The neo-Confederates believe in what they call "ordered liberty" which as far as I can tell is the liberty for them to order others around. This is mentioned in an article by Max Blumenthal where I make this comment.
You can read the article here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/blumenthal
Michael Hill condemns Democracy in his lecture "Egalitarian Democracy the Universal Wolf," and you can listen to it here.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr.%5EMichael%5EHill
Monday, February 26, 2007
Vermont Unitarians
The Neo-Confederates portray Unitarians as the great villians of American history and destroyers of the South. I had a paper published in the Canadian Review of American Studies at the University of Toronto.
This is the link to the PDF version. http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf
This is the link to the HTML version. http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras/323/sebesta.html
The prejudices of the Neo-Confederates are not limited to race. They see the Civil War as a theological war.
This is the link to the PDF version. http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf
This is the link to the HTML version. http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras/323/sebesta.html
The prejudices of the Neo-Confederates are not limited to race. They see the Civil War as a theological war.
League of the South and Racism (Or Who in Vermont is kidding Whom?)
It would be very instructive to read the lead article on the League of the South webpage http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php titled, "Let's Drop the 'R' Word," by Mike Tuggle which you can read at this link. Link to article here..
The article argues that the term "racism" and the concept are invalid. Tuggle claims that the concept of racism was and is a attempt by Marxists to attack the West. So if you asked a League of the South member if they are racist, they would deny it since they don't see it as a valid concept. Tuggle likens using the term "racism" to using Scientology terminology. Concluding:
"Don't laugh. As obvious as the above may seem, many conservative Christians have unknowingly adopted a term that undermines their own beliefs while promoting the ideology of their enemies. By accepting the term "racism" from the Marxist secular humanists, mainstream Christian conservatives are promoting the radical, anti-Christian ideology that invented it. "
One reason the League of the South has taken this approach to the concept of racism is that it has been all too well documented the racist agenda of the League of the South. So the term "racism" itself is attacked as "anti-Christian ideology." Of course this entire line of reasoning is to support a racist agenda and an attack on anti-racism at a most fundamental level.
Who is Naylor kidding, the League of the South is very serious racist group.
The article argues that the term "racism" and the concept are invalid. Tuggle claims that the concept of racism was and is a attempt by Marxists to attack the West. So if you asked a League of the South member if they are racist, they would deny it since they don't see it as a valid concept. Tuggle likens using the term "racism" to using Scientology terminology. Concluding:
"Don't laugh. As obvious as the above may seem, many conservative Christians have unknowingly adopted a term that undermines their own beliefs while promoting the ideology of their enemies. By accepting the term "racism" from the Marxist secular humanists, mainstream Christian conservatives are promoting the radical, anti-Christian ideology that invented it. "
One reason the League of the South has taken this approach to the concept of racism is that it has been all too well documented the racist agenda of the League of the South. So the term "racism" itself is attacked as "anti-Christian ideology." Of course this entire line of reasoning is to support a racist agenda and an attack on anti-racism at a most fundamental level.
Who is Naylor kidding, the League of the South is very serious racist group.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Thomas H. Naylor writings on Race
Thomas H. Naylor of the Second Vermont Republic movement http://www.vermontrepublic.org/ has this tirade response_to_smear_campaign about the involvement of Neo-Confederates in the Second Vermont Republic.
Well let's review what Naylor has to say about race in his book, "Downsizing the U.S.A.," Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997.
For one thing, Naylor sees ethnic and racial differences a reason for dissolution or states rights or devolution, he is a little vague here. On pages 210-211, he writes as follows:
"Although the American states may have once shared a number of common characteristics, this is much less true today than ever before. What do heavily industrialized states such as New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have in common with predominately rural states such as Maine, Vermont, Mississippi, and West Virginia? The South is the fastest growing region in the nation demographically and economically.
Although African Americans represent only 12.6 percent of the American population, fourteen cities with populations over have black majorities. Detroit and Washington, D.C., are 75.7 percent and 65.8 percent black, respectively. Vermont, on the other hand, with fewer than two thousand blacks in the entire state, has the lowest percent African American population among the fifty states. The Mississippi Delta and the so-called Black Belt of the South have virtually nothing in common with the San Francisco Bay Area.
A dozen American cities with populations over one hundred thousand have Hispanic majorities, even though only 10.2 percent of the national population is Hispanic. Miami leads the way with a 62.5 percent Hispanic population. Over 25 percent of the population of Texas is Hispanic. Not surprisingly, many Texans now identify more closely with Mexico than was previously the case. California is expected to have a Hispanic majority during the first quarter of the twenty-first century. And Los Angeles County will have one by the end of this century.
Despite all the hype about the merits of multicultural pluralism, our cities are different and are states are different -- very different. This is not a statement of racial or ethnic superiority of one state or city in comparison to others, but rather an acknowledgment that the problems of Houston and Miami bear little resemblance to those of Burlington, Vermont or Laramie, Wyoming."
Well this begins to explain why Naylor has fled to Vermont from Richmond. With Vermont only being 0.6% African American and only 1.1% Hispanic he feels his isn't likely to end up in a majority minority city. This "only" percentage is not going to have him in a majority minority municipality. What is the point of Naylor statement "Although African Americans represent only 12.6 percent of American population, fourteen cities with populations over one hundred thousand have black majorities." It is a warning from Naylor, the overall percentage maybe low, but that doesn't mean you (a white "you") will not end up in a majority African American city.
