Monthly Archives: May 2012

New Model Parties

In the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States, the Union Army of the Cumberland and the Battle of Chattanooga in 1863 provides a good example of what may be the future of political organizing in the country in the future.

It was during the battle that the Army of the Cumberland, without any orders or commands or led by generals or colonels, stormed up Missionary Ridge and drove the Confederates into headlong retreat. Everyone joined in the fighting: cooks, porters, clerks, and drummer boys, anyone who could carry a rifle or a flag. As described by Ulysses S. Grant “When those fellows get started all hell can’t stop them.” Indeed, what happened at Missionary Ridge was known as a “soldier’s battle”, a battle fought without officers.

In a way, I’m sure that’s the way the grassroots members of the Ron Paul campaign feel right now.  Their officers may well be looking for a way out of the fight, looking to cut their deals with the winning side but the soldiers are engaging battle after battle, in state convention after state convention, are winning the delegates the official campaign say they want but perhaps don’t want for fear of continuously making the Romney campaign look like the hollow shell that it is.

Meanwhile, those in the grassroots who have taken over state Republican Party are finding themselves being deprived of funds and staffers and watching the national GOP set up “shadow” state parties to direct funds to. Some party loyalty. And they accuse the Paulites of being disruptive.

So be it. Let those who wish to cut their deals do so. Let those who wish to plot and disrupt do the same. Let Romney and Obama beat each other silly on the campaign trail. Those who created Ron Paul’s campaign from nothing five years ago will carry on.  It was never the man himself or his family or whatever they worked so hard for but the ideas he brought forth.  And they will do so with the opportunity to perhaps create a new kind of political structure within the broad outlines two-party system but in an entirely different political culture.

Continue reading

Star Wars


Hard to believe it was 35 years ago this month that Star Wars premiered. The movie not only popularized Joseph Campbell’s insight that the function of myths is to inspire individuals and perpetuate society, but was itself an example of Campbell’s teaching that ancient myths must be continually modernized so they can fulfill their function.

Talk about inspiration! Star Wars tells the story of the ultimately successful secession of the Rebel Alliance from the Galactic Empire. However, the three prequels that followed The Return of the Jedi focused on the unsuccessful first effort to break away from the Republic. The first conflict arose as the increasingly corrupt Republic was transforming into the Empire. The two opposing forces in the first secession attempt were known as The Grand Army of the Republic (!) and the Confederacy of Independent Systems. (!!!) Here’s a synopsis of each:

The Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), also known as the Clone Army, was the main part of the armed forces of the Galactic Republic in its final years, becoming one of the largest armies ever assembled, although not as large as the Separatist Droid Army. After the Clone Wars, it served as the nucleus for the armed forces of the Galactic Empire.

After the deaths of the members of the Separatist Council, some Confederacy-loyal worlds still refused to be absorbed into the new Galactic Empire. These remnants, some organized and unorganized, would continue to fight throughout the Imperial era. The Empire would use these holdouts as justification for expansion of the Imperial Navy. Many of them ended up joining the Rebel Alliance at its formation.

May the Force be with you.

Virgil Goode Making Progress on Non-Interventionism

Our friend Peter Gemma interviewed Virgil Goode for Independent Political Report. I was encouraged by it. He seems to be making progress on foreign policy. Read the whole interview, but the foreign policy part is excerpted below.

As far as a non-interventionist foreign policy goes, let me say this to begin with: I’ve learned a lot in my years as a member of the Executive Committee of the Constitution Party. Some votes I cast in Congress were not well matched with Constitutional principles. I oppose the Patriot Act provisions and the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] that trample on the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I do not believe we should be involved in wars that have not been declared by Congress as specifically provided in the U.S. Constitution, so we must come home from Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can afford—nor is it strategically necessary—to have military bases all over the world. We owe too much money to underwrite the stationing of so many troops all around the world. Finally, I am against placing our armed forces under United Nations command.

Bill Kristol Celebrates His Purges

Recently Bill Kristol was crowing about how he purged the “Arabists” from the Republican Party.

I first became aware of this story from Mondoweiss. Sorry but I don’t recall how I was directed there. I must have been though because I don’t generally surf to Mondoweiss.

