Russian Readership of this blog. Foreign power on the prowl

The readership of my blog is surging. Normally there are 400 to 500 page views. Suddenly it is over 1300 and then yesterday 1793.  This might be good if it were largely American readers and I was informing the American public about the neo-Confederate movement.

However, when looking at it Pageviews by Countries I see that about 50% of my readers are in Russia.  See below. Blog continued after picture.

Now the partisan press that is opposed to Trump is reporting a lot about the Russians and Trump. I am concerned that the reader not think that this blog posting is part of that. I have had surges of Russian readers before recent elections and have blogged on Russian readers in the past. I think Donald Trump will be entirely and energetically opposed to secessionist movements.

Nor do I want to imply any Xenophobia about foreign readers. There might be interest in the neo-Confederate movement elsewhere of a curious or scholarly nature and that is fine. However, the large interest from just one country, widely reported to be interested in fostering separatist movements in the United States, is of concern.

So what exactly do I wish to say? What I wish to say is that there is a large foreign power that is prowling around looking for some means of weakening the United States through separatism. It isn't just an assertion by myself, it has been noted by a variety of media across the political spectrum.

I am not calling for a large major national campaign, but I think that there needs to be some program of modest resources devoted to countering separatism and taking proactive steps. Once a separatist movement gets underway and gets some measure of support among the public, it tends to persist for some time. It is always likely to have a resurgence like a herpes virus.

So what do I think needs to be done? In general all separatism needs to be considered in the context that there is Russian interest in fomenting it. I also suggest the following:

1. Stop reporting on separatist movements as amusing novelties. The Scottish National Party only got single digits in the polls in the 1940s and was a very small marginal movement. Now it seems Scotland might become an independent nation.

The belief in American exceptionalism I think leads to not recognizing that American can be subject to the same dangers as other nations. I suggest that people should consider that pride comes before a fall, or as the Greeks stated it, hubris nemesis, which translates as pride then destruction.

I have noticed that the reporting on secession has been changing. The media has been somewhat quick to report that the California secessionists are headed by a person in Russia.

2. As I have stated earlier we absolutely have to avoid oppressive measures. Nothing would be stupider than locking up a pro-secessionist or other like action. It immediately makes the secessionist a martyr and it makes the secessionist movement seem much more important since otherwise why would you arrest the individual.

Also arresting individuals does prove that the government is an oppressive organization and secession is a solution.

Finally, it attracts people who are against the current government, whatever it is.

3. However, the government should avoid aiding those who are or have worked against the American nation. Trump should not appoint people who have been supportive of secessionist measures to any post. There was a web page of scholars for trump. http://scholarsandwritersforamerica.org/

At this page of scholars for Trump, I see William Murchison, contributor to Southern Partisan magazine and former officer of the Texas League of the South.  Texas Republic magazine had an issue on whether it was a mistake that Texas jointed the Union and my reading of it is that the articles leave the reader to conclude that it was a mistake. It was published by the Lynn Landrum society, named after a racist columnist for the Dallas Morning News. William Murchison published an article praising Landrum. He was also active in Texas Republic magazine.

This is the masthead of the Sept.-Dec. 1995 Texas Republic double issue which discusses whether Texas should have joined the United States.

The editorial board members were Cathie Adams, John Alvis, William Caruth III, Marco Gilliam, J. Evetts Haley Jr., David Hartman, Charles R. Helms, Joseph Horn, Tex Lazar, Michael Muncy, William Murchison, and Joseph Sullivan.

The publisher was Joseph Sullivan. Senior editors were John Knaggs, Thomas H. Landess, and Michael Muncy. The managing editor was Mitchell Muncy. The assistant publisher was John A. McMillan. The art director was E. Taylor Owens. Correspondents were Marco Gilliam, Kelton Morgan, Kevin Southwick, Sabrina Haley Statton. Proof readers at large were Kathleen Alvis and Marjorie K. Haney.