Note should be taken that Vermont is flagged by Naylor as being different from other states because it is white.
Then there is Naylor's Reconquista illusions about Hispanics.
But the conclusion really says where Naylor is coming from where states and cities are "very different" because of race. That is race makes different states and cities "others" because of racial differences. To Naylor Race is a defining and dominating determining element necessary to make cities and states "very different." Which Naylor thinks the "hype ... of multicultural pluralism" doesn't overcome.
On pages 57-58 Naylor sees integration as being a failure. Naylor tries to couch his critique of integration and civil rights in terms of what it hasn't accomplished but in certain ways he betrays himself.
In the opening paragraph he states, "Since the 1960s the official policy of the U.S. government has been the forced racial integration of public schools, colleges and universities, public accommodations, restaurants, stores, and more recently the workplace." Segregation was forced in some states, with state laws mandating it. Also, who is being forced? Most Americans go to stores, restaurants, workplaces, etc. that are integrated, and don't feel forced, that they have to go to integrated places against their will, because they aren't segregationists. Being forced is the terminology of a segregationist.
Then Naylor states, "Although this commitment to racial integration once enjoyed broad-based public support, today an increasing number of whites, blacks, and Hispanics have either become ambivalent or hostile to forced integration." The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Americans of all races support integration. "an increasing number" doesn't really say anything, is it 48 people increasing to 79 people? There is a growing awareness that integration is perhaps only the first step to solving racial issues in America, is that the "ambivalent" that Naylor lumps with "hostile"?
However, towards the end Naylor calls for the end of integration as a Federal policy and law, stating:
"The simple truth is that after thirty years of top-down policies aimed at forcing blacks and whites to be in community with each other, racism and defacto segregation are still alive and well in urban America and elsewhere. Although there is increasing evidence that the quality of life has improved for many African Americans in the 1990s, on balance blacks are still poorer, less well educated, less healthy, and more likely to end up in jail than their white neighbors. Is it realistic to assume that it is possible for our government to force community on blacks and whites, given the history of the relationship between these two races in American -- slavery, emancipation, forced segregation, economic discrimination, and thirty years of paternalistic, top-down government programs? More creative solutions are needed? Has integration disempowered minorities, diluting their influence over their communities and implying that every solution to their problems always lies in the hands of the majority-backed government?"
Naylor suggests that integration has been a failure, though as a question. Naylor does ask for "creative solutions are needed" as alternatives to integration, though he doesn't say what these "creative solutions" would be, but given that he sees integration as a failure, these solutions involve an end to "forced" integration. Arguments against integration in the 1950s argued that it would be harmful to African Americans.
Why Naylor came to Vermont is explained on pages 48 to 52. Richmond is portrayed as a city overcome by crime, African American crime, and angry African Americans. Naylor says that Richmond "was in a death spiral." Naylor's white flight goes all the way to Vermont. Again this white flight is drapped in terms of solicitude for African Americans. It also explains why Naylor is concerns that even though a minority group might "only" be a certain percent there are majority minority cities.
Naylor feels that he isn't racist, because he isn't some raging segregationists, but he is of the other racist tradition of white paternalism.
Well let's review what Naylor has to say about race in his book, "Downsizing the U.S.A.," Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997.
For one thing, Naylor sees ethnic and racial differences a reason for dissolution or states rights or devolution, he is a little vague here. On pages 210-211, he writes as follows:
"Although the American states may have once shared a number of common characteristics, this is much less true today than ever before. What do heavily industrialized states such as New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have in common with predominately rural states such as Maine, Vermont, Mississippi, and West Virginia? The South is the fastest growing region in the nation demographically and economically.
Although African Americans represent only 12.6 percent of the American population, fourteen cities with populations over have black majorities. Detroit and Washington, D.C., are 75.7 percent and 65.8 percent black, respectively. Vermont, on the other hand, with fewer than two thousand blacks in the entire state, has the lowest percent African American population among the fifty states. The Mississippi Delta and the so-called Black Belt of the South have virtually nothing in common with the San Francisco Bay Area.
A dozen American cities with populations over one hundred thousand have Hispanic majorities, even though only 10.2 percent of the national population is Hispanic. Miami leads the way with a 62.5 percent Hispanic population. Over 25 percent of the population of Texas is Hispanic. Not surprisingly, many Texans now identify more closely with Mexico than was previously the case. California is expected to have a Hispanic majority during the first quarter of the twenty-first century. And Los Angeles County will have one by the end of this century.
Despite all the hype about the merits of multicultural pluralism, our cities are different and are states are different -- very different. This is not a statement of racial or ethnic superiority of one state or city in comparison to others, but rather an acknowledgment that the problems of Houston and Miami bear little resemblance to those of Burlington, Vermont or Laramie, Wyoming."
Well this begins to explain why Naylor has fled to Vermont from Richmond. With Vermont only being 0.6% African American and only 1.1% Hispanic he feels his isn't likely to end up in a majority minority city. This "only" percentage is not going to have him in a majority minority municipality. What is the point of Naylor statement "Although African Americans represent only 12.6 percent of American population, fourteen cities with populations over one hundred thousand have black majorities." It is a warning from Naylor, the overall percentage maybe low, but that doesn't mean you (a white "you") will not end up in a majority African American city.