I am still reeling from seeing Bill Kristol hold forth at a debate at Bnai Jeshurun synagogue on the Upper West Side last Tuesday [a short portion of which is above]. He came off as what he is, a Republican Party warlord; and he was treated like royalty. The rabbi said he was proud to host Kristol, and Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street said he wanted to take Kristol with him to the West Bank, and moderator Jane Eisner of the Forward was very respectful, though she got in a jab at Kristol’s “smear” tactics at the Emergency Committee for Israel.

When Kristol gave the self-congratulatory riff from which I’ve gotten my headline—about how all the elements hostile to Israel inside the Republican Party were purged over the last 30 years – no one dared to question the power of the Israel lobby.

An incidental run in with Kristol occasioned this Buchanan editorial on the smarmy Kristol’s claims.

“The big story in the Republican Party over the last 30 years, and I’m very happy about this,” said Kristol, is the “eclipsing” of the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft realists, “an Arabist old-fashioned Republican Party … very concerned about relations with Arab states that were not friendly with Israel… .”

That Bush crowd is yesterday, said Kristol. And not only had the “Arabists” like President Bush been shoved aside by the neocons, the “Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul type” of Republican has been purged.

“At B’nai Jeshurun,” writes Weiss, “Kristol admitted to playing a role in expelling members of the Republican Party he does not agree with.” These are Republicans you had to “repudiate,” said Kristol, people “of whom I disapprove so much that I won’t appear with them.”

“I’ve encouraged that they be expelled or not welcomed into the Republican Party. I’d be happy if Ron Paul left. I was very happy when Pat Buchanan was allowed — really encouraged … by George Bush … to go off and run as a third-party candidate.”

Kristol’s point: Refuse to toe the neo-con line on Israel, and you have no future in the Republican Party.

Here are a couple of other mentions of this story that I got from a yahoo search.

The Kansas Citian

The Southern Nationalist

When some people say … HA…HA…HAAA… SAVROLACHEWWWW………!!!! Oh, excuse me … that paleos spend too much times nursing old grudges, I’ll tell them to read this story and tell me it doesn’t make their blood boil. If Kristol still gets to crow about 15 give or take year old purges, then I claim the right to still grouse about them.

The feisty intellectual pugilist in me tells me that the way to respond to such pompous crowing is with defiance. He may have purged the Republican party (this claim is largely true), but he didn’t purge real conservatism, and he sure as heck didn’t purge me. For our paleo critics, what do you suggest?

Of course the sweatest revenge would be to take the Party back, but that is not within my power. Shouting from the rooftops is.

 

Virgil Goode on Birtherism

William Saturn at IPR asked Goode his thoughts on birtherism. Here’s Goode:

I would like to see the original birth certificate of President Obama. I assume that there exists an original file with the physician signed paper.  Until I have the opportunity to see such original material I am reserving further comment.

If I’m going to rag on Goode, in fairness I should praise him when he gets something right. Goode answer this question adeptly and about the only way he could. Had he declared himself a convinced anti-birther or brushed off the question he would have alienated a huge portion of the kind of people who might vote for a conservative third party candidate. Had he declared himself a convinced birther he would have created a big distraction. His answer expresses just the right amount of skepticism. (Possibly good coaching.) Good for him.

“Originalists” for American Hegemony?

Edwin Meese is one of four winners of the 2012 Bradley Prize, presumably at least partially for his contributions to the cause of “originalism.”

I certainly support originalism and consider it a core aspect of conservatism, but Meese is also a big supporter of military interventionism. It cannot be pointed out too often that advocating for American world hegemony and originalism are not reconcilable.

The Founding Fathers debated whether we should even have a standing army and whether the Feds should be able to federalize the state militias. Wanting America to be the world’s hegemon is clearly not the original intent of a group that debated the wisdom of standing armies. You are either an originalist or you aren’t. People like Meese are cafeteria originalists when it suits them.

James Antle on Options for Anti-War Conservatives in November

Check out this article at The American Conservative.

