Major League Soccer is coming to Atlanta. Say it ain’t so. If Atlanta has any self-respect left as a Southern city, then soccer should fail here as the foreign “sport” that it is. I consider soccer a foreign invasive species like the Asian carp. It threatens the native fauna like football, baseball, basketball, wrestling and NASCAR and must be eradicated.
Notorious and self-proclaimed government informant, Glenn Miller, shot three Christians on Sunday in Kansas…and that land issue thing in Nevada is just an oddly timed coincidence of course that is best to just forget about.
Of course, the media is content to leave it as an anti-Semitic hate crime.
Worth noting: Kirk Lyons who was instrumental in getting Andreas Strassmeir into and out of the country, suggests Miller was a trigger man for a murder many decades ago, that law enforcement overlooked.
Congratulations to Bubba Watson. I was rooting for Bubba for two reasons. First, because he’s a Bulldawg. Second, because there is just something right about a guy named Bubba winning a prestigious golf tournament. A guy named Bubba winning the Masters is like a guy named Preston winning the Daytona 500.
Bubba Watson, 2014 Masters champion, is an absolute mess of contradictions that somehow come together to form a world-beating whole.
Start right at the very top: This is a guy named “Bubba” who’s won the most prestigious golf tournament on Earth not once, but twice. “Bubba” is a name for the guys who spent the weekend at the NASCAR race over in Darlington, not for gentlemen of means who gather beneath the majestic oaks and towering pines of Augusta National.
The PC hysteria caucus is predictably outraged because a long time South Carolina Republican who may have something other than scorn and contempt for his ancestors and state has been picked to head the College of Charleston.
I don’t know if a retiring politician is actually qualified to be a University President, but a school picking a politician is certainly not without precedent. David Boren became the President of the University of Oklahome. Donna Shalala became the President of the University of Miami, and those are just off the top of my head. So who really believes these PC enforcers are more worried about credentials than they are right think?
McConnell, who spent more than 30 years in the state Senate (including 11 as its leader before becoming lieutenant governor) is being eyed suspiciously for two reasons: his political connections and his association with Confederate history.
Faculty said the search process was a sham, given that McConnell emerged at the top of the heap despite reports the search committee didn’t choose him as a finalist.
His critics also paint him as a Confederate sympathizer. He used to own a shop that sold memorabilia of the South’s rebellion; he appears in a widely circulated picture dressed as a Confederate general; and he is a longtime supporter of flying the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds. McConnell, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, has previously said his affiliation with Confederate regalia has to do with history and states’ rights.
Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.
MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.
The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.
First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.
That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.
Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.
The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)
Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.
Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.
Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.
Today is the birthday of a great man, Robert E. Lee, a man whose birthday used to be widely celebrated in the Southern states and beyond. Here is an excellent article from the vault on the politically correct attack on a true Southern hero and gentleman.
Here is a NY Post article that alleges that Phil Robertson isn’t too fond of the Confederate Battle Flag. In the typical PC manner, it suggests that this is somehow evidence that Robertson is not a “racist.” You see, according to PC rightthink, respect for the Confederate Battle Flag is prima facia evidence that someone is a racist. The story is from 30 Dec, but I didn’t hear about it until a comment about it appeared recently on my FaceBook feed. And interestingly, when I Googled to find some more commentary on the issue not much came up. This mention from a blog called The “Right” Scoop seems to accept the PC association in a “See, we told you Phil Robertson wasn’t a racist!” type of manner. (This is so typical of mainstream conservatives to accept the leftists’ PC framing of an issue.)
First of all, proud Southerners should be careful not to get too carried away just yet. This is an account of someone relating what he thinks he saw and heard. These are not Robertson’s own words, and as far as I know he has not commented on the issue. It is possible that he was bemoaning the fact that certain unsavory elements have used the flag for their own purposes, but this is not the conclusion the senario the witness recounts suggests. Mr. Robertson needs to publically clarify his true feelings.
That said, if this is a true recounting of the event, then it is very disappointing. Robertson is old enough to know better, so he doesn’t have the excuse of youth. The modern demonization of the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) is a relatively recent phenomenon, and Mr. Robertson should know this. The Duke boys proudly sported a CBF on the roof of their car, named the General Lee, on prime time TV in the 80′s. Until fairly recently it was assumed that Southerners would be proud of their heritage. This relentless PC/Cultural Marxist attack on all things Southern is of relatively recent vintage. For some perspective on this, this artcle by Prof. Clyde Wilson should be read again and again. I wish Phil Robertson would read it.