Note should be taken that Vermont is flagged by Naylor as being different from other states because it is white.
Then there is Naylor's Reconquista illusions about Hispanics.
But the conclusion really says where Naylor is coming from where states and cities are "very different" because of race. That is race makes different states and cities "others" because of racial differences. To Naylor Race is a defining and dominating determining element necessary to make cities and states "very different." Which Naylor thinks the "hype ... of multicultural pluralism" doesn't overcome.
On pages 57-58 Naylor sees integration as being a failure. Naylor tries to couch his critique of integration and civil rights in terms of what it hasn't accomplished but in certain ways he betrays himself.
In the opening paragraph he states, "Since the 1960s the official policy of the U.S. government has been the forced racial integration of public schools, colleges and universities, public accommodations, restaurants, stores, and more recently the workplace." Segregation was forced in some states, with state laws mandating it. Also, who is being forced? Most Americans go to stores, restaurants, workplaces, etc. that are integrated, and don't feel forced, that they have to go to integrated places against their will, because they aren't segregationists. Being forced is the terminology of a segregationist.
Then Naylor states, "Although this commitment to racial integration once enjoyed broad-based public support, today an increasing number of whites, blacks, and Hispanics have either become ambivalent or hostile to forced integration." The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Americans of all races support integration. "an increasing number" doesn't really say anything, is it 48 people increasing to 79 people? There is a growing awareness that integration is perhaps only the first step to solving racial issues in America, is that the "ambivalent" that Naylor lumps with "hostile"?
However, towards the end Naylor calls for the end of integration as a Federal policy and law, stating:
"The simple truth is that after thirty years of top-down policies aimed at forcing blacks and whites to be in community with each other, racism and defacto segregation are still alive and well in urban America and elsewhere. Although there is increasing evidence that the quality of life has improved for many African Americans in the 1990s, on balance blacks are still poorer, less well educated, less healthy, and more likely to end up in jail than their white neighbors. Is it realistic to assume that it is possible for our government to force community on blacks and whites, given the history of the relationship between these two races in American -- slavery, emancipation, forced segregation, economic discrimination, and thirty years of paternalistic, top-down government programs? More creative solutions are needed? Has integration disempowered minorities, diluting their influence over their communities and implying that every solution to their problems always lies in the hands of the majority-backed government?"
Naylor suggests that integration has been a failure, though as a question. Naylor does ask for "creative solutions are needed" as alternatives to integration, though he doesn't say what these "creative solutions" would be, but given that he sees integration as a failure, these solutions involve an end to "forced" integration. Arguments against integration in the 1950s argued that it would be harmful to African Americans.
Why Naylor came to Vermont is explained on pages 48 to 52. Richmond is portrayed as a city overcome by crime, African American crime, and angry African Americans. Naylor says that Richmond "was in a death spiral." Naylor's white flight goes all the way to Vermont. Again this white flight is drapped in terms of solicitude for African Americans. It also explains why Naylor is concerns that even though a minority group might "only" be a certain percent there are majority minority cities.
Naylor feels that he isn't racist, because he isn't some raging segregationists, but he is of the other racist tradition of white paternalism.
Who are the advisers to the Second Vermont Republic
Who are the advisors to the Second Vermont Republic.
It isn't a Grand Duchy of Fenwick fantasy.
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/ You will find many of the advisors for the SVR actively involved. Though currently they are "agrarian" and "Southern culture" and dissembling, they are Rockford Institute people, former LOS people. LOS is a nearly defunct organization and the Neo-Confederate academics and leaders have moved on to new groups. I would direct you to the conference and photo pages such as this one.
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/06SS/06SSFaculty.htm There is Marco Bassini with a Confederate flag in the background. There is Peter Jones.
This is a link to Donald Livingston's essay at "Stalking the Wild Taboo." An examination of the home page will make it quite clear what the "Wild Taboo" is, racism. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/dwliv01.html
It isn't a Grand Duchy of Fenwick fantasy.
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/ You will find many of the advisors for the SVR actively involved. Though currently they are "agrarian" and "Southern culture" and dissembling, they are Rockford Institute people, former LOS people. LOS is a nearly defunct organization and the Neo-Confederate academics and leaders have moved on to new groups. I would direct you to the conference and photo pages such as this one.
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/06SS/06SSFaculty.htm There is Marco Bassini with a Confederate flag in the background. There is Peter Jones.
This is a link to Donald Livingston's essay at "Stalking the Wild Taboo." An examination of the home page will make it quite clear what the "Wild Taboo" is, racism. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/dwliv01.html
Monday, February 19, 2007
The two Thomas H. Naylors, both fighting for states rights
I think people know of the Thomas H. Naylor who grew up in Jackson, Mississippi and is pushing Vermont Secession. Joined the staff of Duke University in 1964. http://www.econ.duke.edu/History/yohe_narr.pdf
Then there is the other Thomas H. Naylor, Executive Director Education and Finance Commission, who also had a states rights perspective and worked with the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and worked in Jackson, Mississippi. This other person was in a film "Message from Mississippi" which defended segregation in Mississippi.
http://mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents/er/sovcom/
Is it father and son? It would be good to know Thomas H. Naylor of Vermont full biography. Born in 1936, gone to Columbia university, and then what? What was Thomas H. Naylor doing between graduating from Columbia University and starting at Duke Univ.