Contributors listed were Robert Aguirre, Jerry Bartos, Austin Bay, Mark Blackwell, Jack Brocius, Barry Brown, Jane Brown, P.J. Byrnes, Paul Cameron, John Colyandro, Marguerite Starr Crain, John J. Dwyer, T.R. Fehrenbach, Paul Fenech, Evan Fitzmaurice, Richard Ford, Donald S. Frazier, H. Martin Gibson, John Goodman, Charles Goolsby, Lino A. Graglia, David Guenthner, Nancy Halsey, Charles R. Helms, J. Cameron Humphries, William Keffer, Elmer Kelton, Floy Lilley, Merrill Mathews Jr., Roger F. Meiners, Wayne Milstead, Priscilla Montgomery, Gary North, Marvin Olasky, Rob Peebles, Christopher Prawdzik, Sam Ratcliffe, Morgan O. Reynolds, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Matthew Sandel, Valerie Shank, Barbara Stirling, Paul Strohl, Michael Quinn Sullivan, Ken Towery, Yuri Waldo, Caroline Walker, James W. Walker, Thomas G. West, Kathleen Hartnett White, and Jim Wright.

I see more than one name on the list of Scholars for Trump which was on the masthead of the Sept.-Dec. 1995 Texas Republic double issue which discusses whether Texas should have joined the United States.

Not all the contributors should be assumed to be secessionists, but the editorial staff and board clearly approved this issue. For the others they should be rejected for having anything to do with a Lynn Landrum Society. Landrum was a rabid racist. http://jmichaelphillips.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html  I have PDFs of some of Landrum's editorials.

These are people who spoke at events of the Lynn Landrum Society. Again the readers should understand that Landrum was a rabid racist.

Name	Description
Phil Gramm	U.S. Senator
Dick Armey	U.S. House of Representatives
W.H. Hutt	Professor
William Murchison	Syndicated Columnist
J.Evetts Haley	Author
M.E. Bradford	Univ. of Dallas, Professor of English. (Leading neo-Confederate. Campaigner for George Wallace for president.)
Tom Pauken
Carolyn Wright	Judge
M. Stanton Evans	Director National Journalism Center
William Rusher	Former publisher National Review
Donald Hodel	U.S. Interior Secretary
Tom Phillips	Texas Chief Justice
Nathan Hecht	Texas Supreme Court Justice (Currently Chief Justice)
Raul Gonzalez	Texas Supreme Court Justice
Daniel Papeo	Washington Legal Foundation
Peter Huber	Manhatten Institute
Michael McCormick	Judge
Paul Pressler	Judge
Lino Graglia	University of Texas School of Law
Kenneth Cribb	Heritage Foundation and Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Steve Pejovich	Texas A&M University
Russell Kirk	“author and critic” (Major figure in conservative politics)
Morgan Reynolds	Texas A&M University
John Goodman	President, National Center for Policy Analysis
John Chubb	Brookings Institute
Joe Horn	University of Texas at Austin
Kent Grusendorf	Texas State Representative
Alan Gribben	University of Texas at Austin
Charles Sykes	“author”
Jim Wright	Senior columnist, Dallas Morning News
Alan Keyes	Ambassador
Richard Estrada	Dallas Morning News
Richard Rubottom	Ambassador
Michael Wilson	Heritage Foundation
Llewellyn Rockwell	Ludwig von Mises Institute
John Culberson	Texas State Representative
Odie Faulk	“author and historian”
Alan Parker	St. Mary’s Law School
John Alvis	University of Dallas
Rick Perry	Texas Agriculture Commissioner

But I am getting a little off topic here. The president should not appoint those who support secession to national positions.

4. The campaign for American nationality can't be just negatives against other things. It needs to be for something.  A proposal can be judged on its own merits. The fact that a bad person or organization supports it is just reason to examine the proposal very carefully, but if it is a good proposal it is a good proposal. So there needs to be some effort to show the positives of American nationality. It is a big country with a great deal of space and a wide choice of places to live. It has great scientific projects. You can drive for thousands of miles without encountering national boundaries. America's size allows great national enterprises and research institutions. Also, being one nation we don't have a continent with nationalist antagonisms. Large nations can usually protect themselves. 

5. Those who foment national divisions ought to be rejected by the federal government and the pubic. Now this can be subjected to abuse. Criticizing an elected official or the opposition isn't fomenting national division. The tool of dictatorships is to make illegal anything they call unpatriotic and suppress opinion. Also, various political commentators like to call one opinion or argument they don't like as unpatriotic rather than argue the facts of the issue.  The word "divisive" can be use to stigmatize discussing an issue that does need to be discussed.

However, separatist arguments should be recognized as such and rejected. In rejecting them it needs to be carefully shown how they are separatist, and not labeled as such just as an assertion.