There is a lesson here that conservative (and especially conservative Christian) Southerners who wish to distance themselves from the CBF lest they be tainted desperately need to learn. The PC beast is monolithic in it’s desire to eradicate every stray unegalitarian thought or at least the public expression thereof. (It is my belief that the mind of the typical PC stormtrooper is besieged by unegalitarian thoughts, and their PC shock troop role playing is a form of reaction formation, but that is for another post.). The PC beast is without nuance or subtlety. It doesn’t matter to it that Mr. Robertson’s thoughts on homosexuality are based on his acceptance of the long held historic teachings of the Christian faith and his belief that God has explicitly condemned the act in His Holy Word. Nope. The senior Robertson has committed wrongthink and must be condemned and re-educated. The same article that says Robertson might not be a racist, begins by saying “Phil Robertson may be homophobic…,” whatever that means. (A more absurdly silly term than homo”phobia” is hard to imagine.)
Conservative (as in traditional/orthodox [small o] more so than political) Christians who wish to maintain the inherently unegalitarian teachings of their faith such as the condemnation of homosexuality and various other sexual practices, the endorsement of gender roles, Jesus as the only means of salvation, etc. need to resist the PC beast with every fiber of their being. It can not be placated by throwing it sops such as distancing yourself from the CBF. Robertson, if this was his motive, whether thought out or visceral, for his comment on the CBF, is woefully niave to believe so. If you are a wrongthinker on any issue, you are a wrongthinker in toto. There is no middle ground with this mindless beast. The fight for the CBF very much is the fight for a Christian understanding of homosexuality. The two can not be disentangled.
This is not to say that traditionalist Christians should not denounce malice and ill will based on race, which is not a Christian attitude, but racism has long since ceased meaning just malice or ill will based on race if it ever did. It means any unegalitarian thought. Conservative Christians need to understand this and understand it quickly, lest they empower the beast that ends up eating them and the civilization they created alive.
Cracker Barrel thought they would get out in front of the Phil Robertson controversy and be the first to officially ban Duck Dynasty items from their stores.
Hmmm …? Cracker Barrel? What could they have possibly been thinking? Who does Cracker Barrel thinks eats there, urban hipsters and metrosexuals? (Maybe urban hipsters eat there to be “ironic.”) I thought Cracker Barrel was known as a Republican leaning company. I could have told you this wouldn’t end well for them, and it hasn’t. Now after a major outcry, they have returned Duck Dynasty items to their stores.
Update: Rod Dreher comments on the Cracker Barrel incident here. His thoughts are the same as mine. Does corporate Cracker Barrel know who eats at Cracker Barrel?
LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH NEWS SERVICE
19 December 2013
Re: Phil Robertson and A&E
For Immediate Release
The League of the South, the premier Southern Nationalist organization, supports Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty in his Biblical condemnation of sodomy. Moreover, we encourage our members and supporters to boycott the A&E Channel and their advertisers until they issue a sincere apology to Mr. Robertson and end his suspension from the program.
League President Michael Hill said the following: “The executives at the A&E Channel have shown their contempt for Mr. Robertson’s right to speak the truth from God’s own word about the sordid nature of sodomy. This is merely one more incident that proves that the purveyors of American popular culture are committed to an anti-Christian and anti-Southern agenda of hatred and lies. We urge Southerners and others of good will to support Mr. Robertson and to let the A&E Channel know that they will not be watching Duck Dynasty or buying the products of their advertisers until this matter is rightly settled.”
The League of the South can be reached for further comment at (800) 888-3163 or at firstname.lastname@example.org. More information can be found at www.dixienet.org.
Here is a tweet from Mike Church, a Constitutionalist radio host on Sirius/XM. (I don’t know how to post one of those pictures of a tweet, so this is just cut and pasted.)
Mike Church?@TheKingDude 26 Nov
The subjugation of @jackhunter74 aka The Southern Avenger is complete after Politico apologia & now http://www.southernavenger.com is shuttered
This is enlightening. I knew Mike Church was a strict Constitutionalist and advocated nullification and secession, but I didn’t know that he resists PC. This is good to know.