Antle covers Virgil Goode (CP) and Gary Johnson (LP). I promised to lay off Goode until after the election, and I have, but this is a perfect example of how the Constitution Party has harmed its brand by nominating Goode. Anti-war conservatives can’t unequivocally embrace the CP nominee. Any endorsement has to be hedged.

This dilemma is particularly acute this year. Let’s just go back to 2008, when the two major party candidates were Obama and a far more committed hawk than Romney in John McCain. At least the Constitution Party nominated Chuck Baldwin, a candidate who had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. The Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman who had turned sharply against the war. Both men were fairly decent choices for the antiwar conservative.

Four years later, the Constitution Party nominee is a former Republican congressman who (like Barr) voted for the Iraq War but (unlike Barr) hasn’t had much to say about his second thoughts since. In his acceptance speech, Virgil Goode apologized for his support for the Patriot Act but not Iraq. In an interview with this writer for the print edition ofTAC, Goode seemed not to have gotten the memo — or the Duelfer report — on Iraqi WMD.

The Libertarians have nominated Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, for president. Johnson opposed the Iraq War. He wants out of Afghanistan and never wanted into Libya. Johnson hasn’t exactly been humming McCain’s catchy tune “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

But Johnson is much less conservative than Goode on issues like immigration (he’s as close to open borders as anyone this side of the Wall Street Journal editorial page can be) and abortion. His eagerness to dispatch U.S. troops to fight the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda while talking cheerfully about a 40 percent cut in military spending could be a forgivable bit of third-party incoherence, but it sounds like a prescription for disaster.

See more…

Similar post without the editorial content posted at IPR.

Our Man in Amsterdam

Poster, Felton, thought the topic of selective abortion & the “gay gene” was worthy of a thread.  Cross posting from my blog:

Our Man in Amsterdam

Peter Thiel: billionaire, gay, Christian, Ron Paul Supporter, sea-steading investor, Bildeberger.
That guy is Alt Right.
SWPL types have engaged the eugenics program, really cutting into the Down Syndrome numbers, with prenatal testing and abortion.  Whether there is a ‘gay gene’ or not almost doesn’t matter—one is sure to be claimed, and the eugenics program and the bio-ethics of SWPL will abort away.  Perhaps a chap like Peter Thiel can appreciate where this ship is heading and be encouraged to fund the Alt Right, beyond the Ron Paul program, and begin to tackle and exploit an opportunity for serious metaphyscians.

Ugh! There is Going to be a Machete II

Yep, it’s true. It is going to be called Machete Kills.

Some of you may remember that CHT reported on (click and scroll down) the controversy surrounding the original Machete which attempted to capitalize on the Arizona immigration law by making a trailer glorifying the killing of whitey.

I’m surprised they’re making a second one because the first one under-performed at the box office. Funny how white movie goers didn’t want to see a movie that glorifies their killing. But because it was made on a relatively low budget, it did make a little money.

Apparently this one stars Mel Gibson. Say it isn’t so Mel.

Announcing the League of the South Florida Convention

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date:5/23/2012
Contact: Northeast Florida Chapter
Email address: floridas_son@yahoo.com
Website: www.coolchange.net

The League of the South News Service
Florida To Hold Independence Conference

(Jacksonville, Florida) The Florida League of the South is pleased to announce its Annual State Convention to be held on Saturday, 26 May 2012.

The voluntary Union of sovereign States given us by the Founders is now a dead thing of the past. An alien class and ideology that are completely hostile to our historic way of life now rule the South that you call home. However, don’t expect an appeal to the Constitution or to common decency to stop the criminal class from further terrorizing the land.

The theme of this year’s conference is “The Only Alternative”; a three part educational strategy and will be held at the Jacksonville Public Library, West Regional Branch Conference Center, 1425 Chaffee Rd., S. in Jacksonville, Florida

With the tremendous growth and national press coverage of the League of the South as the largest “States’ Rights” organisation in existence, the League has become a recognised leader in the effort to restore liberty here at home. If you’re ready to take a stand, we urge you to join us for this refreshing meeting of liberty-minded Floridians.