Others who promote division also should be recognized as doing such and be rejected. In rejecting them it needs to be shown clearly that it is the intent of the writer to foment division or that the article clearly and dishonestly inflames a situation which results in the division of the American public which would also lead to separatists movements. 

Again, this charge should not be indiscriminatorily be used. If made indiscriminatorily the public will reject any claim of separatism. 

Neo-Confederates deficient

On Dec. 31st 2016 1pm we are having a Reject Racist Robert E. Lee  Periscope broadcast at the Robert E. Lee Park.

This is the link to the Facebook event.

https://www.facebook.com/events/241643326251832/

This is a blog with the reasons to reject Robert E. Lee

http://roberteleepark.blogspot.com/

As you might imagine, Neo-Confederates are not happy with this event. Some decided to post opposing comments on the Facebook event page. I deleted the comments but did printout Facebook event page to record their comments.

What is surprising is that they didn't have any real arguments in defense of Robert E. Lee. The blog gives the reasons and none of the items listed were addressed.

Instead there were comments like, "Learn your history!"  The question in response would be what item in history did I need to learn. The comment implies that I don't know my history or enough history and if I did I wouldn't have this opinion against Robert E. Lee, and the comment avoids discussing the historical issue or mentioning what the item I needed to know was.

Rather than argue the question the responses generally are implied or direct attacks on the intellectual competency of the organizers of Reject Racist Robert E. Lee, but don't discuss or argue the history.

The other arguments were to throw in irrelevant historical items.

I think that the reason that their arguments are so very deficient is that they aren't arguing the real reason why they support the Confederacy and Confederate monuments which is their support for white nationalism. So they are grasping for reasons to oppose our event.

I think they also don't understand that being outraged isn't a reason in itself. It might be a reason for a Breitbart editorial, it might be an argument for those in their social circle, but it isn't really a reason.

It also shows that the remaining support for the Confederacy is increasingly just the rage of resentment.

Anti-Neo-Confederate Video on You Tube

This is a video by a cyclist in response to a neo-Confederate protest in South Carolina.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoY21-IfQzE

How Presidents and the Federal government aid and abet neo-Confederacy

I am going to be asking President-Elect Donald Trump to end presidential and federal government practises that aid neo-Confederacy.

1. Presidents go to the Alfalfa Club events. This is a club that has an annual event based on Robert E. Lee's birthday. I hope that President-Elect Donald Trump doesn't go. Also, this is a club of the elites which he claimed he was going to reject. Trump stated that he was going to drain the swamp, but going to the Alfalfa club would be like diving into the swamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfalfa_Club

You can read about Robert E. Lee's cruelty, racism and anti-Civil Rights efforts at this blog.

http://roberteleepark.blogspot.com/

2. Presidents send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument annually. If Confederate soldiers had succeeded, we wouldn't even have a slogan "Make America Great Again." This monument was built by an organization with a white supremacist agenda, the United Daughters of the Confederacy. This monument serves to glorify an attempt to create a nation whose purpose was to preserve slavery and white supremacy. http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/

3. The U.S. military academies allow the United Daughters of the Confederacy to present awards there to cadets. It is my hope that President-Elect Donald Trump will not permit this to continue. The United Daughters of the Confederacy glorifies those who would have destroyed America had they succeeded. Had the Confederate leaders that the United Daughters of the Confederacy glorifies succeeded, there would be no America to make great or great again. http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/bowdoin-ends-confederate-heritage-award-like-many-still-offered-by-u-s-service-academies/106066

4. The Junior ROTC programs permit both the involvement of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It is my hope that President-Elect Donald Trump will not permit this to continue. Had the Confederate leaders that the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans glorify succeeded, there would be no America to make great or great again.

No Kevin Levin, the LGBT community absolutely doesn't need "Confederate fabulous."

This is a recent posting by Kevin Levin

http://cwmemory.com/2016/09/28/charlottesvilles-lee-park-could-be-confederate-fabulous/

The title is "Charlottesville's Lee Park Could Be 'Confederate Fabulous.'"

The LGBT community doesn't need any "Confederate Fabulous." Indeed the concept is inimical to the LGBT community. Levin writes:

Though it was not sanctioned by the organization, at one point someone attached a bright multicolored boa around Traveler’s neck. It was eventually removed after a local resident complained to city officials.

Short of removing the Lee monument, I believe these acts of appropriation offer one way forward – a way for communities and groups to take ownership of public sites dedicated to the memory of the Confederacy.

