Category Archives: Lincoln

Neocon Things That Make You Go Hmmm…

As a Southern paleocon who has often argued with Unionist neocons over the virtue of the Union invasion of the South and the merits of Lincoln, the current events taking place in Ukraine and the neocons’ reaction to it has me scratching my head. Let’s see…

Neocons, especially those of the Straussian variety, allegedly oppose secession. They oppose the historic secession of the South and reject secession as a legitimate political option for US states at present.

As a result of their inherent nationalism and opposition to secession, neocons venerate Abraham Lincoln above any other American.

Ukraine is a product of a quiet recent, historically speaking, secession from the former Soviet Union.

Putin is reoccupying part of Ukraine.

Therefore, if neocons are to be intellectually consistent, shouldn’t they support Putin as a Lincolnesq figure attempting to restore a political entity, the USSR, that traitorous upstart secessionist in Ukraine have recently ripped apart? And just as they should view Putin as a modern day Lincoln, shouldn’t they view the Russian Army as a modern day equivalent of the Union Army, and the Ukraine military as a modern equivalent of the Rebel Confederate Army?

But instead, the neocons are supporting the former secessionist Ukrainian revolutionaries and opposing Lincolnesq Putin’s attempt to reoccupy a former Soviet territory.

Hmmm…?

In a similar situation, Bill Clinton’s ordered American troops to intervene in the Balkans.

In the Balkan intervention, American troops were facilitating the secession of Bosnia from part of the former Yugoslavia.

If neocons are to be intellectually consistent, shouldn’t they have opposed the secession of Bosnia? Shouldn’t they have likened the US forces in the Balkans to the Confederate Army for facilitating secession and Clinton to Jefferson Davis?

Instead, neocons enthusiastically supported Clinton’s Bosnian intervention even while many conservatives at the time were returning to their non-interventionist roots and opposing the action.

Hmmm…?

Perhaps it isn’t really secession that neocons oppose. They seem quite happy with secession when it is breaking up countries that they view as challenging US hegemony. Perhaps the real problem they have with the secession of the South or the modern secession of US states is that it challenges their (mistaken) conception of America as a unitary modern state with a special mission to spread the values of liberal democracy across the globe.

Hmmm…?

Originally posted at Intellectual Conservative.

Archived at www.danphillipsmd.com.

What Would Lincoln Do?

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.

Chronicles Magazine Chimes in on the Jack Hunter Affair

Patroon stated below that Chronicles Magazine had failed to come to the defense of Jack Hunter. As far as I know, up to that point he was correct, but now they have in this concise but excellent post by Eugene Girin.

The mainstream howled in outrage over Hunter’s 2004 column “John Wilkes Booth Was Right”. Now, raising a toast to the assassin of an American president, is of course going too far. However, most of the things Jack Hunter wrote in that column are right on and all paleoconservatives would agree with them.

He then goes on to give a few examples of supposedly outrageous things that Jack said that are actually quite defensible and taken for granted on the paleo right. I had in fact bemoaned in a comment at TAC that so few if any were defending what Jack had said other than me. People were either feigning PC outrage (the left, the neocons and the mainstream “right”), defending him  on the grounds that he had grown (Daniel McCarthy) or throwing him under the bus for backtracking (Hunter Wallace, Palmetto Patriot, Michael Hill). But given that much of what he said was routine in our circles, I felt someone besides me needed to defended them. Mr. Girin’s post is short, but it does just that very effectively.

Knowing and recognizing the dark role of Abraham Lincoln in American history is one of the main aspects of the paleoconservative persuasion. Most paleos have at one point or another been subject to the vituperative attacks by the Left and the mainstream “Right” for expressing their views on “Honest Abe”. I, for example, was called an “un-American” proto-Nazi by the despicable Larry Auster for daring to criticize his beloved Lincoln.

Ha ha! I had a similar run in with the late Mr. Auster.

He closes with this:

The correct response for paleos in the face of such criticism is to stand our ground and respond to the liberals’ and neocons’ hysteric howls with cold, hard historical facts. Surrendering to the commissars of political correctness will only empower them in their drive for our destruction.

Amen! This is the point I have been pounding since the start of this mess.

