding the election results.

He makes threats, which I think at the moment, are empty threats. Obama is out of office and Hillary Clinton wasn't elected and the motive force that might have existed for Texas secession is gone.

However, his movement isn't going anywhere until disillusion with Trump sets in. On the other hand if disillusion with Trump sets in with Trump supporters Miller's claim that no one politician can change things will have greater credibility with the disaffected.

The movement is on hold. However, with demographic changes in Texas by 2020 there will be a state wide majority against his ideology in Texas and he will have very diminished prospects.

I have been writing a review of Miller's book, "Line in the Sand," trying to get it done as soon as possible. I think now it becomes a low priority. I will likely finish it up since I have put a lot of work into it, but maybe over the next year.

As for other secessionist movements they too are on hold.

I don't think Trump will be very pleased by movements to break up the nation for which he is the president.

"American Conservative" magazine is now the magazine to read and the "National Review" won't be the magazine to read.

Trump seems to be the nationalist and I think those forces which are against American nationalism will not be in favor.

As for his administration and its policies regarding the Confederacy I will be sending a series of letters asking him to: 1) Not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument. 2) Get neo-Confederates out of Junior ROTC.  3) Get neo-Confederates out of the U.S. military academies.

I am thinking of doing petitions with each of these.  I tend to think Trump will not respond favorably to these requests, but then again I don't really know. For a candidate whose slogan was, "Make America Great Again," it will be interesting to see what his views of the Confederacy will be.

On the other day he might have a Confederate flag at the White House or a portrait of a Confederate leader. Eisenhower had a portrait of Robert E. Lee.

However, I would like to stress we are in a whole new world. It is a different period now.

With the 2016 election both the Republican and Democratic Party establishments have been defeated.
We live in a new world.

Sunday, November 06, 2016

University of Cincinnati police officer who fatally shot African American Sam DuBose was wearing a Confederate T-shirt at the time

There is a picture of the T-shirt in the story. I haven't been able to figure out who manufactured it.

There is a good picture of the T-shirt and there is a video of the testimony of the forensic specialist.

On the video the T-shirt appears about 29:56, go to 29:50 to make sure you don't miss it. It is picture 8H.

Saturday, November 05, 2016

Rhodesia and Texas Nationalism

I have finished reading "A Line in the Sand" by Dennis Miller who is head of The Texas Nationalist Movement.  I also wrote up eleven pages of typed notes, and have complied them into subject groups.

Some elitist academic scholars might mock the book for using quotes from science fiction characters, but this would just demonstrate that the scholars themselves have elitist attitudes. Science fictions compromise the mythologies of today and the literature of today.

The book for the purpose for which Miller wrote the book, the creation of a reactionary white Texas nationalism generally utilizes all the means nationalists use for promote a national identity. It doesn't have a bibliographic guide for the readers for books on Texas history and culture which is a significant omission for a nationalist effort.

I am not saying I endorse the book, nor am I saying the book is well written, I certainly don't agree with the claims made within the book, and not the goals either. What I am saying is that as an effort to promote a nationalist separatist agenda, the book generally does the necessary things.

What puzzled me was how Dennis Miller really expected his plan to have a Texas secessionist movement work. He does give a plan for a referendum and how to get that done, but how he expects a majority of Texans to support Texas secession either for getting the state legislature to approve having a referendum on secession and then having a majority of the voters to vote for secession is a puzzle.

I don't think African Americans, Hispanics, nor other minorities which have gotten civil rights and voting rights from the Federal government in opposition to the Texas government are likely to support secession. Miller wants to repeal the 14th Amendment which gave African Americans citizenship and also gives anyone born in the United States citizenship. Miller's discussion of Texas country  music in opposition to Nashville Country music as well as discussing other identifiers of being Texan certainly shows that his idea of who Texans are is a small fraction even of white Texans.

It is true that Miller wants to assimilate non-whites to his idea of Texas identity, and I am sure that there are minority members in Texas who would like to be that token.