Here is a column by Alexander Hart on Jack Hunter’s recent Politico apology. Unfortunately, most of it is behind a paywall, but based on what you can view for free, he doesn’t think much of Jack’s attempt to re-enter polite mainstream con company. If anyone here is a premium member of VDARE, let us know the details.
Update: An old friend sent me the whole article. The article links to this PC movie review that Jack did prior to the Politico mea culpa.
Let me begin by saying that I have always liked Jack Hunter. I have only met Jack once at a Ron Paul event in Georgia, but I consider him a virtual friend. He is my Facebook friend. I was always especially fond of Jack because in addition to us both being Southern paleocons, we also shared a love of professional wrestling, especially of Ric Flair and the old NWA/Georgia Championship Wrestling on TBS era. We also shared a fondness for old school action movies. Jack, while a few years younger than me, reminded me a lot of myself. He was an intelligent guy who talked about Kirk, defended the South and seemed to really get it politically, but also couldn’t get beyond his Southern, blue collar tastes. The combination of someone who could talk intelligently about Kirk and Weaver one minute and then be a geeked out fanboy of Ric Flair and Sylvester Stallone the next was rare. Most people who can do either, can only do one or the other. Very few can do both. Hence I always felt a kinship and familiarity with Jack that exceeded our actual familiarity. While I don’t know if Jack felt the same way, I know he knew who I was and that he was familiar with this website.
I have been aware of Jack’s Southern Avenger persona since well before he revealed his identity. In fact, I recall going on an internet snooping session at one point to see if I could figure out who he really was. (To no avail.) The reason I was curious to figure out his true identity is because he seemed so well versed in paleospeak that I figured he might be someone I was (virtually) familiar with. We frequently posted his videos on this site. Contrary to Jack’s protests that he was young and naive, part of the reason that I liked his commentaries so much was because he was very articulate and often threw in references to Kirk and others that seemed intended to established his paleo bona fides. They struck me as winks of a sort. His way of saying “I’m one of you” without wearing it on his sleeve.
So it was with dread that I read his “Confessions of s Right-Wing Shock Jock” which appeared yesterday at Politico. I knew before reading it that he was going to prostrate himself before the gods of political correctness begging forgiveness and seeking to be accepted back into polite company, and he did, as I expected, just that. No worse than what I expected but no better.
I don’t now dislike Jack. I’m not going to disown him. I’m not going to call him names. I’m not going to un-friend him. In fact, when this “scandal” first broke, I counseled others against attacking Jack personally. Since I do consider Jack a virtual friend, to now attack him would be disloyal. It’s also unhelpful. I will say that I’m disappointed that this is the way Jack has responded to the “revelations,” which as someone noted (David Weigel maybe?) when this first broke, had always been hiding in plain sight.
When this came out, Jack had two options. He could do what he did and is doing which is backtrack and denounce his past. Or he could defend what he said vigorously. As I pointed out at the time, nothing he said, taken alone, was all that scandalous. Everything he said was common amoung paleos and in many cases mainstream conservatives. He could have appologized for some of the way he put things – suggesting that Lincoln and Hitler would have been best of friends is a bit provocative – without apologizing for the substance. He could have said he had become more libertarian over time, without casting aspersions on his old belief systems. His backtracking didn’t save his job them, and I’m not sure it will get him back into polite company now. What I do know is that he has hurt the cause he once (maybe still?) supports by accepting the framing of the enemy that what he said was scandalous. It was not. What the system needs is not another generic libertarian. What the system needs is smart articulate people like Jack who aren’t afraid to defend authentic conservatism against the PC mobs whether they be liberal “anti-racists” or Lincoln idolizing neocon thought policers.
I don’t doubt that Jack over time has become more libertarian. The simplicity and reductionism of libertarianism is seductive and has a way of drawing in people who are around it. And while I never got the impresion that Jack was hostile to religion, I did sense that he wasn’t personally very religious, so the slide into libertarianism was likely easier for him than it is for religious socons. Also, I don’t doubt that Jack has become over time more politically pragmatic. Playing the political game tends to do that to people. I had noticed this myself as Jack became somewhat of the designated spokesman for the Ron Paul campaign against conspiracy theorists and no-compromise libertarians. Now whether this was a job Jack was asked to do because it was felt he had credibly with the proponents of these issues or if this was a cause he took upon himself, I don’t know. It is possible that realizing his own past put him in jeopardy, Jack was trying to establish his reasonable bona fides, but this is just speculation.