It seems that the action of putting the gay items on the statue was to subvert it and I think that is okay as an action to subvert the statue.

Levin feels that putting a boa on the Robert E. Lee can reshape the meaning of Robert E. Lee park.

However, the following is a news article on the event.

http://www.c-ville.com/confederate-fabulous-gay-black-issues-collide-lee-park/#.WEwrl_krKiN

It isn't the happy appropriation that Levin represents it as being.

This is the response of one leader at the Gay pride event:

Schmidt is unlikely to be convinced. She compares groups that use the park like Cville Pride and Tom Tom to “the nice white people during segregation who continued to patronize segregated establishments and didn’t say anything publicly if they objected to it. Your private regrets, expressed sotto voce, do not make you an ally or promote change. It’s time to stand up and be counted, because silence equals consent.”

Yes, there are LGBT in leadership positions in the South who still have a plantation mentality. Indeed the major gay bar in Dallas used to be called The Old Plantation, and the mentality of the Dallas LGBT community still reflects that to a large extent.

The consequences of this is that many Southern towns have two annual gay pride events, one for white gays and one for African American gays. The LGBT communities all over the South are often quite divided and are separate worlds.

The whole point of the rainbow design of the Gay Pride flag is that the LGBT community necessarily needs to bring together diverse elements of all races, religions, nationalities, etc. Indeed the Gay Pride flag is global in its use from African to Asian from Latin American to Europe and everywhere.

The LGBT community both locally, nationally and internationally don't need to have some local individuals with a white attitude dividing the LGBT community. 

Persons in leadership positions in the LGBT community that still accommodate the Confederacy need to get kicked of the movement.

A couple of us are going to periscope the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas, Texas on the 31st.

https://www.facebook.com/events/241643326251832/

See this blog to learn about the racism of Robert E. Lee.

http://roberteleepark.blogspot.com/

Kevin Levin's "innocent" Civil War Round Tables. How he enables banal white nationalism

Kevin Levin has this recent posting on his blog. 

http://cwmemory.com/2016/12/03/the-decline-of-civil-war-round-tables/

In discussing how the Civil War Round Table avoided the issues of race and gender he states:

"An innocence about the past that was nurtured and even protected at Civil War Round Tables has been irretrievably lost. 

I am not sure that this is necessarily something that should be lamented."

Was it is an "innocence?" Did the Civil War Round Tables not know?  Many scholars at the time when these Round Tables started were aware that the Civil War was about race and slavery.

The Civil War Round Tables were created by people who chose a "romance of reunion" interpretation  of the Civil War and rejected the idea of the Civil War being about race and slavery and did consciously avoid the issues of race and gender. There was nothing "innocent" about it.

Note the term "lost" instead of "rejected." Then his half-hearted rejection of lamenting for this lost. He couches it in terms of "not sure"

What is really regrettable, is that Levin is an editor of a book on understanding Confederate monuments. This really is an indictment of the history profession that he would be selected as an editor of a publication by an academic society.

http://cwmemory.com/2016/12/01/aaslh-reconsiders-confederate-memorials-and-monuments/

A couple of use are going to periscope the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas, Texas on Dec. 31st. We will have our own interpretation.  There is a wider academic world outside the Civil War history profession.

https://www.facebook.com/events/241643326251832/

Kevin Levin might consider that he and his colleagues might come to be thought of as the Eugene Genovese's of the future.

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

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

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

On one hand Breitbart will publish articles like this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surely some Hispanic nationalist will want to quote this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The reactionary idiocy of California secession/ Need for the government to have a counter strategy

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-07/how-to-make-california-great-secede-with-a-little-help-from-putin

The link above is to an article in Bloomberg about the California secessionists getting help from Putin and working with a reactionary group there.

This is also a good example on how some ideas that are put forth as left are really reactionary.

The head of the group, Louis Marinelli, lives in Russia teaching English.

The fundamental measure of support for democracy is the willingness to accept defeat at the polls. You really aren't a believer in democracy if you can't having lost an election. I don't mean that you can't be vocal in expression dissatisfaction with the results.

When an election is run and the results come in there will most often be an uneven distribution of results across the geography of the political unit. In one part of a political unit your faction or party or program will likely have majority support. Breaking up the political unit isn't the solution. Such a plan of secession taken to its logical conclusion results in a republic of a city block or a farm.