Then there is the other Thomas H. Naylor, Executive Director Education and Finance Commission, who also had a states rights perspective and worked with the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and worked in Jackson, Mississippi. This other person was in a film "Message from Mississippi" which defended segregation in Mississippi.
http://mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents/er/sovcom/
Is it father and son? It would be good to know Thomas H. Naylor of Vermont full biography. Born in 1936, gone to Columbia university, and then what? What was Thomas H. Naylor doing between graduating from Columbia University and starting at Duke Univ.
Hillary Clinton takes stand against Confederate flag on South Carolina Statehouse grounds
Hillary Clinton, campaigning for the presidency, has taken a stand against the Confederate flag being flown on the South Carolina Statehouse grounds.
Here is a link to the story.
Link to "Washington Post" article.
It seems that the Democratic candidates are all lining up against the Confederate flag. I have yet to find a Republican candidate for the presidency taking a stand. If there is some stand, pro or con, please let me know about it.
It is interesting that with the South Carolina primary, the issues of race and the Confederacy will be an issue in every presidential election, and it will divide identify the Democrats as anti-Confederate and the Republicans as pro-Confederate.
I have updated the presidential 2008 campaign also.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
Here is a link to the story.
Link to "Washington Post" article.
It seems that the Democratic candidates are all lining up against the Confederate flag. I have yet to find a Republican candidate for the presidency taking a stand. If there is some stand, pro or con, please let me know about it.
It is interesting that with the South Carolina primary, the issues of race and the Confederacy will be an issue in every presidential election, and it will divide identify the Democrats as anti-Confederate and the Republicans as pro-Confederate.
I have updated the presidential 2008 campaign also.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Vermont Secessionist revealed.
This blogger has been doing some hard work revealing who is behind the Vermont Secessionist movement.
http://www.vermontsecession.blogspot.com/
I sent the blogger some leads and he has been doing research on his own. It is good to see that people are realizing what the real agenda is behind the Vermont Republic movement.
http://www.vermontsecession.blogspot.com/
I sent the blogger some leads and he has been doing research on his own. It is good to see that people are realizing what the real agenda is behind the Vermont Republic movement.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Neo-Confederate Fictions: Brilliant military leaders and patriotic Confederate nationals.
Neo-Confederates like to go on and on about their "Brilliant" military leaders. However, I would like to point out that the Confederate armies lost the war. Now, some might think that losing a war is a small technical detail in evaluating military competency, but I think that winning a war is a criteria that you could use to judge military commanders at war.
Now the cry of the Neo-Confederates has been that the Confederate armies were outnumbered. Being outnumbered is certainly no advantage. However, it isn't a insurmountable obstacle either. Alexander the Great, defeated Persian armies in battle many times the size of his army. The Swiss triumphed over the armies of the Austrians. The Dutch won against the Habsburgs. The Vietnamese won against the United States.
Prince Eugene de Savoy defeated armies much larger than his much to the chagrin of Louis XIV and others and is considered great.
Great military leaders overcome odds, that is where they get the reputation as being "great." Average military leaders meet the expectations set by the odds.
It seems that Robert E. Lee was rather clueless on the idea of fighting a defensive war and squandered the Confederacy's military resources in battle, when he could have just sat tight.
A lot is spoken and written about Gettysburg and Pickett's charge, and it being the "high water mark" of the Confederacy. This "high water mark" comment is a real sign of the lack of comprehension of what war is about. Was Moscow the "high water mark" of Napoleon's French Empire? But supposing Lee had won the battle of Gettysburg and the American armies retreated. What would be next? Well another battle with the American armies which he might lose or suffer further casualties. Or would he have to retreat back to Virginia before the American army trapped him in Pennsylvania and capture him and his army?
Patriotism in the Confederacy
Wars cost money. Loads of it, lots of it, vast quantities of it. The American government knew it and went to raise it through taxes. Congress added tariffs to provide the funding for American war bonds around the beginning of the war. Later the income tax was added. With this cash flow there could be credit. You can borrow money when you have an income.
The Confederate government didn't raise taxes. They decided to print money. You can print loads of paper money, lots of it, vast quantities of it. You can reset the plates and add a zero or zeros. However, it is very inflationary and you add zeros in a race against its depreciating value.
Taxes would have required the use of the Confederate currency to pay them so money put into circulation would come out, and an income from taxes would allow the issuing of bonds, to raise funds without printing money. However, with runaway inflation, you are not going to get anyone to purchase bonds, when they are going to be worthless.
Inflation doesn't fall evenly on the population. It hit people who are paid wages and have their wealth in savings and cash on hand. Landowners and slave owners would have their wealth without the burden of taxation.
There is an expression "Put your money where your mouth is." The Confederates, despite all their bluster and oratory and blather about honor, weren't going to dig into their pockets to pay taxes for the war.
Now the cry of the Neo-Confederates has been that the Confederate armies were outnumbered. Being outnumbered is certainly no advantage. However, it isn't a insurmountable obstacle either. Alexander the Great, defeated Persian armies in battle many times the size of his army. The Swiss triumphed over the armies of the Austrians. The Dutch won against the Habsburgs. The Vietnamese won against the United States.
