Thomas E. Woods says he is not Neo-Confederate

Thomas E. Woods, who wrote cover articles for Southern Partisan and other articles for the League of the South, claims he isn't Neo-Confederate in this letter to the editor of The Depaulia, the student newspaper of DePaul University in Chicago. The link to the article is as follows:

http://thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2323&sectid=4

It is in response to a letter to the editor by Euan Hague, a professor there, that Thomas Woods was a neo-Confederate. Euan Hague's letter unfortunately is no longer online. I printed out copies of both letters from my records.

Thomas E. Woods has a website http://www.thomasewoods.com/ which omits in his resume his articles in Southern Partisan and elsewhere in the Neo-Confederate movement. In his biography, in the lengthy list of periodicals he has contributed to he omits Southern Partisan. His helping to found the League of the South http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php and his activities in the League of the South is omitted.

Also, the Abbeville Institute http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/ is omitted from his resume. http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/Scholars.htm

Woods does admit to being involved in www.lewrockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org and yet claims not to be neo-Confederate. This is a link to his articles at the Lew Rockwell website. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods-arch.html

Well, I am rather busy now, but I do definitely plan to do a Thomas E. Woods web page and include a bibliography of many of his articles that he has omitted from his web page.

I am curious if he is the same Tom Woods who at Harvard authored an article in Penisula attacking Carol Moseley-Braun for her blocking the renewal of the United Daughters of the Confederacy patent and had his article reprinted in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine.

Ron Paul and the Neo-Confederates

Since the Republican presidential candidate debate the American public that cares anything at all about politics knows who Ron Paul is. Rudy Giuliani did Paul a great favor by angrily attacking him. What better publicity could Ron Paul get? So I have added Ron Paul to my Presidential Candidates 2008 page at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm .

I haven't put the Neo-Confederate material in.

He has an extensive record with the Neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) http://www.mises.org/ and actually attended a LvMI secession conference . Lew Rockwell the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ also. You can visit their website and see what their opinion is of Ron Paul. I will have to spend an hour to get all Ron Paul's involvements on the Presidential Candidates 2008 page. Look for Paul, Ron on my web page.

Some political pundits have said that Giuliani won because he supposedly put Ron Paul in his place. It strikes me as a lot of pious humbug to me. A lot of commentators trying to strike some type of pose, like Giuliani himself. The real winner is Ron Paul. As I said, the American public that cares anything at all about politics now knows Paul exists and prior to the Giuliani outburst not too many people new who he was or had any idea what Paul stood for. Then the Republican establishment media had to denounce Ron Paul since it was a news item. So Ron Paul got additional publicity.

My guess is that even among Republicans the Iraq war is losing its popularity. The three front runners in the Republican party have luke-warm support from a large section of the Republican party on other issues. A lot of Republican and conservative leaders probably are not so happy that their political futures are going to go down with Iraq. A Republican U.S. Senator facing election in 2008 is probably not very happy. A Republican governor up for re-election in 2008 is probably not very happy either. The front runners can't count on the incumbent president to campaign for them in the primaries since that would bring them down for the general elections. The candidates want to be a "Reagan" and not a Bush. Finally, I have a hunch that the public is fed up with focus-group driven candidates.

I don't think that things are locked down. If by this Fall things in Iraq are still going badly Ron Paul may do fairly well in the Republican primaries. The Republicans may be in turmoil.

I do think Ron Paul's election would be a disaster for the nation. However, I don't think that is likely. The same failure of the war in Iraq that might drive Ron Paul to the front ranks of the Republican presidential candidates, will likely drive the Democrats to victories in 2008. However, after the election Ron Paul may no longer be an outsider in Republican party politics.

In watching developments in politics and the Republican party being more and more a regional party of the South and West, I wonder what potential there is for it to be a party with a more Neo-Confederate agenda. Also, by what avenue this may happen. As, I have blogged before, I think the Republican party defeats in 2006 and the falling popularity of the Bush administration has weakened the Republican party establishment's hold on the Republican party agenda. Some development, Ron Paul's success in the primaries or something else might break it and I think a Neo-Confederate agenda might well come rushing into the Republican party. This is all very speculative.