According to the article the Russians are working with far-left parties as well as extreme right groups to undermine European states and evidently this program is now extending to California. There is a position paper on Russian support for far-left European parties online by Political Capitol in Hungary. I don't know anything about them, but this is the link in the Bloomberg article.

http://www.statecraft.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Peter%20Kreko%20Far%20Left%20definitive.pdf

The secessionists might consider that not everyone will want boundaries and divisions in North America and to divide the continent into many small states that will inevitably quarrel.  One of the great thing about North America is that most of the land mass is divided among three states, Canada, United States of America, and Mexico, and three states on relatively good terms, at least compared to some other areas of the globe.

I  think a lot of the media reporting portrays secessionists in the United States as some type of amusing novelty and doesn't take it seriously. I don't think the United States government is doing anything at all to think of counter strategies.  They should.

A counter strategy should NOT be to oppress secessionists by arresting them or some other act of official oppression. What needs to be done is formulate a strategy that utilizes a theoretical understanding of nationalism and what drives separatism and using that knowledge devise counter strategies.

For example Cinco de Mayo is about Hispanics in California supporting the Union against the Confederacy, which is both anti-secessionist and also a national narrative. The major Hispanic holiday in the United States is about Hispanic Californians defending the American nation against secession.  I don't think the story of the origins of Cinco de Mayo is generally known, it should be as a first step against California secession to make sure that it is more generally known.

In opposing Daniel Miller's program of Texas secession I think it would be relatively easy to show it is really a movement basing itself on a white nationalist history of Texas and negates the African American and Hispanic experience in Texas.

For Southern nationalism I suggest that it ought to be considered where the dividing line is between "Southern Studies" and southern nationalism is. In fact it could be asked whether there is really a boundary at all, and if Southern Studies isn't really the venue  of a Southern nationalist intelligentsia.

Also, an examination of the constructedness of the "South" should be done. John Shelton Reed in an article written under a pseudonym, J.R. Vanover, in Southern Partisan, was denouncing the term Southeastern because it was a term that people were using and he saw it as inimical to Southern nationalism. I think the antidote to Southern nationalism is a program of real regional studies and let states in the southern part of the Unites States out of the prison house of the Confederacy and southern nationalism.

These are just initial ideas I have to oppose separatism in America. I think a small group of academics could probably over a year come up with a fairly good program what would put a stop to various secessionist movements.

Joel B. Pollak's inane and idiotic use of the term "Neo-Confederate" in "Breitbart"

In Breitbart Joel B. Pollak has an editorial titled "We Condemn Speaker Rendon's Neo-Confederate Intolerance."

This is the link.

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

He is referring to California State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon call to "fight" the Trump administration. I think Rendon is speaking metaphorically. Political groups, factions, parties, etc. do struggle with each other in politics.

The editorial seems to be a hodge podge of wild assertions and inflammatory statements and just a bag of rage.

At the conclusion Pollak writes:

We will defend the interests of the political minority, the principles of liberty, and the ideal of republican self-government against Speaker Rendon and his party’s neo-Confederate, tyrannical impulses.

Exactly how Pollak sees Rendon as neo-Confederate makes no sense.


If Pollak wants to fight neo-Confederate impulses he could start with his own editorials in Breitbart.

Here are links to some of them where on one pretext or another he is against taking action against holding up the Confederacy as some heroic effort.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/22/confederate-flag-at-least-bury-the-dead-first/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/22/nikki-haley-leaves-the-door-open-for-democrats-war-on-history/


He isn't Breitbart's leading defender of the Confederacy which would be Awr Hawkins.

I printed out a great many Breitbart articles for study since Steve Bannon, Breitbart's former director, is now part of the Trump administration.  This is a publication which works to defend Confederate monuments and Confederate named schools and the whole idea of honoring the Confederacy.

For anyone at Breitbart to denounce someone as a  neo-Confederate is sheer hypocrisy.  If they are concerned with neo-Confederacy they can start with themselves.

Spain is getting changing the names of streets named after fascist leaders.

http://qz.com/850588/spain-streets-named-after-women/


The above is a link to an article at Quartz.


The focus of the article is that in some countries there is a lack of streets named after women.

So this project in Spain of renaming streets will both eliminate the fascist names and provide streets to be named after women.

I think this provides an interesting example to be emulated in the United States where we could both eliminate Confederate street names and name streets after those who have been underrepresented.