Author’s note: I heard the criticism from Weaver below that we need to avoid the appearance of piling on Jack at this point. I had actually planned another post that I held off on for this reason. But I thought this Chronicles post was too good to pass up and does what we should be doing anyway, defending the positions of the old Jack. I plan one more clean up post on the Hunter affair with some links to some important articles but with only limited commentary on my part.

Why the U.S. Executive Branch Is a Clear and Present Danger to Our Democracy

Strange, isn’t it, that as Southern heritage is increasingly demonized (the largest front in the regime’s war against traditional America) and small-government libertarianism is also vilified, the dangers of centralized big government that both camps have warned about are being proven true. This article by Fred Branfman explains why the breezy assurances that potential abuses of federal power will be prevented by elections are empty:

Edward Snowden’s revelations have illuminated the most critical political issue facing America today: how an authoritarian U.S. Executive Branch which has focused on war abroad for the last 50 years now devotes increasing resources to surveillance, information management, and population control at home, posing a far greater threat to Americans’ liberties than any conceivable foreign foe.

Snowden’s view of the basic issue is [5] that “I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship,is recorded. That’s not something I’m willing to live under.”

From Lincoln to Wilson to Nixon, and on to the special example of Obama, the Chief Executive has amassed a frightening amount of unaccountable, arbitrary power. The Neocon-Leftist alliance that now defines what’s permissible to say and think is firmly behind protecting and expanding that power. How much tyranny can we endure? I don’t know how much people can tolerate. One thing’s for sure, though: Sooner or later, something’s gotta give. The current hysteria from the ruling elite and its defenders in reaction to dissent rises from their realization that their rotten system is crumbling.

Know hope.

More Jack Hunter Thoughts and Reactions

Here is an article at VDARE on the Jack Hunter smear campaign. It’s good because it links to a lot of the sites that picked up the story, but the author, Alexander Hart, pretty much throws Hunter under the bus on account of Rand’s backtracking on the immigration issue.

Here is Hunter’s own statement. It’s pretty much a disaster. Hunter goes into full backpedal and placate mode. This is highly unfortunate. First, the PC Beast can not be placated. Just ask Jason Richwine. Just ask Paula Deen. The PC Beast must be resisted head on. Second, whenever you say some version of “I’m not a racist” you have already lost because you have conceded the other sides terms. Third, as I wrote yesterday, nothing in these revelations is really that damaging. Some of it is rather mundane. Just explain yourself forcefully without backpedalling or dodging.

That said, I do not think that now is the time to attack Jack for backpedalling. Here is what I posted on Facebook:

I am disappointed that Jack Hunter has chosen to backtrack and concede to the PC Rightthink Police rather than fight back, but that said, now is not the time for anti-PC forces to attack Jack. Now is the time for us to attack the PC Beast that is attacking him. We can attempt to drag Jack back to paleodom after we have countered the PC Cultural Marxists Gestapo.
I felt the need to say that because some folks have gone after Jack pretty hard for his backpedalling.
 
 
and Michael Hill (via Hunter Wallace)
 
I’ll explain why I think overly attacking Jack Hunter (as opposed to expressing disappointment), is unhelpful at this point in a separate post.

The PC Thought Police Go After Jack Hunter (a.k.a. the Southern Avenger)

The Cultural Marxist PC Thought Police are frothing at the mouth again. They’ve identified a new thoughtcriminal for their Two Minutes Hate, Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the Southern Avenger.

Here is the Washington Free Beacon fatwa … err … article that got the jihad started. When I first heard rumblings that the PC Gestapo was going after Jack, I suspected the author might be the loathsome PC enforcer Jamie Kirchick, but it wasn’t. It’s some writer I’ve never heard of named Alana Goodman. Here is Goodman’s bio per the Free Beacon:

Alana Goodman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she was assistant online editor at Commentary (neocon alert!). She has written for the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. Goodman graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 2010, and lives in Washington, D.C. Her Twitter handle is @alanagoodman. Her email address is goodman@freebeacon.com.

Jonathan Chait picked up on the story here. Chait isn’t someone I normally associate with this type of PC Thought Enforcement campaign (I could be wrong), but this drive by smear job is inexcusable. He says this:

But his son and progeny Rand Paul also has a close aide who is a huge racist, reports Alana Goodman.