I will get some of Ron Paul's information online over the next few months.

Jerry Falwell and Neo-Confederacy

Just for the record.

Jerry Falwell interviewed in Southern Partisan, Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1982, starting page 22 I believe.

Liberty University has Neo-Confederate activities. One year the History department put Jefferson Davis on trial and found him innocent by finding secession legal and justified. Southern Partisan liked the mock trial so much they ran an article on it. (Southern Partisan, Vol. 22 No. 3, May/June 2002, pages 28,39.) Liberty University actually did advance promotion in the Southern Partisan for the event. They had a full page inside back cover ad. (Southern Partisan Vol. 22 No. 2, March/April 2002, page 41.)


A trial of Abraham Lincoln was done also and Lincoln was found guilty of war crimes. See this link http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=13208&NewsID=49

This year in 2007 Liberty University is having a Robert E. Lee event. That in itself isn't a problem, you could discuss his violation of his sworn oath of allegiance to the United States as an officer. His losing the war. (I know this is being somewhat picky, but he was a general after all.) However, I think it will be a lot of glorification of Lee.
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=12471

Cheating in School - OFF TOPIC

I have been reading what percentage of students admit to cheating. I am not surprised that some majors have a high percentage of cheating, but I was astounded to read 54% of engineering graduates admit to cheating. I am sure there would be some cheaters in any profession, but 54%!

The person you hurt when you cheat is yourself.

I know very well that this sounds like something that your teacher might say as some saying or lesson. However, it is entirely true and profoundly true. The hurt, the victimization of yourself is profound and deep.

Cheating is wrong also. However, I doubt the efficacy of saying that cheating is morally wrong is sufficient to limit it. I have never cheated, nor even contemplated cheating in the least. I think to cheat would be horrible, you would have to associate with a crummy person -- yourself.

However, back to victimization. If you cheat you will not drive yourself as hard to study to master a topic. You will not learn as much as if you resolved to study hard. This is the lessor loss of cheating. The major loss is that you will not master yourself, challenge yourself, nor test yourself.

To master a topic and get good grades you will have to study hard, and push yourself. You will have to resist doing other activities that might give an evening's fun instead of grinding through and comprehending something. You will have to manage time. You will have to control yourself and know yourself.

If you will feed back on tests and papers and learn your limits, learn what you need to do to be better, you will grow in abilities.

If you cheat you will never know if you have the wherewithal to take a challenge and overcome.

How much preferable to learn skills of learning, tackling tough problems, managing your time and yourself, in learning Chemistry 101, or Medieval History or some other class, than having to start learning these things during a serious challenge in your life after you graduate.

Finally, I don't think cheating will give you much better grades. The students who don't cheat, have discipline, work harder, are abler learners with more effective study habits. You will be mostly competing with the other cheaters.

In the end you will be someone who will cheat again. After all if you rationalize cheating once, why not a thousand times? You will be a person who is ill-equipped to meet hard challenges. A person who can't really push themselves when faced with a tough problem. A person who will instead focus on the easy angle to reach some goal. A person that is not likely to do anything with their lives.

Also, you are a person who isn't that well educated since you didn't learn as much as your grades might indicate and not likely to get much better educated.

Back to the moral reason not to cheat. If you cheat in one activity why wouldn't you cheat in another? Like your significant other?

Richard T. Hines in the News.

Richard T. Hines was an editor for Southern Partisan and is an active Neo-Confederate.

This is a very interesting article about him and lobbyists overseas in Nigeria.

Link to New York Times article.

This article gives more back ground on Richard T. Hines.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/blumenthal

Council of Conservative Citizens 2008 Election page/ CCC at Presidential Events in South Carolina

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) has added a blog and has tagged some of the items as 2008 election items. This is the link.

http://cofcc.wordpress.com/tag/election-08/

However, they don't seem to have all the election 2008 items tagged.