Book review, "This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy," Harvard Univ. Press

This is a link to a book review of "This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy," at Jacobin magazine.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/slavery-civil-war-republicans-confederacy-abolition-lincoln/

Matt Karp is an assistant professor at Princeton University.

The book basically shows that slaveholders dominated American government before the Civil War and that slavery wasn't dying out globally and bound labor of different types in a racial hierarchy was seen by slave holders as having great prospects.

This book demolishes the idea that slavery was historically on the way out.

The title of the magazine, Jacobin, will be noticed by neo-Confederates. Neo-Confederates and their antecedents have always expressed a horror of the French Revolution and Jacobins.

To forestall red-baiting I am not a socialist. I look for good material where I find it.

What free enterprise economic theories I had in my youth I have left behind. The one theory I think I have really believed in was that automation in one area would not result in overall unemployment, but the release of people for new types of work in new industries or occupations. The steam shovel was my example.

I used to believe if a machine could do it, a person shouldn't.

However, technology has gone a lot further than I ever imagine, and technology  is moving faster than ever now then in the past. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is moving along. Self-driving cars are here or close to being here. Self-driving trucks can't be long behind, trucks which don't need sleep and can drive 24/7.

So there may not be enough jobs in the future. Sure there might be job openings for experts in femptosecond lasers or something like that. For the great majority, however, there might not be many job prospects.  (fempto is a millionth of a billionth of a second.)

Even for technologists, we are aided by technology to do many things and one individual can do more and more.

Ominously I have read the phrase "surplus humans" in an article last week. I can't think anything good will come of this. The author was arguing for more leisure time or just paying people not to work. I think though, in the scheme of things, if you have no opportunity for work, your worth in a political system might be very low. You could end up in a dangerous situation as a "surplus" person. The term "surplus humans" is sinister.

I think we are rushing into a future where it can be question whether any current or past economic idea has the answers. In short I am an economic agnostic.

Facebook page for event at the Robert E. Lee Statue

https://www.facebook.com/events/241643326251832/permalink/241733749576123/

Reject Racist Robert E. Lee Facebook event.

We will be doing Periscoping an art performance.

Dec. 31st, 2016 1pm.

Again, I would like to point out that this other blog documents the racism of Robert E. Lee.

http://roberteleepark.blogspot.com/

Prospects for right wing secessionists UPDATE:

I am noticing that the right wing secessionist movements seem to have lost their impetus. They really needed to have Hillary Clinton win the presidency to go forward. Now with Donald Trump elected president their potential base of supporters is not interested in secession and would see it as contrary to what they want and also an attack on their hero Donald Trump.

However, as time progresses I think that disillusionment with Trump will set in and the secession movement will revive and will be telling people, "I told you so!" Actually, long term, and by long term I mean 6 to 12 months, Trump's election will enable the secession movement. As Trump fails to turn the United States into whatever his supporter's right wing fantasy that they wanted was, these supporters will come to see national politics as hopeless to realize their objectives. Secession will get a hearing and have greater credibility.

Also, a lot of conservatives have climbed on board Trump's movement. When Trump fails to satisfy various right wing bases, these conservatives, including evangelicals, will be discredited. So the conservative establishment, including right wing religious, which would be an established barrier against secessionism will have less ability to be such a barrier.

Also, there will be those on the right who will see criticizing Trump as an opportunity. It has already started. with Sarah Palin's criticism of Donald Trump's favors to the Carrier Corporation which Palin has denounced as "crony capitalism" which indeed it is.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/sarah-palin-donald-trump-carrier-deal-crony-capitalism-232139

A lot of talk show radio and right wing websites depend on giving their readers a daily dose of outrage, and perhaps in the beginning they can get by for while with denouncing the critics of Trump. I don't think it will prove sustaining over the long term for their business model or their listener's wants.  I think as time goes on their listeners will realize that they are on the outside and there is a new elite in charge. Also, I think some of their listeners are just non-specific anti-authoritarians and just have a need to denounce those in charge.

So I think right wing secessionism will revive.

My agenda is against the Lost Cause, the Confederacy, as well as neo-Confederates so I will have plenty to keep me busy and this will give me time to finish the book on Texas neo-Confederacy and secessionists in time for when Texas secession begins to take off next year.

Of course it could be that Trump is really going to establish some reactionary revolution in which case secession will be at a dead end.