That conceded, his handling of the racial and Southern issues in the article struck me as completely craven. Jack sort of walks back his support of secession as a principle for example. The passage where he addresses it is confusing. Jack is a good writer and there was no need for the passage to be confusing. I think the passage reflects his own ambivalence. I suspect he felt he needed to say something that he didn’t really want to say. Jack is schooled enough in Southern conservatism and Rockwell style libertarianism to know that secession is on firm intellectual and historical grounds.
His framing of racial and immigration issues as largely matters of sensitivity was pretty pathetic. As I pointed out at the time, the shock quote that was trotted out in the original hit pieces that was supposed to be so damning regarding race, wasn’t shocking unless you’re a lefty PC hysteric or an easily PC intimidated cowardly conservative. It wasn’t pro-white racialism. It was a standard color-blind conservative denunciation of the racial double standard. Jack’s yammering on and on about the need for conservative sensitivity on racial issues per se and Southern issues in general is profoundly harmful because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It accepts their framing of the debate. When a PC hysteric points and sputters because you denounced Cultural Marxist double standards, the way to respond is not, “Oh I’m so sorry. I’ll be more sensitive next time.” The way to respond is “You’re darn right I decried the Cultural Marxist racial double standard! What kind of conservative would I be if I didn’t? Do you defend it?”
My hunch is that Jack doesn’t believe his own crap here, and is just throwing himself on the mercy of the PC rightthink guardians. While he may believe that more care when discussing racial issues is prudent, in the same way he now embraces more pragmatic politics, I don’t think he really accepts that conservatives should abide by PC strictures with regard to language and policy lest they be guilty of wrongthink. Likewise I don’t think he really believes that defense of the South, secession, states rights etc. automatically means one is guilty of thoughtcrime. He’s too smart for that and too much a product of the roots that gave rise to the Southern Avenger.
So I am disappointed that Jack has chosen this route. I wish he had chosen the honorable route that Jason Richwine chose which was to vigorously defend himself because he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong. If Jack wants to remain a libertarian and a politcal pragmatist, I’m fine with that. I think that transformation is genuine. But accepting the framing of left-wing PC obsessives and neocon hit men is not OK. Hopefully Jack’s conscience and pride (the good kind) will set him back on the right path and one day he’ll write a mea culpa for his mea culpa. Maybe Jason Richwine can give him a call.
I can’t make this stuff up. Michael Cushman, to prove that America is a proposition nation, quotes George W. Bush.
Since everyone won’t be able to see the link here is the George W. quote he is using. It is from Bush’s 1st inaugural address.
America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens.
It really don’t know what Cushman is trying to prove. Does he really think citing George W. Bush helps his case?
For those who don’t follow these matters, there has been an ongoing feud between what I am calling the “New Direction Caucus” in the League of the South and some of us who have been alarmed by some things about this New Direction. I have been planning to address the issue here, but haven’t had the time recently, but I now see that Michael Cushman, who is the clear leader of this New Direction Caucus, has engaged me by name at his website. This is a good thing. These issues need to be debated openly. I will work on a reply. For now I will let the Cushman’s article stand on its own. Please read the article, read my comments, and then read the entire comment section of the post where my comments were taken from to understand the argument.
I don’t want to go into a lot of details about what the debate is about, since I plan a separate post (several really) on the issue, but briefly at issue is whether the US was conceived as a deliberate Enlightenment egalitarian experiment from its inception. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think it is fair to say that Cushman believes it was. I say it wasn’t. (There is more to the problem with the New Direction Caucus than just this. There are a suite of interrelated issues and attitudes, but more on that later.)
I think my position stands on its own if you read the comment section. I don’t have any issue with the way Cushman characterizes my position. In fact, oddly, he doesn’t really attempt to counter my position. He doesn’t attempt to demonstrate that my history is faulty and his is accurate. He simply states his alternative. He seems to be primarily motivated by the fact that he believes that his conceptualization is more useful, not more accurate. He calls it a position of strength. But it’s not a position of strength if it’s wrong.
Please read the links and then give me your thoughts.
The Braves recently announced that they are leaving Turner Field in downtown Atlanta and moving to a new stadium in suburban Cobb County Georgia. I have mixed feelings about this move. Mostly I oppose the use of public funds to pay for private sports facilities. In this case, Cobb County won a tax payers’ bidding war with Atlanta. But one reason cited for the move is fear of crime in downtown Atlanta. Cobb County, on the other hand, is virtually crime free. And you know why Cobb County is virtually crime free? Because the spirit of The Big Boss Man still roams Cobb County, that’s why!