Attendees will enjoy the slate of speakers for this year’s event including Dr. J. Michael Hill, President of the League of the South; Pruffula Singh, educator and speaker from Ocala, Florida; and Michael Crane, Clerk of the Southern National Congress from our sister state of Georgia. Be on hand to hear these dynamic messages, breathe a bit of un-reconstructed and politically incorrect fresh air and learn how you can personally make a difference!

Admission to the conference is free of charge. The general public is welcome and encouraged to attend. Gathering and registration begins at 10:30 AM. Seating is limited. RSVP’s to the email address above are requested.

Every man must choose for himself the path he will tread. It is human nature to seek out the easy way. That is what our enemies count on us to do. Join ranks with The Florida League of the South in Jacksonville this May 26th in our efforts to return sovereignty to Florida and our beloved Southland.

The Florida League of the South is an affiliate of the League of the South, based in Killen, Alabama, with chapters throughout the Southern States.

A Debate About How to Debate Interventionists

Part of our critic Savrola’s issue with us paleos is that he doesn’t like our debating style. He can speak for himself, but I take it he thinks it is too cerebral, too nice and not effective. He would like us to take off the gloves and start calling names. Specifically he would like us to let fly with the accusations of treason and traitor. If this is not a fair assessment and summation, then he can correct the record in the comments below.

My general tactic when I am debating interventionists at sites like American Spectator is to repeatedly make the case that non-interventionism is the authentically conservative position and that interventionism is inherently anything but conservative. I also point out the obvious exaggeration of the threats against us upon which the case for interventionism rests and the obvious absurdity of America needing to spend HALF (give or take) of the entire world’s allotment on “defense.”

It’s certainly possible that these tactics are more effective at winning debates than they are at converting people, but at a site like AmSpec I am frequently arguing with true believers. I don’t expect to make converts out of them. The audience I hope to persuade is the generally conservative person who is not yet a committed militarist. There is also something to be said for simply “representing,” so to speak, non-interventionism. A way of declaring that we haven’t conceded the field.

My rational is this: people at places like AmSpec are not your normal Joe on the street. They are political hobbyists who hang out on political web sites. They self-identify as conservatives. For them being a conservative (and perhaps a Republican) is an integral part of their identity. They are more likely to buy in toto the official conservative party line than is the vaguely conservative Joe on the street. I suspect they embrace interventionism not so much because they have thought about it deeply, but because it is part of the whole modern three-legs-of-the-stool conception of conservatism that they imprinted on when they were first identifying as conservatives. (This is one reason why young people are much more receptive to Ron Paul. They didn’t come of age during the Cold War when militant anti-Communism was a defining feature of organized conservatism.) I go after them on the “real” conservative issue because being a conservative is a fundamental way in which they conscieve of themselves. This is, I believe, one reason why some react so viscerally to non-interventionism. I am challenging a core part of how they identify themselves. Making them think. “What do you mean interventionism isn’t conservative!?”

My experience is that there simply isn’t a lot of middle ground here. While the man on the street might have been beating the drums for war after 9/11 and now have other priorities, the dogmatic interventionists of the AmSpec comments type (or National Review or Free Republic, etc.) do not usually drift to some form of moderate realism. They either remain three-legs or convert to non-interventionism and embrace the whole rest of that suite of issues (anti-Fed, pro-Gold, Constitutionalist, etc.). (They replace one imprint with a different imprint.)

While I concede I may not have a lot of luck making converts and may simply be doing more “representing,” where is the evidence that name calling is more effective? The thought seems to be, “Well the other side does it.” So if questioning our special relationship with Israel elicits immediate thought stopping charges of anti-Semitism then excessive fidelity to Israel should elicit immediate charges of dual loyalty, treason, traitor etc.? This strikes me as an invitation to an uncivil pissing contest that does nobody any good. It drives me crazy when the other side pulls the mindless name-calling crap, so why should I stoop to that level myself? Quite frankly, I’m just not comfortable doing that, and I don’t have it in me.

Hence, I guess, the charge that I’m, and paleos in general are, too cerebral. Politics is often not about reason. It is often about gut. I get that. But as I said in the other thread, can we not have the concept of division of labor here? If some people need to make gut level appeals to emotion, then so be it. But leave me alone while I’m trying to make rational arguments that appeal to people’s brains.