A “huge racist?” Actually Chait, Goodman isn’t even shameless enough to say that in so many words even though her “article” is a transparent PC/neocon rightthink enforcement hitpiece. (I say neocon in addition to PC because she heavily focuses on foreign policy and highlights among other things his belief that the nuking of Japanese civilians was unjustified.)

Salon piles on here.

What’s noteworthy about the Goodman piece is just how lame the allegations are. Anyone who has followed Jack’s career at all knows that he is pro-South and supports the right of secession. As Dave Weigle points out in a semi-snarky pile on of his own, this is not news, but the PC Rightthink Enforcers thinks this is a scandalous revelation. Beyond that she presents a laundry list of statements and policy positions that are supposed to scandalize all decent rightthinkers. I could defend each of Hunter’s statements individually, but I don’t have time for that now. In general, taken together the quotes and positions place Hunter in an identifiable paleocon/paleolibertarian sphere, but there is nothing here that is not routine opinion in those circles and each individual opinion can be found in mainstream conservatism as well.

Looked at as objectively as I can as an interested co-combatant, the thing that might be most shocking to the ears that the Rightthink Enforcers are aiming to prick is his use of the word terrorism to describe the nuking of Japanese civilians and his comparison of that act to 9/11. (FTR, I don’t think terrorism is the right word to describe our use of nukes against the Japanese civilian population. It is needlessly inflamatory and isn’t really an accurate word choice. It is more accurate to describe it as a war crime, but that is for a separate thread.) Beyond that Hunter is accused of saying that there is a double standard against whites. Other races can celebrate their race but whites can’t celebrate theirs. Well no duh! This is a thoroughly mundane and unarguable observation. He’s also acused of saying our foreign policy in the Middle East is influenced by Israel. Is there anyone who seriously denies this? In fact, the interventionist at the Free Beacon celebrate this as right and good. He is excoriated for suggesting that immigration alters the culture. Again, no duh! Does anyone seriously deny this? In fact, immigration boosters celebrate the fact that immigration brings about change in the culture. You know, that whole “Diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.

I could go on, but you get the point. Unfortunately, Jack concedes too much in what was I’m sure a damage control interview with the Free Beacon. Those of us who have followed Hunter’s career for a while have recognized that he has become more politically pragmatic over the years, thus his defense of some of Rand Paul’s misguided concessions. But I have always hoped that that old self-described “right-wing radical” still lurked beneath the surface. But this is not the time to criticize Hunter. Now is the time to defend him against the baying PC Rightthink mob. They’ll be time for dragging him fully back into the fold once the PC Enforcers have been called out for their rightthink policing shenanigans.

American Spectator Publishes More Lincoln and WBTS Dissent

AmSpec has published a review of the new movie Copperhead.This is the second recent article that expresses dissent on Lincoln and WBTS groupthink. This is progress. Here is my comment:

When I saw this review I clicked on it because I knew the comments would quickly evolve into a debate about The War to Prevent Southern Independence. I wasn’t disappointed. It did so with the first post from The Mighty Lincoln Shill.

AmSpec deserves kudos for posting some dissent on Lincoln and the War, instead of the Jaffaite revisionist boilerplate that normally passes for history and philosophy at most mainstream “conservative” outlets.

American Spectator Publishes an Anti-Lincoln Article

This is progress. The article does a good job of detailing the ebb and flow of anti-Lincoln sentiment on the right. There are a lot of encouraging comments as well. If you click on the comments give them time to load. If you scroll down too quickly, they won’t all load properly. At this time my comment is the second from the last. I came to the party a little late.

You love Lincoln, don’t you?

You’d better – or Rich Lowry will tell everyone how “foul” and “rancid” you are. Those are the adjectives Lowry tosses at Thomas DiLorenzo for unmasking the crimes and treason of the 16th president. And Lowry makes it clear he considers anyone who has read DiLorenzo and questions the Lincoln Myth is part of a “small but foul pro-Confederacy strain on the right.”

Reading Lowry’s article, one can just smell the fear emanating from Lowry, a pundit who’s notorious for his tendency to run away from a fight while goading others to fight for him. Cowards often compensate by talking tough, and Lowry not only supported the invasion of Iraq, but the nuclear bombing of Mecca since the 9/11 conspirators were all Muslim. I can just see Richie Rich giggling in anticipation of thousands of innocent lives being snuffed out in the name of American Power.

