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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