Prince Eugene de Savoy defeated armies much larger than his much to the chagrin of Louis XIV and others and is considered great.
Great military leaders overcome odds, that is where they get the reputation as being "great." Average military leaders meet the expectations set by the odds.
It seems that Robert E. Lee was rather clueless on the idea of fighting a defensive war and squandered the Confederacy's military resources in battle, when he could have just sat tight.
A lot is spoken and written about Gettysburg and Pickett's charge, and it being the "high water mark" of the Confederacy. This "high water mark" comment is a real sign of the lack of comprehension of what war is about. Was Moscow the "high water mark" of Napoleon's French Empire? But supposing Lee had won the battle of Gettysburg and the American armies retreated. What would be next? Well another battle with the American armies which he might lose or suffer further casualties. Or would he have to retreat back to Virginia before the American army trapped him in Pennsylvania and capture him and his army?
Patriotism in the Confederacy
Wars cost money. Loads of it, lots of it, vast quantities of it. The American government knew it and went to raise it through taxes. Congress added tariffs to provide the funding for American war bonds around the beginning of the war. Later the income tax was added. With this cash flow there could be credit. You can borrow money when you have an income.
The Confederate government didn't raise taxes. They decided to print money. You can print loads of paper money, lots of it, vast quantities of it. You can reset the plates and add a zero or zeros. However, it is very inflationary and you add zeros in a race against its depreciating value.
Taxes would have required the use of the Confederate currency to pay them so money put into circulation would come out, and an income from taxes would allow the issuing of bonds, to raise funds without printing money. However, with runaway inflation, you are not going to get anyone to purchase bonds, when they are going to be worthless.
Inflation doesn't fall evenly on the population. It hit people who are paid wages and have their wealth in savings and cash on hand. Landowners and slave owners would have their wealth without the burden of taxation.
There is an expression "Put your money where your mouth is." The Confederates, despite all their bluster and oratory and blather about honor, weren't going to dig into their pockets to pay taxes for the war.
Richardson takes stand against Confederate flag.
The article on Bill Richardson taking a stand against the Confederate flag is in this article here.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/55887.html
As the article points out, he had been reluctant to speak on it previously.
Article here.
I updated the Presidential Candidate page. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
I think that we can expect almost all, if not very likely all Democratic presidential candidates to take a stand against the Confederate flag.
I am updating the Presidential Candidate page as small things develop, such as candidates dropping out, etc. and don't announce every revision in the blog. There is a link to the page in the right side bar of this blog.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/55887.html
As the article points out, he had been reluctant to speak on it previously.
Article here.
I updated the Presidential Candidate page. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
I think that we can expect almost all, if not very likely all Democratic presidential candidates to take a stand against the Confederate flag.
I am updating the Presidential Candidate page as small things develop, such as candidates dropping out, etc. and don't announce every revision in the blog. There is a link to the page in the right side bar of this blog.
Monday, January 15, 2007
South Carolina Primary in 2008/ Neo-Confederate protests
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16465466.htm
The above article reports on Neo-Confederate protest against the NAACP MLK event at the State house protesting against U.S. Senator and 2008 Presidential candidate Biden.
We can expect to see a lot of this in the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign. However, I think most Democratic presidential candidates will be disappointed if they don't get a protest against them by Neo-Confederates. A Neo-Confederate protest would be an image booster for a candidate hoping to attract Democratic voters across the country.
The question is, whether the Neo-Confederates will be disruptive. That is, will they pull down signs and posters, and harass campaign workers and operations. I don't know if they will or will not. I think it is possible.
It seems Biden is dropping his "slave state" Delaware identity.
Also, this makes two Democratic Presidential candidates who have taken stands against the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds in South Carolina. I have not heard of any Republicans taking a stand against the Confederate flag, if someone has documentation of such, please email me and let me know.
I will be tracking the issues on my http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm page.
The above article reports on Neo-Confederate protest against the NAACP MLK event at the State house protesting against U.S. Senator and 2008 Presidential candidate Biden.
We can expect to see a lot of this in the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign. However, I think most Democratic presidential candidates will be disappointed if they don't get a protest against them by Neo-Confederates. A Neo-Confederate protest would be an image booster for a candidate hoping to attract Democratic voters across the country.
The question is, whether the Neo-Confederates will be disruptive. That is, will they pull down signs and posters, and harass campaign workers and operations. I don't know if they will or will not. I think it is possible.
It seems Biden is dropping his "slave state" Delaware identity.
Also, this makes two Democratic Presidential candidates who have taken stands against the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds in South Carolina. I have not heard of any Republicans taking a stand against the Confederate flag, if someone has documentation of such, please email me and let me know.
I will be tracking the issues on my http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm page.
The Bilboization of the Republican Party in the former Confederate States
As most everyone has heard, if they read a paper or watch news, Rep. Goode (R-Virginia) and numerous rightwing commentators had a fit over Rep. Keith Ellison taking his oath of office using a Koran.
http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/01/14/news/local_news/1020458.txt
It would seem to me the big issue would be the effectiveness of any of these oaths by any religious faith. For right-wing conservatism it seems that the necessity is to have hysteria over nothing all the time. A recent example of this is the outrage worked up by conservatives over Pizza Patron accepting pesos. The fact is that stores accept foreign currency all the time with some type of exchange rate charge when it is a feasible thing to do. U.S. Dollars are accepted in Canada where U.S. tourists go.