I suspect what’s got Lowry so worked up is the steady progress folks like DiLorenzo have made in exposing Lincoln and the regime he founded. The ever-prescient Ed Sebesta hits the bull’s eye in his blog post when he says

What is interesting is that Lowry decided that this article needed writing. The anti-Lincoln campaign of the neo-Confederates has been going on for some time. I think this might be a sign that the anti-Lincoln campaign is going somewhere and the leadership of conservatism in America is beginning to get concerned.

Amen, Brother Sebesta! The concern is real because Lowry knows that exposing Lincoln exposes the Empire. The Lincoln Myth of the Great Liberator is the founding myth of the rogue global empire headquartered in DC today. That myth justifies the ruling elite’s power and privilege in the name of spreading freedom and democracy, terms we heard ad nauseum in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Lincoln’s role as the founder and model of today’s authoritarian American Empire isn’t just my idea. Here’s what Lowry himself wrote recently in an article entitled, “Lincoln Can Teach Us Today“:

The National Security Agency telephone and Internet surveillance program is similar to Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War act of suspending habeas corpus, National Review editor Rich Lowry tells Newsmax.

“When he did it initially, any reasonable person would think it was an appropriate measure because troops were coming down from the North at the beginning of the war when Washington was isolated and not protected, and they were stopped in Baltimore by mobs.”

However, many in Lincoln’s day believed the suspension went too far when it became almost a matter of routine, Lowry said.

The secessionist blues

One of the more notable deaths of 2012 which went unnoticed was that Thomas Naylor. The Mississippi-born Naylor who was an economics professor at Duke, started an organization entitled “The Second Vermont Republic” an organization dedicated to restore Vermont as an independent county as it was after Revolutionary War until 1795. Naylor started SVR  in 2003 in the wake of the Iraq War and with the Help of Kirkpatrick Sale accomplished making secession being more than something  “Southern”. Secessionist history and movement and independent republics have existed throughout American history in all corners of the country.

Naylor’s recent death may very well deflate the SVR  movement, as per usual when original and charismatic persons pass away. While there are persons ready to take Naylor’s place who believe in the SVR cause, politically it remains impotent and doesn’t have very many activists. It’s growth took place during the Bush II Administration when there was some thought of a “permanent” Republican majority might have made some leftist Vermonters to wonder if breaking away from the U.S. was a feasible idea. Since Obama took over, forget about it. As one wag put it “What’s the worst nightmare of a SVR member? An Obama presidency.”

Of course as SVR member will point out not a lot has changed between the previous two administrations but to the kind of Vermonter the group had to convince to join that doesn’t matter. Our gang is in power, everything else is just gravy. And the same goes to the opposite end of the political spectrum. Talk to me all you want about all these secession petitions given over the White House web site but in terms of raw numbers it doesn’t mean much in comparison to the number of registered voters in each state. Even in Texas, which had the highest amount of petitions, the totals are but a drop in the bucket compared to the state’s population. Obama’s Administration really hasn’t sparked secessionists movements. Southern Republicans dream about taking back the whole country, not how they’re going to break away from it lest they might have to pay the full costs for all the goodies they get back from the Feds. Even in Europe where there are strong nationalist and secessionist parties and serious movements, the results are still disappointing. Scotland will hold a referendum soon but few think it will pass and Catlans couldn’t figure out which independence party they wanted to back, during recent local elections and their cause has been put into some doubt, and this amid the worst economic crisis since the depression.

However, it should be pointed out secession has ceased being the taboo subject it was perhaps 20 to 30 years ago. It has happened around the world, peacefully in some cases (Czech Republic and Slovakia) and violently in others (Sudan, East Timor). A West which basically tore the old Yugoslavia asunder can’t claim secession is illegitimate cause. Even in the U.S., the fact that Rick Perry revived his political career in 2009 just by mouthing such sentiments shows the same to be true. As I said the work of people like Naylor has helped in this regard and will be his legacy.

Continue reading

Spielberg’s Lincoln a “bloated $50-million history lesson”

We Southerners know that history is on our side. Defenders of the Empire who try to cherry-pick historical facts usually end up looking rather silly. Yes, we say to apologists of empire, let’s debate history. Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is the latest attempt to justify the president who mounted a counter-revolution to the Revolution of 1776, thus re-establishing the supremacy of the government over the people.