For example, at this link they talk about being at a McCain campaign event but it isn't tagged.

http://cofcc.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/charleston-cofcc-on-site-at-mccain-rally/

This item has a "Read More" link to the following:

http://heritagelost.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/charleston-cofcc-on-site-at-mccain-rally/

I think we can expect the neo-Confederates to be active in South Carolina campaigning against candidates they don't like. The South Carolina CCC report mentions that the League of the South was there also. Whether it will continue to be 3 or 10 people or will have more people involved, we will have to just wait and see.

I am going to put the link to the tagged items on my presidential page which is at:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm

Heritage Hunting

What can I say? The website says it all.

http://www.heritagehunting.com/

Article on Thomas Woods at DePaul University

The DePaul University campus has been alerted that there is more to Thomas Woods than being some conservative Catholic historian. This article was printed in the student newspaper for that university.

http://www.thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2287&sectid=4

The Thomas Woods website is http://www.thomasewoods.com/ The URL given in the article forgot the middle "e". Wood's website omits the articles he wrote for the League of the South and which were published in their periodical, Southern Patriot.

Thomas Woods is Associate Editor of Latin Mass magazine. http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/

I am mentioned in the "New York Sun"

I am mentioned in the "New York Sun" concerning presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and his stance on the Confederate flag.

http://www.nysun.com/article/52276

I am mentioned on page 3 at the end.

Giuliani takes position on Confederate flag

These are some articles on Rudy Giuliani and his position relating to the Confederate flag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/politics/11rudy.html?ref=politics

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4703442.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6547495,00.html

Giuliani feels it should be left to the states. He side steps the issue of what the Confederate flag means or that it is a symbol of white supremacy.

Oh Please! Columbia, SC publication public relations blather

In this article in The State, the major paper of South Carolina, the city of Columbia urges the media not to have all the interviews in front of the Confederate flag on the state house grounds.

http://www.thestate.com/426/story/29377.html

The flag was put there to be prominent, to be seen, and so as a consequence it is being seen. The purpose of a flag is to declare identity.

So to whine about the media coverage that includes the flag is somewhat hypocritical. It is like putting up a bill board and complaining that people are reading it. I think this news story is one of those managing public opinion news stories that major dailies put out. If the Confederate flag gives the state of South Carolina a negative image, it isn't because the state of South Carolina did something stupid, but it is the fault of the big bad news media.

Note to The State, state of South Carolina, you made your bed, now you sleep in it.

Bilboization of the Republican Party & Neo-Confederacy

As reported in the Dallas Morning News and other publications, Republican State Senator Dan Patrick of Houston boycotted a prayer by Imam Yusuf Kavakci.

The story is reported at the following websites.

Link to article in San Antonio paper.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4689405.html

For those who don't know who Bilbo was, I have these two links

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf

Bilbo was a viciously racist individual and the above link gives a back ground of his life. The following link is his congressional career.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000460

First there are some aspects of this story that show that Dan Patrick talks out both sides of his mouth or is incapable of logical thinking.

Patrick explains his walk out as follows in the Houston Chronicle.

"Republican Sen. Dan Patrick on Wednesday boycotted the first prayer delivered in the Texas Senate by a Muslim cleric, and then praised religious tolerance and freedom of speech in an address at the end of the day's session.

"I think that it's important that we are tolerant as a people of all faiths, but that doesn't mean we have to endorse all faiths, and that was my decision," he said later.

"I surely believe that everyone should have the right to speak, but I didn't want my attendance on the floor to appear that I was endorsing that."

Evidently both Eagle Forum and the Harris County Republican Party criticized having an Imam speak, on the pretext that it was too close to Easter. (Houston is in Harris County.) The Imam was asked to do the opening prayer by State Sen. Florence Shapiro - Republican Plano (suburb north of Dallas).

Dan Patrick is also a right wing radio talk show host in Dallas and Houston.