 

Anti-Racists Attack European Heritage Group in Illinois

Well, let’s see how much press this gets.

I wonder why ABC News put anti-racists in quotes. That’s exactly what these self-loathing idiots call themselves. Notice these punks came wielding “steel batons” and “hammers.” It figures they weren’t up for a fair fight. If they came empty handed I suspect every one white nat could take out at least two anti-racist pukes.

David Frum: Laptop Bombardier, Globalist, Lunatic

Or, for the sake of convenience, just call Frum what he is: Neocon.

Frum is a prime example of this dangerous political species, which is just as universalist as the most raving Marxist (hence their enthusiasm for open borders), and always ready for another splendid little war.

What makes Neocons like Frum so noxious? Because they’re identity thieves who claim they’re conservative when in fact they’re agitating for leftist objectives.

Check out Frum’s creepy little post on the firing of John Derbyshire from National Review. He concludes with this bizarre counsel for conservatives:

The question ahead for American conservatives is whether they envision their future as a multi-ethnic coalition in favor of enterprise and individualism—or as a Bloc Québécois for older, white people. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have embraced this latter future, and profited immensely by it. Nobody’s firing them.

Yeah, if you want to keep your job these days, you’d better not question the big-government/big-business agenda of open borders and egalitarianism. You want job security? Be a good bootlicker.

If “conservatism” is based on conserving the existing social order, how could transforming America into a Third-World country be called “conservative”? Nowhere in history has there existed a “multi-ethnic coalition” upholding free enterprise and individualism. What leads Frum to believe such a monstrosity could or should be cobbled together?

Answer: because he’s a lunatic.

What causes racism?


Experts now tell us whites feel superior to minorities because they are the majority.

That’s a bad thing that makes other bad things happen. In Duluth, Minnesota, 80% of white students graduate in four years compared to 25% of African American students. 18% of whites live in poverty compared to 67% of Blacks. These disparities are apparently a problem NO OTHER PLACE IN THE WORLD has experienced. Therefore, the local do-gooders have launched a campaign they call “Un-Fair” to make whites realize they benefit from “white privilege.” To assist whites in this endeavor, billboards and posters are being plastered all over Duluth of white people with denunciations of white privilege scribbled on their faces (see above photo). If that doesn’t advance racial harmony, I don’t know what will.

The Un-Fair site explicitly states that blacks are underperforming because whites are the majority race:

The population of Duluth is 89% white, which may be a factor in our community appearing and functioning as a monoculture. This causes some groups to feel marginalized and excluded.

As a result, whites feel superior, making blacks feel inferior. From the same web site:

It is hard to see racism when we are white because we live in a monoculture based on white northern European values, beliefs, practices and culture.

Okay, that explains that. Clearly, an immigration policy that will make whites another minority will eradicate racism.

But wait! What’s this? Why, it’s Mark Potok, who is wise in such matters. He says white racism is getting worse BECAUSE America is becoming minority-majority:

“White supremacist groups have been having a meltdown since the census bureau predicted that non-Hispanic whites would lose the majority by 2050,” said Mark Potok, spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups. “The demographic change in this country is the single most important driver in the growth of hate groups and extremist groups over the last few years.”

So which is it? I’m so confused.

2008 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr Endorses Mitt Romney

This after he endorsed Newt in the primary.

I promised to lay off Virgil Goode until after the election, but this is one reason I’m not so sure that ex-major party elected official are the best sort of “big name” candidates for a third party.

More on that after the election.

 

Has the Bell Begun to Toll for the GOP?

For the first time in this nation’s history, non-white births outnumber white births.

Now for those who believe that race is something we all agreed to imagine, the only thing we need to do is quit imagining it, and poof! no problem. But Pat Buchanan has made a living pointing out inconvenient truths, and he thinks we should start considering the real-world implications of this:

Fifty-three percent of all Hispanic children are born out of wedlock, with no father in the home and many of the moms themselves high school dropouts. Most Hispanic kids thus start school far behind.

