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. 

"Breitbart" and the Confederacy. They aren't the "Southern Partisan." They are banal white nationalists with a policy destructive to American nationalism. "Breitbart" reporting could be an aid to Russia

I had said earlier that Breitbart was a modern day Southern Partisan, They are not. After printing out maybe about 100 articles and scanning them and reading for the last few weeks closely what they say I am beginning to see what their strategy is.

The Breitbart view of the Confederacy will please and displease neo-Confederates.

On one hand Breitbart will publish articles like this.

For example this series about the Houston Independent School District in Texas getting rid of Confederate names for schools.

In this article Breitbart claims they are erasing history.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/03/22/more-texas-school-district-seek-to-erase-confederate-past/

This article says that taxpayers are complaining that changing the name is a waste of money. How many taxpayers isn't mentioned.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/05/03/changing-name-of-texas-school-will-cost-500k/

Again another article about irate taxpayers, which means that there are at least 2.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/08/11/taxpayers-slam-multi-million-dollar-plans-rename-houston-schools/

On the other hand Breitbart invokes the Confederacy to condemn Democrats and liberals.

In this article Ian Hanchett quotes Charles Krauthhammer saying that the supporters of Sanctuary cities, cities where the police don't go after immigrants, are using "the language of the Confederates."
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/05/krauthammer-sanctuary-cities-speaking-the-language-of-the-southern-segregationists/

Then there is this article in which the California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is condemned as neo-Confederate. As I blog earlier on, I didn't see exactly how Rendon was neo-Confederate and I am fairly good on determining neo-Confederacy.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/05/rendon-speech-neo-confederate-editorial/

Condemning a speaker, writer, author, columnist, politician, celebrity by claiming that they have some element or feature or similarity to the Confederacy is also a condemnation of the Confederacy. Denouncing some statement, policy, position paper, or resolution claiming that it has elements of the Confederacy is necessarily a condemnation of the Confederacy.

Saying that something is bad because is like or similar or derives from something else, necessarily means that the something else is bad.

More interesting is that Breitbart reporting implies neo-Confederate ideology is bad, since it condemns certain thinking as having Confederate affinities or components or elements.

However, if anyone tries to get rid of a Confederate monument or holiday or place name Breitbart is entirely against it. It might seem contradictory and a person might think that it is just that Breitbart has no coherent ideology and is just a maniacal rage machine. Just because it is a rage machine doesn't mean they are stupid or don't have a strategy.

Breitbart supports a banal white nationalist America. So for issues in the present it supports a strong national government in pursuit of its agenda.

However, in the past, all fighting white Americans are held to be heroic and pulling down one statue to one white American might lead to another statue of a white American being pulled down. The Civil War of Breitbart seems to be the Civil War of the 1950s or earlier, a "romance of reunion" Civil War, a white solidarity maintained by the idea that the Civil War was an avoidable mistake or was only about preserving the union, but wasn't about slavery or race, and in any case the Civil War demonstrated white bravery.

Breitbart's concept of patriotism, a white nationalism, is dangerous to the United States, since white nationalism can't be the basis of a strong American national identity in a multiracial America, and instead will work to undermine America.

And there are foreign powers which will be glad to exploit the situation. It has already become clear that Russia is aiding both left wing and right wing nationalist groups, both California and Texas secessionists. They are aiding both left wing and right wing groups in Europe also. Their policy is a pragmatic realpolitik to attack Western democracy and to undermine their geopolitical opponents.

They will be very quick to seize on strategies of exploiting racial nationalist groups. With their support of neo-Confederates and Texas secessionists already supporting white nationalists. The Russians must be reviewing what other racial nationalists that they can support.

National sentiment is always provisional. With a change in a situation individuals will reevaluate their national identity. This is demonstrated by the current secession movements where both left wing and right wing groups feel that they have no prospects of their agenda in the current political unit being successful.

If the Trump administration is dragging hundreds of thousands or even millions of Hispanics out of their homes and dumping them in Mexico where these individuals end up in camps where they are starving there is bound to be a Hispanic nationalist movement. The United States did steal the Southwest United States as President Ulysses S. Grant as explain in his memoir:

"I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory." 

Surely some Hispanic nationalist will want to quote this.

As the Trump administration undermines civil rights and voting rights and shows an indifference to cases where police officers shoot African Americans and the Trump administration expresses a hostility towards the Black Lives Matter movement surely some Black Nationalists will seek to capitalize on the situation.

In 2016 the situation regarding reckless and wrongful shooting of African Americans came dangerously close to getting out of control as some individual African Americans sought to take revenge by shooting police officers and some neo-Confederate groups sought to have counter protest at Blasck Lives Matter protests.

I think with Trump being elected we are likely  to see right wing white groups show up with guns at Black Lives Matter protests. At Black Lives Matter protests there are already African American groups parading with guns. A few days ago a young person with guns fired shots in a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C. because of some lunatic right wing news story that the Clinton's were using its back rooms for child sex slavery. These protests with white nationalists, black nationalists, and the Black Lives Matter protesters, some carrying guns, will be combustible.

All we need to have is two groups at a Black Lives Matter protest shooting at each other and the situation could spiral out of control. It might not even be that the two protesting groups set it off, a third party, a lone individual, might decided to shot one of the protesters to set things off.

In any deteriorating situation Black Nationalism will seek to capitalize on the situation.

Then there is the situation of native Americans. How well has the American nation treated these groups historically? Not very well.  We still have Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Surely the Russians will find some opportunities.

All racial nationalisms share the same reactionary understanding of nationality. They only differ in which group they see themselves as advocating for. So it won't be that difficult for a white reactionary nationalist Russia to support minority nationalisms in America. They will find that in many ways they think very similarly.

Also, it should be understood to have your movement backed by a major world power gives it credibility.  Also, a major world power has ways of impressing a separatist movement.

When visiting nationalists are hosted by important officials in prestigious buildings the visiting nationalists are certainly impressed and given confidence and faith in their movement. When the nationalist group sees their leader hosted by important officials in an impressive historic building they can't but imagine what they are doing is important since important people with real power see it as important. The photos of these meetings certainly will give the movement credibility.

Our nationalist elites still see separatism as amusing and a novelty and don't take it seriously. This is because they are in many ways vacuous and an intellectually inbred set of people.

It is time for the government to wake up and start counter measures against separatism. As I stated earlier it needs to be NOT oppressive, but a strategy informed by a critical understanding of the theory of nationalism.

Also, government actions and policy needs to be reviewed such that nationalists are not encouraged. This is not to say avoid certain policies because you are afraid to aggravate some separatist nationalist direction, but to make sure that some policy doesn't needlessly enable separatist nationalism when it could easily have been avoided.

I suggest Michael Billig's "Banal Nationalism," and Donald Mitchell's "Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction." These books are available on the used market. They are not big books, and reading the both of them will give a fairly comprehensive view of the topic and provide most what a an anti-separatist program needs to know.


My paper on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html