I see this as an erosion of control of the Republican party agenda by the Republican party establishment. They may in certain venues pander to various extreme elements in the Republican party, but I doubt that they want these elements setting the agenda. If in 2008 Dan Patrick and his wing of the Republican party get re-elected and Florence Shapiro loses out in the primaries because of this issues and others like it, the Texas Republican party will really go off the deep end. Bilboization will be seen as the ticket to political success and there will be competition to be more Bilbo than the other candidate. On the other hand, the Republican party may edge Patrick out some way. Looking into the future is like looking through some wavy and murky piece of glass. Mostly we have to wait and see. However, I think that in waiting we should observe whether the Republican party is going to evolve into a Solid South type of party that has marched way off the mainstream of America.

The Neo-Confederates are hoping to capture popular political support by advancing an agenda appealing to various hostilities. However, they may be beaten to the punch by the Republican party. The Neo-Confederate impact may not be directly through electoral politics, but instead through shaping of public opinion. What happens in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2008 will be especially interesting to see what impact the Neo-Confederates have. They appear to have some political strength there and are organized there. The Confederate flag issue is still alive there. The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) is now run by outspoken Neo-Confederates. The Commander-in-Chief (C-i-C) is the editor of Southern Partisan magazine. The South Carolina primary affords a huge opportunity to get the Neo-Confederate in the news and have an impact.

When the Republican party has their convention in 2008, it will be interesting to see if delegates from some of the former Confederate states fly Confederate flags in the convention hall. With the Republican establishment control over the Republican party eroding, I am not so sure they will be able to manage the convention and produce the big show.

Republicans and the Council of Conservative Citizens

The Council of Conservative Citizens have the following memorial for Samuel Francis:

http://www.cofcc.org/memoriam/sam_francis.htm

What you will find at this page is a link to Republican Congressman John J. Duncan, TN, 2nd District, at this link:

http://www.house.gov/duncan/2005/fs030905.htm

I think we can expect more of this as George W. Bush and the Republican party management loses all control over the direction of the Republican party.

Secession silliness

The secessionist branch of Neo-Confederacy is only a particular plan of action for one small faction of those holding Neo-Confederate beliefs. One concern about discussing secession is that it tends to make it seem like that is the central issue of Neo-Confederacy. It isn't. The overwhelming impact of Neo-Confederacy is through other venues besides secessionism. The Council of Conservative Citizens doesn't advocate secession.

However, a couple things bear pointing out about the Neo-Confederates references to secessionism.

The various secessions and national breakups of European nations are pointed out by Neo-Confederates. What should be pointed out also, is that these new nations promptly join the European Union. It is the exchange of one union for another. They also join NATO. All of this is in the context of other transnational groups like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. It is more a rearrangement of connectedness than separation. Ireland has a huge influx of immigrants from Poland because the European Union has the free movement of labor. The new nations of Europe are not islands.

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall" seems to be a concept lost on Neo-Confederates, but it is not surprising since this concept is inherently in opposition to white patriarchal supremacy. We live in a shrinking world. I remember being told that in the 1960s when it was amazing even then how with jet travel and the telecommunications of that era had really brought together the world. How much more now the world is interconnected, with the Internet, cheaper air travel, GPS, modern telecommunications.

In this world all sorts of people are brought together and will need to live together constructively. It won't be a world where one group is going to be on top, and that world is a threat to the Neo-Confederates.

Bill Clinton material online on the Presidential Candidate page.

I got the Bill Clinton material added to:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/presidentialcandidates2008.htm

The Bill Clinton material is put in Note 4 and has the text of his letters to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Also, a short note that he put a wreath on the Confederate Monument in Arlington Cemetery each year.

Direct Link to Note 4

The above is the direct link to the note.

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and Bill's Record Regarding the Confederacy

I had initially decided that Bill Clinton's record regarding the Confederacy wasn't relevant to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton is an independent person and capable of her own decisions and opinions and it can't be presumed that her husband's opinions are here.

However, Bill Clinton has become a major part of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and in particular Hillary's campaigning for the votes of African Americans.

Also, for the other candidates I am listing the Confederate records of major persons in their presidential campaigns.