If you ever take a trip down to Cobb County, Georgia.
You better read the signs
Respect the law and order.
You’ll serve hard times.
You’ll be serving hard times.
You know the Big Boss Man will make you walk the line.
You better watch out boy or you’ll be serving hard time.
He carries a big stick, a ball and chain too.
If you’re looking for trouble he’ll be coming after you.
You’ll serve hard times.
You’ll be serving hard times.
You know the Big Boss Man will make you walk the line.
You better watch out boy or you’ll be serving hard time.
This morning, the local (Macon, GA) am sports talk hosts said that whenever they think of Cobb County, the first thing that comes to mind is The Big Boss Man. You’re darn right! And those self-absorbed people up there think the rest of us peons in outer suburbia and beyond think everyone thinks of the Big Chicken.
I sure do miss The Big Boss Man.
Notice the flag in the background. Why do some nowadays claim the Battle Flag is offensive? It clearly wasn’t just a few decades ago. The War wasn’t over slavery. Americans nowadays seem to believe the South invaded the North.
I’ve always felt just like in this song: Southerners born today have been predestined as rebels. If there’s to be a revival of traditional America, Southerners will be at the forefront of that revival. And if such isn’t to be, Southerners will be among the last “reactionaries” to resist that cold death.
Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret.
Them boys ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie.
H/T: Countenance Blog
This American Spectator review of Rich Lowry’s recent on Lincoln starts by saying:
Rich Lowry answers the question all Republicans should be asking: What would Lincoln do today?
Yeah Rich and the rest of the Lincoln syncophants, what would Lincoln do today? He would send troops to arrest his political opponents like Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center which advocates nullification, and Tom Woods who wrote a book about nullification, and the League of the South secessionists who will be protesting immigration in Tennessee next month, and all those Red State residents who signed secession petitions after Obama was re-elected, etc.
Check out the comments. I love how you can no longer write pro-Lincoln propaganda on conservative websites any longer without getting called out. Unless the “conservative” site tightly supresses dissent. We are making progress.
In a recent open letter to the American people, Russian president Vladimir Putin assured us he likes and respects us, but asked us to realize we’re embarrassing ourselves and doing a lot of harm with our delusion of “American Exceptionalism.” Both the mainstream American left and right rushed to prop up our most beloved myth against this iconoclastic Cossack.
What’s interesting is that both wings of accepted American thought agree on what “exceptionalism” means–and more significantly, that both, though supposedly rivals, are actually in lockstep on all other major issues as a result.
For example, liberal columnist Dana Milbank shot back at President Putin with this bristling retort:
When we say we are exceptional, what we really are saying is we are different. With few exceptions, we are all strangers to our land; our families came from all corners of the world and brought all of its colors, religions and languages. We believe this mixing, together with our free society, has produced generations of creative energy and ingenuity, from the Declaration of Independence to Facebook, from Thomas Jefferson to Miley Cyrus. There is no other country quite like that.
Americans aren’t better than others, but our American experience is unique — exceptional — and it has created the world’s most powerful economy and military, which, more often than not, has been used for good in the world.
Miley Cyrus? Really? My pride floweth over.
And former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, now president of The Heritage Foundation, also defended “exceptionalism” by invoking the image of America as the Multi-Culti Empire that roams the globe doing good:
We are, in other words, not a nation based on ethnicity, but on beliefs, and not coincidentally, that is why we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans…. When we have used our power, however, we have done it for good.”
Both echoed what Madeleine Albright said as secretary of state:
It is the threat of the use of force [against Iraq] and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.
That self-image still inspires the Obama regime’s global aggression:
In their more honest moments, White House officials concede they got here the messiest way possible — with a mix of luck in the case of Syria, years of sanctions on Iran and then some unpredicted chess moves executed by three players Mr. Obama deeply distrusts: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Iran’s erratic mullahs. But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.
“The common thread is that you don’t achieve diplomatic progress in the Middle East without significant pressure,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Thursday. “In Syria, it was the serious threat of a military strike; in Iran it was a sanctions regime built up over five years.”