But the reaction of fans and critics hasn’t exactly been what Spielberg expected. For starters, Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln fails to create a believable, sympathetic character. One fan echoed the reaction of many others: “Is it me or does Abe Lincoln sound a lot like Mr Burns?”

Rex Reed’s review, entitled, Arid Abe: Lincoln Is as Wooden as Washington’s Teeth, not only rips Spielberg’s clumsy propaganda, but goes on to present facts about Lincoln and the real purpose of his crusade formerly seen only in pro-Southern circles.

The movie, says Reed, is a “colossal bore.” He finds it “so pedantic, slow-moving, sanitized and sentimental that I kept pinching myself to stay awake—which, like the film itself, didn’t always work.” Ouch.

And in response to the film’s heavy-handed Lincoln worship, which is really empire-worship, Reed observes:

In reality, Lincoln believed in equality under the law, but not racial equality; he had no use for blacks and maintained a strong personal belief that whites were a superior race. In his efforts to get his amendment passed, Honest Abe was not so honest either. He and his cabinet of rivals were not above bribery, lies, suspending habeas corpus or bending the Constitution to break the South’s economic infrastructure.

What’s that? Lincoln’s war was NOT about freeing the slaves, but just another war for power and treasure? Do tell.

Ha Ha! Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter Flops at the Box Office

#3 this weekend at $16.5 million. It’s budget was $70 million.

I knew it was going to flop, but was still rooting hard that it would. I have been in a couple of movies where there was a trailer for ALVH and the general audience response was not “That looks cool” or “I’ve gotta see that” but “Huh?” and “What?” The movie is based off a popular book, but if you aren’t familiar with the book then the premise just seems stupid.

It couldn’t happen to a better fictionalized President. We already have to put up with the equally farcical Abraham Lincoln as great President and Abraham Lincoln as savior of the nation, do we really need Abraham Lincoln as vampire slayer?

Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush

This can’t possibly be true! Obama is a liberal Democrat! But most of all, he HAS to be on the people’s side because he isn’t white. The most learned political theorists have proven whites are reactionary, while blacks are progressive.

I’m all befuddled. No one could have seen this coming…

… unless … they paid attention to the fact that Wall Street has showered Obama with contributions.

Sayyyy … that sounds familiar. An ambitious politician expands the central government and the office of president for the benefit of big business, while claiming he’s a man of “the people.” Hasn’t this act been done before?

Say it Ain’t So: Newt Gingrich to Announce on Wednesday

Newt Gingrich is running for President.

Reading or listening to Gingrich makes me physically ill. (I exaggerated only ever so slightly.) He is a verbose windbag who enjoys listening to himself talk and thinks his babbling is a substitute for actual thought.

Newt is not now, never has been and never will be a conservative. He is a free-market techno futurist who throws in occasional references to the Founders and God and American “Ideals” (based on the proposition nation myth) when it suits him. He used to avoid much mention of God even but has thrown in more references to God lately since he is trying to get back in the good graces of values voters whose favor he fell out of for violating the Seventh Commandment. 

He is also a Lincoln idolater who has no understanding of the actual federated republic the Founders left us. His America is a centralized Idea Nation. Newt’s Founder is more Toffler than Madison. His “conservatism” more Jaffa than Kirk.

The problem is that too many “conservatives,” who aren’t grounded in actual conservatism, are easily wowed by his ramblings. The thought of watching a debate that includes Newt makes me cringe. He will babble some technocratic wonk speak with a few buzz words thrown in and many rank-and-file conservatives will mistake it for erudition.

I really don’t know if I will be able to take it. Would I be forgiven for sitting this primary season out lest I plunge a screwdriver into my ear while watching a future debate just to make the pain stop. I love Ron Paul and all, but I’m not sure it’s worth it.

Garland Favorito: “The Key Event That Lead to Uncontrolled Federal Growth”

Garland Favorito of Voter GA, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of South Carolina’s secession from the Union, offers us this take on the War Between the States.

The 150th anniversary of South Carolina’s attempted secession and America’s most devastating war gives us a new chance to understand the key to how our federal government can no longer be easily be controlled. But we must reevaluate what we have learned because the history of all war is written from the perspective of the victor.

Read more

Cross posted at IPR. Check out the comment thread there. An interesting debate.