Bill Clinton wrote two letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy while president, to the national organization and to the Georgia Division. Additionally while president he annually put a wreath at the Confederate Memorial in Arlington Cemetery around June 3rd which is the birthday of Jefferson Davis. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000113

This weekend I will put the information in.

Neo-Confederate runs for President in Republican Party Primaries

The website for the campaign is:

http://electwdkennedy.com/2007/march/announcement.php

Walter Donald Kennedy is one of the Kennedy brothers, authors of a series of Neo-Confederate books that are widely read. One of them "The South Was Right!" is one of the founding books of the modern Neo-Confederate movement. As authors they have this website:

http://www.kennedytwins.com/

The Kennedy brothers oppose the Voting Rights act from the beginning. When they were young, they "Rolled With Ross" in opposition to Civil Rights.

Walter D. Kennedy is also the author of the apologetic for slavery, "Myths of American Slavery."

How far can he go in the Republican party primaries. I don't know. However, I think it could create problems for the Republicans if he makes some head way. The religious right faction of the Republican party is fairly disgruntled. It seems the Republican front runners don't want to pander to the religious right. So there is discontent that Kennedy can tap into. He could get protest votes.

If he is able to draw some appreciable percentage, it might result in other primary candidates shifting along a Neo-Confederate vector to win, and then having the problem of living down their stances in other primaries and the general election.

Remember, George W. Bush won the South Carolina primary in 2000 through the Confederate flag issue and a website and campaign run by Richard T. Hines, former Associate Editor of Southern Partisan. The Neo-Confederates now run the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and have a real base of operations. They are waiting for the South Carolina primaries to sort out who will be the next Republican presidential candidate, like they did in 2000.

Then again, maybe not much at all will happen. You can only discuss possibilities and the future will come with its answers.

Calling all Cranks, Kirkpatrick Sale writes for "Chronicles" magazine

In the Nov. 2005 issue of Chronicles magazine, Kirkpatrick Sales, has his secession article, pages 20-21, where he has his fantasy ideas about a small republic. Seems to be immune to understanding economics.

Kirkpatrick Sales

When persons with Liberal or Left become reactionaries, they often want to talk about labels not being important or a third way. They really can't face that they have become reactionaries and that their anti-autoritarianism was never a particular ideology but was always a general non-specific crankiness. I give Sales the Eugene Genovese award for best emulating Genovese's decent into reactionary crackpotdom.

American Conservatives was founded and run by a lot of people from Southern Partisan magazine, the www.lewrockwell.com website and other Neo-Confederate venues. Patrick Buchanan is called a Confederate-American on the cover of Southern Partisan, 1st Quarter, 1996, which is a fairly accurate label, the particular issue had an exclusive on a speak Buchanan gave. He was a regular contributor to Southern Partisan.

This is Kirkpatrick Sales' essay in American Conservative.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article20.html

What you have making up the core of the Second Vermont Republic movement is reactionaries and miscellaneous others who are cranky over the future.

Peter Jones and "Chronicles"

The Rockford Institute promoted a conference in Edinburgh, May 2005, with the topic, "Walter Scott Versus the Scottish Enlightenment." Special guest speaker is Donald Livingston. The full page ad in the Feb. 2005 issue of Chronicles isn't as informative as the full page ad in the Main Street Memorandum of the Rockford Institute, July 2005, Vol. 22 No. 3.

One thing in the ad in the Main Street Memorandum is Peter Jones' participation. His lecture is that the Scottish Enlightenment wasn't all bad.

However, the lead paragraph for the tapes of the event inform the reader:

"In many conservative circles, Adam Smith's work is treated like Scripture, on moral as well as on economic questions. Knowing, however, that degenerates like Voltaire looked to the minds of the Scottish Enlightenment for inspiration should give us pause, and one great Scotsman, Sir Walter Scott, had more than his share of doubts about both the French and Scottish Enlightenment."

Since the Enlightenment lead to the end of "involuntary subordination" and human rights, I can surely see why the Rockford Institute crowd would not like it. Perhaps Vermont will be spared the Enlightenment in the Second Vermont Republic.