If your identity is that of a polyglot hegemon endowed with greater wisdom than the rest of the world, how can you NOT support open borders? Or the invasion of Iraq? Or Iran? Or Syria?
First of all, the US was NOT founded as a unique blend of whatever ethnic group decided to elbow its way in; it was founded as an outpost of Western civilization.
More important, the notion that the American people have always been committed to a never-ending global war to impose democracy and equality is a pure lie, and a fairly recent one at that. Previous “Wars of Liberation,” including Lincoln’s invasion of the South, the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, and Iraq, later turned out to be based on massive propaganda and misinformation.
The core idea expressed in “American Exceptionalism” is that the role of America’s elite is to serve as the global mind bringing reason and order to a chaotic, degenerate world. That is Gnosticism, an anti-Christian concept that explicitly glorifies abstract knowledge while scorning the physical. I argued here that Northern thought degenerated from its Puritan roots into militant Gnosticism, while Southerners upheld and lived by a balance between the spiritual and the physical.
Author John C. Wright said this of the Gnostic foundations of today’s statists and their leftist enablers:
In sum, they are idolaters who substitute the worship of Caesar for the worship of Christ; they are Gnostics in the posture of eternal rebellion both against God in Heaven and civil society on Earth. They are chameleons who adopt any ideals or values or party lines needed for so long as needed to destroy them, including Pragmatism, including Worldliness. They are Politically Correct and factually incorrect.
They seek to destroy civilized institutions here on Earth and drag Utopia down from heaven to replace them, indifferent, or even glorying, in the bloodshed required.
To avoid confusion, let us call them Ideologues. They are utterly unworldly, rejecting the pragmatism of the Worldly Man as cold and loveless and unspiritual.
The Ideologues are as nearly a pure evil as mankind has ever produced or can imagine, but please note that their motives are the highest and noblest imaginable: they seek things of the spirit, peace on earth, food for the poor, dignity given to all men, and all such things which are the only things, the holy things, that can electrify dull mankind and stir him to take up the banner and trumpet and shining lance of high and holy crusade.
Ever wonder why leftists see “education” as the cure to all ills? Or why they fancy themselves superior to those they see as living in the darkness of tradition and irrationality? Their contempt for the physical explains their hatred of heritage and tradition–and of life itself. But as John C. Wright pointed out, there’s a terrible price to pay for the spreading of their concept of the good. When Madeleine Albright proclaimed the death of a half-million Iraqi children as “worth it,” she was expressing what all Gnostics believe.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Over at the League of the Anti-South, obsessed hater Kevin Levin is showing his true spots once again in this tribute to W.E.B. Du Bois. I’ll quote the entire thing so you can savor the full force of its stench:
While this week marks the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington it is also the 50th anniversary of the passing of W.E.B. Du Bois. It is unfortunate, though not surprising that he has all but been forgotten to our memory of the long civil rights movement. Was there anyone more important and for such a significant amount of time through the first half of the twentieth century? I make it a point to introduce Du Bois in my classroom every year, usually through one of his essays or a selection from The Souls of Black Folk.
At least he has not been entirely forgotten in his home town of Great Barrington, MA. The photograph above comes from a local eight grade class, which recently spent some time exploring a local public mural done in honor of Du Bois.
Du Bois on Robert E. Lee: “Either [Lee] knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense or he did not” — From an essay on Lee (1928)
That last little dig reveals just how consumed with anti-Southern hatred Levin really is. Here’s a little background on the man Levin is promoting in the classroom:
As Du Bois grew older, he dropped any independent cover he had maintained and openly joined the Communist cause. In 1950, at the age 82, he made his first bid for public office, running for the New York State Senate on the American Labor Party ticket. He lost the election but remained committed to his cause. Eight years later, he joined Trotskyists, ex-Communists, and independent radicals in proposing the creation of a united leftwing coalition to challenge for seats in the New York State elections. In 1961 he joined the Communist Party USA and emigrated to Ghana to live in Kwame Nkrumah’s socialist police state, which he preferred to his native land. He made Herbert Aptheker, the chief theoretician of the American Communist Party, the executor of his papers.
DuBois became a citizen of Ghana. He died there in 1963, at age 95. In 1963 the Communist Party named its new youth group (a successor to the Young Communist League) the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs.
Funny, isn’t it, that those who despise the South and everything it stands for have nothing but nice things to say about followers of the most totalitarian, bloodthirsty ideology in history? Yeah. Funny.