Theodore Bilbo, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000460, U.S. Representative and later Senator from Mississippi was notorious for his hysterical racism.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/amit/display.cfm?amit_id=2015
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf
With the defeat of the Republicans in 2006 and likely further defeats in 2008 it seems that it many Republicans are independently setting their own course to make sure they are elected, national Republican party strategy be damned. The national Republican party seems to have much less authority with individual Republicans office holders who rather risk the wrath of the Republican National Committee (RNC) than the voters in the next elections. So the political philosophy of some of them seems to be talk-radio conservatism and also what plays locally. The concerns of the national Republican party to build a majority coalition by reaching out to various groups seems to be of little concern.
We have seen this last year when many Southern Republicans campaigned against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, with language right out of the Southern Partisan.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/05/south-will-rise-again-effort-to-block.html
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/06/neo-confederate-opposition-to-voting.html
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/07/voting-rights-act-update-neo.html
Further back in time was Barbour running with the endorsement of the Council of Conservative Citizens (http://www.cofcc.org/).
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=803
I think the contest in the Republican party will be between what the national Republican party wants, and their control over funds, and what it takes to be elected locally, especially when some competitors in the Republican primary may not be at all concerned with what the national Republican party wants. Also, some allowance will be made so nationally backed Republican candidates can get elected. So there will likely be allowances and concessions to hysterical talk show radio. However, this runs the risk of becoming a runaway process as the center of debate gets shifted to extremism by degrees. This will effect some type of shift to the hysterical talk-show right (Am I being redundant?) in the Republican party in the former(?) Confederate states.
This will make it difficult for Republicans elsewhere outside the former Confederate states to run for office. It won't be like Dixiecrats in the Democratic party in the 1950s and 60s, since the Dixiecrats were obviously not the political center of the Democrats, but the Republican Dixiecrats have been central if not the center of the Republican party in the 90s and certainly are now becoming more the center. The Republicans have captured the former Confederate states, but they are losing the rest of the nation.
With national media, the hysterical crazed yelpings of persons like Rep. Goode and others will cause a cringe with the public elsewhere and it will be very difficult for a Republican party in Wisconsin. When you have always start your conversation that you are not like those Dixiecrat Republicans, it must be fairly demoralizing and a rather uphill climb. Indeed as people leave your party you run the risk that your base and then membership are extremists and you leave also.
The Republican party having so completely captured the former Confederate states, but at the same time losing the rest of the nation with their increasing extremism, and with the increasing public discontent over George W. Bush, many Democrats are realizing that they can win without the former Confederate states. In fact, they certainly realize they can run a fairly good presidential primary campaign without the former Confederate states, and not compete with the few presidential candidates that might want to reach out for the Confederate vote. The book "Whistling Past Dixie" which asserts that the Democrats should bypass the former Confederate states has been getting a lot of attention. http://www.whistlingpastdixie.com/
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.md.schaller27dec27,0,4959229.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
I don't know if a national political party can ignore completely any region, but I think the policy of centering the Democratic platform to eke out one more electoral vote somewhere in the former Confederate states is not going to be the automatically given policy anymore.
One developing trend might be that the Republican party will publicly embrace the Confederacy and the Democrats will increasingly reject it. That the issue of the Confederacy will become partisan. Of course there is the complication of James Webb, U.S. Senator (D-VA). However, in 2008, the Democrats will likely pick up more Senate seats outside the former Confederate states and not need Webb.
All of this will be occurring during the political debate over Iraq and likely an increasingly contentious debate over Iraq policy which I think will be agitating politics in general.
http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/01/14/news/local_news/1020458.txt
It would seem to me the big issue would be the effectiveness of any of these oaths by any religious faith. For right-wing conservatism it seems that the necessity is to have hysteria over nothing all the time. A recent example of this is the outrage worked up by conservatives over Pizza Patron accepting pesos. The fact is that stores accept foreign currency all the time with some type of exchange rate charge when it is a feasible thing to do. U.S. Dollars are accepted in Canada where U.S. tourists go.
Theodore Bilbo, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000460, U.S. Representative and later Senator from Mississippi was notorious for his hysterical racism.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/amit/display.cfm?amit_id=2015
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf
With the defeat of the Republicans in 2006 and likely further defeats in 2008 it seems that it many Republicans are independently setting their own course to make sure they are elected, national Republican party strategy be damned. The national Republican party seems to have much less authority with individual Republicans office holders who rather risk the wrath of the Republican National Committee (RNC) than the voters in the next elections. So the political philosophy of some of them seems to be talk-radio conservatism and also what plays locally. The concerns of the national Republican party to build a majority coalition by reaching out to various groups seems to be of little concern.
We have seen this last year when many Southern Republicans campaigned against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, with language right out of the Southern Partisan.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/05/south-will-rise-again-effort-to-block.html
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/06/neo-confederate-opposition-to-voting.html
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/07/voting-rights-act-update-neo.html
Further back in time was Barbour running with the endorsement of the Council of Conservative Citizens (http://www.cofcc.org/).