UPDATE:

Just as I thought, talk radio and right wing websites are starting to go after members of Trump's administration. It is happening a lot quicker than I thought, but maybe I should have realized that these websites can't live long without their oxygen of rage and discussing the reaction of persons to Trump's election can be a topic for only so long, I should not be surprised. The Internet I think accelerates things and I am still thinking somewhat in the speed of political development in the print age.

This is the link.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/02/the-far-right-s-witch-hunt-inside-the-trump-white-house.html

Now this is a partisan website and perhaps they are exaggerating. Also, with the recent collapse of the effort to repeat the Affordable Healthcare Act ("Obama"care) the neo-liberals are somewhat gleeful realizing that the Republicans are having infighting. But I think this is a real thing.

So I think secessionists can look forward to their prospects improving more rapidly. I am going to have to get back to writing my book on Texas secessionists to be ready to publish late this year. By then I think there will be both right wing and "left" wing secessionists movement. I put "left" in quotes since I think that these so-called liberal-left secessionists are idiots and secession is in this case is fundamentally reactionary, the refusal to accept the results of an election.

I don't know if I will put more updates here in this posting even though there are developments. I would suggest word searching this blog instead.

Robert E. Lee Park blog documents the racism of Lee

http://roberteleepark.blogspot.com/


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

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


https://www.facebook.com/events/241643326251832/permalink/241733749576123/

Stupid California secessionists, here is one of your supporters.

STUPID CALIFORNIA SECESSIONISTS.

Here is one of your supporters.

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

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

http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/trump-wins-secession-back-in-style/

Council of Conservative Citizens Considers Steve Bannon a Friend

http://conservative-headlines.com/2016/11/the-truth-about-steve-bannon/


Quoting from the article

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

Globalism is here regardless

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

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

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

THE PAST

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

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

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

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

THE PRESENT

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

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

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

Some nations have high speed trains to transport people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTI-GLOBALISM

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

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

PRO GLOBALIST FORCES:

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

There is an inter-connectivity in many forms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nations not integrated into global systems will become backwaters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A MOVIE WHICH WILL VEX THE ALT-RIGHT AND NEO-CONFEDERATES

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BszXhUjJz00

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

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

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

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

 http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/06/24/confederate-frenzy-film-critic-calls-for-banning-of-gone-with-the-wind/

Breitbart lists him as Editor-at-Large.

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://nypost.com/2015/06/24/gone-with-the-wind-should-go-the-way-of-the-confederate-flag/

Lou Lumenick is asking his readers to critically re-evaluate their view of "Gone With the Wind," and consider that this racist film shouldn't be one of their favorites. Lumenick states:

But what does it say about us as a nation if we continue to embrace a movie that, in the final analysis, stands for many of the same things as the Confederate flag that flutters so dramatically over the dead and wounded soldiers at the Atlanta train station just before the “GWTW’’ intermission?

That is what film critics do, they criticize films, they evaluate them. Sometimes they don't like a film. In this case Lumenick doesn't like "Gone With the Wind" and in the review as a whole details the racism in "Gone With the Wind" and shows that the film is racist garbage. In the conclusion of the article Lumenick states:

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

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

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/take-down-the-fascist-anti-christian-gay-pride-flag/

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

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

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

HISTORY

In America it is a right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance. (Bold face added.)

The right to petition goes back centuries. It has British origins. Blackstone's Commentaries, published in 1765-69, states that the right to petition the king or parliament was a "right appertaining to every individual."

The Declaration of Independence listed as one of the reasons to declare independence was King George III of England response to the petition of the colonists.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

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

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

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

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

GAG RULE AND SLAVERY

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

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

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/more-perfect-union-april-2012-september-2012/freedom/gag-rule

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

CAST OF HAMILTON ADDRESSES VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE

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

http://www.hamiltonbroadway.com/

It won eleven Tony awards including Best Musical.

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

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

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/watch-hamilton-casts-powerful-plea-to-mike-pence-w451521

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

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

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

It is our ancient liberty to petition elected officials.


DONALD TRUMP RACE BAITING AND DISRESPECT FOR PETITIONING.