The one reason for secession which Miller repeats over and over again is that the United States isn't the ultra-reactionary nation that he wants and that Texas would be that nation. It is doubtful that a majority of Texans want his reactionary Texas nation even if it was independent or support secession  if they knew that was the end goal of Texas secession. So the question comes up how he thinks this might be done.

Miller is quite aware of secession movements occurring globally. He has done his homework. What he doesn't mention in his book is the secession of Rhodesia from Britain, though it is hard to believe that he is not aware of it, though he might not be aware of it. Rhodesia is now known as Zimbabwe.

The secession of Rhodesia shows how a reactionary Texas secessionist might get the reactionary Texas they want.

During the 1960s the British were dismantling what remained of their empire and was implementing independence to former bodies in the empire. The British were implementing a transition to a black majority rule democratic government in Rhodesia. The Rhodesian government declared independence and implemented a system of white rule excluding blacks. This led to a long guerrilla war and now dictatorship by a particularly bad and incompetent dictator.

To get a reactionary independent Texas exclusion of persons from voting would be a necessary step.

The Texas Nationalist Movement has already rejected Supreme Court rulings against voter suppression.

The Texas Nationalist Movement surely realizes that the ongoing demographic shifts in Texas will soon preclude the realization of his reactionary Texas nation or even a conservative Texas state.  Young people in Texas don't support reactionary agendas. Minorities don't support them. It is the older generation in Texas that strongly support Trump. Persons moving to Texas don't support this reactionary agenda.

By 2020 there is talk of Texas being a democratic state.

However, if you can find some mechanism to exclude those voters who don't support you can still create a "majority" out of those who remain.

So you find one reason or another to exclude groups of voters that tend to have more of your opponents than supporters. Maybe they can't have been late in paying taxes in the last ten years, or unpaid parking tickets, or have received public assistance now or in the last ten years, or a criminal record in the past, or didn't pay property taxes, or didn't go through a lengthy and expensive voter registration, or don't own property in Texas.  Maybe they haven't lived at a fixed residence for 2 years which would tend to exclude those who rent. Maybe they have to have lived in Texas for 5 or 10 years.

There must be a million ways to do this. It all can be done under the guise of avoiding voter fraud or having voters committed to their locality or some rationalization.

Rhodesia was able to implement its unilateral declaration of independence by having a military which backed it up. That is to say they did it by force and the threat of violence.

Miller in his book doesn't call for violence or illegal means. He asks for a referendum. However, given his Facebook posting on the Federal Courts throwing out the Texas state government's efforts for voter suppression, it has to be asked if it is just his general opposition to the Federal government or is it that he is conscious that voter suppression is necessary to his plan?

My original thought that the election of Donald Trump to be president would be largely the end of the  prospects of the Texas Nationalist movement since their potential base would see Donald Trump as realizing an agenda to address their discontents. If Hillary Clinton is elected I think the Texas Nationalist movement would really surge in support as some reactionaries decide their agenda is hopeless in the United States.

However, with Trump, voting rights might be trampled. The country might also be in disorder. So at some point when Trump isn't president or during some general disorder a vote of a restricted set of voters might be feasible in Texas.

But back to the title of this blog.

The working concept behind how to achieve an independent Texas I think is really Rhodesia.

Below is the Facebook page dedicated to opposing Texas secession.

Thursday, November 03, 2016

Confederate Zombies - Where popular culture is now with the Confederacy

What is interesting about this video is that if you want to construct a monster you make it a Confederate monster for added monstrosity.

Also, slaughtering them is more gratifying when they are Confederate zombies.

In the 1950s and 60s popular media was very sympathetic to the Confederacy. Now the public attitude is fairly negative towards the Confederacy and media seems to be following this view. The producers of this series thought that having Confederate zombies would enhance the popularity of their series.

A little late for Halloween, but here it is.

Click on the video image to see the entire thing.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time