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=803
I think the contest in the Republican party will be between what the national Republican party wants, and their control over funds, and what it takes to be elected locally, especially when some competitors in the Republican primary may not be at all concerned with what the national Republican party wants. Also, some allowance will be made so nationally backed Republican candidates can get elected. So there will likely be allowances and concessions to hysterical talk show radio. However, this runs the risk of becoming a runaway process as the center of debate gets shifted to extremism by degrees. This will effect some type of shift to the hysterical talk-show right (Am I being redundant?) in the Republican party in the former(?) Confederate states.
This will make it difficult for Republicans elsewhere outside the former Confederate states to run for office. It won't be like Dixiecrats in the Democratic party in the 1950s and 60s, since the Dixiecrats were obviously not the political center of the Democrats, but the Republican Dixiecrats have been central if not the center of the Republican party in the 90s and certainly are now becoming more the center. The Republicans have captured the former Confederate states, but they are losing the rest of the nation.
With national media, the hysterical crazed yelpings of persons like Rep. Goode and others will cause a cringe with the public elsewhere and it will be very difficult for a Republican party in Wisconsin. When you have always start your conversation that you are not like those Dixiecrat Republicans, it must be fairly demoralizing and a rather uphill climb. Indeed as people leave your party you run the risk that your base and then membership are extremists and you leave also.
The Republican party having so completely captured the former Confederate states, but at the same time losing the rest of the nation with their increasing extremism, and with the increasing public discontent over George W. Bush, many Democrats are realizing that they can win without the former Confederate states. In fact, they certainly realize they can run a fairly good presidential primary campaign without the former Confederate states, and not compete with the few presidential candidates that might want to reach out for the Confederate vote. The book "Whistling Past Dixie" which asserts that the Democrats should bypass the former Confederate states has been getting a lot of attention. http://www.whistlingpastdixie.com/
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.md.schaller27dec27,0,4959229.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
I don't know if a national political party can ignore completely any region, but I think the policy of centering the Democratic platform to eke out one more electoral vote somewhere in the former Confederate states is not going to be the automatically given policy anymore.
One developing trend might be that the Republican party will publicly embrace the Confederacy and the Democrats will increasingly reject it. That the issue of the Confederacy will become partisan. Of course there is the complication of James Webb, U.S. Senator (D-VA). However, in 2008, the Democrats will likely pick up more Senate seats outside the former Confederate states and not need Webb.
All of this will be occurring during the political debate over Iraq and likely an increasingly contentious debate over Iraq policy which I think will be agitating politics in general.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Christopher Dodd, D-Conn, calls for Confederate flag removal.
U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., called for the removal of the Confederate flag that flies at the South Carolina Statehouse as he attended a Martin Luther King Jr. memorial event at a Greenville church Sunday night (1/14/07).
Article in Kansas City Star
I have updated the 2008 Presidential Election page.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
Article in Kansas City Star
I have updated the 2008 Presidential Election page.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
Patriotism or White Nationalism, The American Legion
Over the years the American Legion has and continues to have activities with the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Evidently, a movement that would have shattered the nation is okay with a group that purports to be patriotic.
The old name for the Civil War and was used in the Congressional Record for decades was the "War of the Rebellion."
As long as the American Legion continues to work with Confederate groups, we are quite right to consider their "patriotism" to be dubious, and permeated with white nationalism.
The old name for the Civil War and was used in the Congressional Record for decades was the "War of the Rebellion."
As long as the American Legion continues to work with Confederate groups, we are quite right to consider their "patriotism" to be dubious, and permeated with white nationalism.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Updated Presidential Candidates page. /Questionnaire
I added in John Edwards' admirable anti-Confederate record from my former 2004 webpage.
I also found that Barack Obama has an anti-Confederate record and added it.
Deleted out some candidates that have dropped out. The following is the link and I always have the link to this page on the right side margin of my blog.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
I hope to mail the candidates a questionnaire. I am going to write a new questionnaire. I will have it online also. When it is online, I would like people in the states or district of the candidate to write a letter for those who have not announced, and for those who have announced I would like people to write letters.
I am thinking that I need to start sending questionnairs in the next three months.
I have been busy working on multiple papers and books and haven't had the time to work on the questionnaire yet.
I also found that Barack Obama has an anti-Confederate record and added it.
Deleted out some candidates that have dropped out. The following is the link and I always have the link to this page on the right side margin of my blog.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
I hope to mail the candidates a questionnaire. I am going to write a new questionnaire. I will have it online also. When it is online, I would like people in the states or district of the candidate to write a letter for those who have not announced, and for those who have announced I would like people to write letters.
I am thinking that I need to start sending questionnairs in the next three months.
I have been busy working on multiple papers and books and haven't had the time to work on the questionnaire yet.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Behind the Plantation Facade, Historical Societies and selective memory
The Abbeville Institute, the current Neo-Confederate institute, (http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/), with the usual Neo-Confederate leaders announces that they are getting a grant from the Watson Brown foundation (http://www.watson-brown.org/index.html). Evidently this isn't the first time they have supported the Abbeville Institute, according to their newsletter, "Legacy," in 2002 they gave a grant to the Abbeville Institute (http://www.watson-brown.org/media/pdf/legacy303.pdf).