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

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

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

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-hamilton-mike-pence-231661

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

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

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

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

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/19/tolerance-hamilton-cast-lectures-mike-pence-broadway-stage/

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/19/trump-blasts-hamilton-harassing-pence/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/19/boycotthamilton-trends-hamilton-cast-members-harass-mike-pence/

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

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

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

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/800298286204723200

He also is upset with the show Saturday Night Live.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/trump-wont-stop-tweeting-about-hamilton/

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

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

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


UPDATE2: TRUMP SUPPORTERS IN ACTION

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

http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/trump-supporter-interrupts-hamilton-chicago-show.html

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

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/20/mistaken-trump-fans-open-fire-online-on-canadas-hamilton-theatre.html

Then there is this racist tirade

http://jobswww.alternet.org/media/fox-host-rampages-black-hamilton-actor-stick-hip-hop-and-dancing-around-stage


BY THE WAY NEO-CONFEDERATES HATE HAMILTON

They really do. Here are some examples.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/10/thomas-dilorenzo/hamiltons-curse/

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/09/thomas-dilorenzo/traitors-to-the-american-revolution/

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

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

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

You will need to word search for Southern Partisan.
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-statements?ID=a73ad92f-7e9c-9af9-709d-5328157bc3ea

This was Session's comments on Southern Partisan.

Mr. President, I have received a statement from the editor of the Southern Partisan magazine that has been attacked here to some degree. I have never read the magazine. But it is a refutation of many of the statements made about the magazine. It certainly is proof that the magazine is in a much better light than it has been reported to be here on the floor.

I note that Senator Ashcroft, when he was interviewed by it, simply did a telephone interview with the magazine. There was no evidence he ever read it, or saw it, or knew much about it.

I think it would be healthy for the statement of Chris Sullivan, editor of the Southern Partisan, to be made part of the Record in which he flatly denies that he favored, or the magazine favored, segregation or other kinds of racially—discriminatory activities.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

In the Congressional Record there is the letter from Chris Sullivan which is, in my opinion, a total misrepresentation of the Southern Partisan magazine.  It is also in the link above. Just word search down to the statement.

UPDATE: https://thegrio.com/2016/11/18/kkk-friend-in-jeff-sessions/

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

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/11/11/federal-officials-begin-early-search-potential-jurors-upcoming-john-wiley-price-corruption-trial


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

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

http://www.blackcommentator.com/507/507_confederacy_jury_selection_sebesta_hague_guests_share.html

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

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

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

Stephen Bannon in the White House

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLCuL-K39eQ

Click on the screen below to see the whole thing.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I am browsing through Breitbart and recognizing names.

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

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/25/on-the-occasion-of-president-obamas-wreath-for-the-confederate-memorial/

In this speech he says:

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

Really?


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

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

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

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

http://hispanicmuslims.com/articles/alamokosovo.html

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

There are some reviews of "Gods and Generals."

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gods-and-generals-2003

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_and_generals/

More about Ron Maxwell.

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

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

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

An article about the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/526/526_confederacy_sebesta_guest_share.html

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


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

UPDATE:

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

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

Steve Bannon, executive director of Breitbart, appointed to be Donald Trump's chief strategist. The Confederacy will now be inside the White House

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/stephen-bannon-breitbart-backlash-231371

The above link is to an article about the appointment by Donald Trump of Steve Bannon to be his chief strategist. Bannon is the executive director of www.Brietbart.com.


Breitbart is pro-Confederate.

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

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

I am implementing this on all my blogs.

Trump transition team leader Ken Blackwell's essay on Confederate flag

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2015/07/02/the-history-of-a-flag-and-the-powerful-story-of-appomattox-n2020233

Appalling essay.

Possible Trump Secretary for the Interior Sarah Palin and her pandering to the Alaska Independence Party

This is a story written in 2008.

http://www.salon.com/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/

Those who pander to those who would breakup the United States aren't patriotic.

And breaking up American is not making it great.

Election Results and Texas Nationalism and Neo-Confederacy

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

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

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

http://www.thetnm.org/miller_releases_statement_on_election_results

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

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

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

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

As for other secessionist movements they too are on hold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cincy-officer-wearing-confederate-t-shirt-shot-dubose-article-1.2858639

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

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

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

Rhodesia and Texas Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.facebook.com/texasnatmov/photos/a.173131556058689.33236.123857614319417/1123615867676915/?type=3&theater


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But back to the title of this blog.

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

Below is the Facebook page dedicated to opposing Texas secession.

https://www.facebook.com/TexansTruetotheUnion/

Confederate Zombies - Where popular culture is now with the Confederacy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edBof-Fj4dE


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

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

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

A little late for Halloween, but here it is.


Click on the video image to see the entire thing.