In tests of fourth-, eighth- and 12th-graders, their scores are closer to those of African-American kids than whites and Asians. Their dropout rate matches that of black kids. Absent affirmative action, not only are America’s colleges and universities but her professions are going to look far more Asian and white than the national population.

Not a formula for social peace.

Nor is it a formula for economic growth or long-term survival. Buchanan’s title implies this demographic upheaval could be the death-knell of the GOP, but the real concern is what it portends for the country.

World history offers little comfort. For example, the Lebanese Civil War was sparked by a demographic shift in that country precipitated by the influx of Palestinians displaced by the Israeli military. Serbia lost the province of Kosovo because that region, despite its special place in Serbian history, had transformed into an Albanian enclave.

Makes me wonder if allowing in poor, embittered Mexicans into lands once controlled by their home country is a good idea.

Of course, this is America. In the Exceptional Nation, history, demographics, and racial conflict don’t matter.

Articles for your consideration

From James Hall at BATR:  “Money, Banks and Financial Oversight”

From SARTRE at BATR: “Gay Marriage, Obama and the Me Value Culture”

From J.J. Jackson at Liberty Reborn: “If the Old Media were Still Relevant”

From Chuck Baldwin: “What Will They Say To Say To Shadrach, Meshach, And Abednego?”

From Scott Lazarowitz at Lew Rockwell.com “Ron Paul vs. the Real Tin-Foil Hat Crowd”

From Kenneth McIntyre at TAC:  “The Right’s False Prophet”

From  John Hudson at the Atlantic: “If Greece Leaves the Euro…”

From Andrew Napoloitano: “Is There a Drone in your Backyard?”

A Censored Race War by Thomas Sowell

A Censored Race War

By Thomas Sowell, Syndicated Op-ed, May 15, 2012

When two white newspaper reporters for the Virginian-Pilot were driving through Norfolk, and were set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks — beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work — that might sound like news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper. But it wasn’t.

The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel was the first major television program to report this incident. Yet this story is not just a Norfolk story, either in what happened or in how the media and the authorities have tried to sweep it under the rug.

Similar episodes of unprovoked violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random on beaches, in shopping malls, or in other public places have occurred in Philadelphia, New York, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington, Los Angeles, and other places across the country. Both the authorities and the media tend to try to sweep these episodes under the rug.

In Milwaukee, for example, an attack on whites at a public park a few years ago left many of the victims battered to the ground and bloody. But when the police arrived on the scene, it became clear that the authorities wanted to keep this quiet.

One 22-year-old woman, who had been robbed of her cell phone and debit card, and had blood streaming down her face, said, “About 20 of us stayed to give statements and make sure everyone was accounted for. The police wouldn’t listen to us, they wouldn’t take our names or statements. They told us to leave. It was completely infuriating.”

The police chief seemed determined to head off any suggestion that this was a racially motivated attack by saying that crime is color-blind. Officials elsewhere have said similar things.

A wave of such attacks in Chicago were reported, but not the race of the attackers or victims. Media outlets that do not report the race of people committing crimes nevertheless report racial disparities in imprisonment and write heated editorials blaming the criminal-justice system.

What the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on whites in public places. If there is anything worse than a one-sided race war, it is a two-sided race war, especially when one of the races outnumbers the other several times over.

It may be understandable that some people want to head off such a catastrophe, either by not reporting the attacks in this race war, or by not identifying the race of those attacking, or by insisting that the attacks were not racially motivated — even when the attackers themselves voice anti-white invective as they laugh at their bleeding victims.

[Continue reading....]

Those Racist Fijians!

Fiji is clearly filled with a bunch of racists. They want their Miss World Fiji to actually look like a Fijian? The audacity!

But after Watters won the title,  she faced heavy backlash because of her mixed European/Fijian descent, and some said she did not look Fijian enough.

Hundreds of derogatory comments had to be deleted from the Miss World Fiji Facebook page, according to reports.

Of course I do not support placing derogatory comments on people’s Facebook page, especially 16 year old girls. That is rude and unchivalrous. (Although what is a 16 year old girl doing competing in a beauty contest anyway?)  I just post this as further proof of the PC double standard, ethnocentrism for me but not for thee.