One of the Heroes of the Watson-Brown foundation is Thomas E. Watson, and this is their bio of Watson ( http://www.watson-brown.org/heritage/tw_bio.html). This is the bio of Thomas E. Watson of the "Georgia Encyclopedia" (http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2540).
I think that this selective memory of the past is typical of all too many small historical foundations and local historical societies. When you erase the past are you preserving heritage? For all too many, heritage is not history, but a gilded past that never existed, but is a fantasy. It is mostly a form of historical destruction and not preservation.
The other lesson is to see that the activities of the this foundation provide a beautiful exterior to the inner core of their mentality, support of radical Neo-Confederacy. The restored plantation houses, house a plantation mentality.
Here I stumble across the inner truth of this foundation, behind the token African Americans and the smiling faces. I doubt the local press or the "Atlanta Constitution" will report this, even if they know, and perhaps they will get some local African American group to defend them.
Just be aware, whether it is in Vermont or Georgia, or California or Minnesota, that often the "history" given out by historical organizations isn't but a frothy fantasy of the past, and this in itself is a political agenda. It is often a back door access to your thinking. Can you enjoy a beautiful plantation house, without subconsiously buying into certain views and fantasies? It is a question I can't definitely answer.
One of the Heroes of the Watson-Brown foundation is Thomas E. Watson, and this is their bio of Watson ( http://www.watson-brown.org/heritage/tw_bio.html). This is the bio of Thomas E. Watson of the "Georgia Encyclopedia" (http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2540).
I think that this selective memory of the past is typical of all too many small historical foundations and local historical societies. When you erase the past are you preserving heritage? For all too many, heritage is not history, but a gilded past that never existed, but is a fantasy. It is mostly a form of historical destruction and not preservation.
The other lesson is to see that the activities of the this foundation provide a beautiful exterior to the inner core of their mentality, support of radical Neo-Confederacy. The restored plantation houses, house a plantation mentality.
Here I stumble across the inner truth of this foundation, behind the token African Americans and the smiling faces. I doubt the local press or the "Atlanta Constitution" will report this, even if they know, and perhaps they will get some local African American group to defend them.
Just be aware, whether it is in Vermont or Georgia, or California or Minnesota, that often the "history" given out by historical organizations isn't but a frothy fantasy of the past, and this in itself is a political agenda. It is often a back door access to your thinking. Can you enjoy a beautiful plantation house, without subconsiously buying into certain views and fantasies? It is a question I can't definitely answer.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Bonilla Defeated
I see that U.S. Representative Bonilla from Texas was defeated by a Mr. Rodriguez. Bonnilla use to work with a group called the Descendants of Mexican War Veterans which was formed in the 1990s or late 1980s. They were busy working to erect monuments to glorify the Mexican American war.
http://www.dmwv.org/
There is a sort of Neo-Alamo movement out there, similar to the Neo-Confederates. I run into them here and there while tracking the Neo-Confederate movement.
Good to see Bonilla defeated. Though I suppose the Neo-Alamo movement will find their own Hispanic equivalent of H.K. Edgerton to trot around and show case.
http://www.dmwv.org/
There is a sort of Neo-Alamo movement out there, similar to the Neo-Confederates. I run into them here and there while tracking the Neo-Confederate movement.
Good to see Bonilla defeated. Though I suppose the Neo-Alamo movement will find their own Hispanic equivalent of H.K. Edgerton to trot around and show case.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Sons of Confederate Veterans Press Release in 2000
Click here to read the 2000 Press Release..
I found the 2000 press release by the SCV in the Wayback Machine.
I have updated the Presidential 2008 webpage with the new information.
I found the 2000 press release by the SCV in the Wayback Machine.
I have updated the Presidential 2008 webpage with the new information.
John Edwards enters presidential race
The Neo-Confederates hate John Edwards, since they seem him as a traitor for not being Pro-Confederate.
He has entered the race for president for the 2008 elections.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/ap_on_el_pr/democrats2008
I will have to update the presidential campaign page.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
He has entered the race for president for the 2008 elections.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/ap_on_el_pr/democrats2008
I will have to update the presidential campaign page.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts Last 30 days
-
The article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Incidentally...
-
Washington Post columnist Colbert King has an opinion piece "Rise of the New Confederacy," about the Republican Party and the Tea...
-
At this link is an article on the response to the likely election of Obama as president of the United States in the Canadian National Post ....
-
The ramp which was used by the cranes and other lifting equipment to go up and in the enclosed area and remove the statues and the base has ...
-
There are three links to articles about how the Bush administration starting with attorney general Ashcroft is subverting civil rights enfor...
-
Developments concerning Beauvoir in Mississippi where Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy spent his last days, still a racist and ...
-
This Saturday I will be in Austin, Texas speaking about the Hood Brigade Monument and how it is about white supremacy. This is the event... -
Looking at the many videos and pictures and news stories and instagram and twitter and Facebook etc. if you saw the crowd as a whole you di...
-
This is his Confederate post as part of his anti-vaxxer Facebook postings. https://www.facebook.com/chaz.blimline/posts/916814451694947:0 T...
-
Recently, Ann Coulter has published in the Confederate Veteran, the official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) a defense...
Posts
