“European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.
A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. They are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.
The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.
These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered. …”
European Jews have already achieved much of this wish list in several states: witch trials for “Islamophobia,” laws banning “Holocaust denial,” persecution of political parties like Golden Dawn and Vlaams Belang, etc. I expect their demands will fall on receptive ears in parliaments across the continent.
“A federal judge in Mobile on Friday struck down Alabama’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that a woman could not be denied her desire for a second-parent adoption of a 9-year-old boy whom she has helped raise since birth. …
“Careful review of the parties’ briefs and the substantial case law on the subject persuades the Court that the institution of marriage itself is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, and that the State must therefore convince the Court that its laws restricting the fundamental right to marry serve a compelling state interest,” Granade wrote in her 10-page order.”
Homosexual marriage is now a “fundamental right protected by the Constitution” in Alabama. For some reason, I’m sure the debate will continue though about “what the US Constitution really meant.”
Note: In other news, a judge in the Federal Republic of Germany has ruled that German men do have the right to stand while urinating in the privacy of their own homes. Since we don’t experience many cultural victories under liberal republicanism, I felt like sharing this small bit of good news.
“When Oregon was granted statehood in 1859, it was the only state in the Union admitted with a constitution that forbade black people from living, working, or owning property there. It was illegal for black people even to move to the state until 1926. Oregon’s founding is part of the forgotten history of racism in the American west.
But the book kind of misses the forest for the trees in not recognizing the fact that the entire state of Oregon was founded as a kind of racist’s utopia. Race isn’t explored in the otherwise excellent book.
Thousands would travel to Oregon in the 19th and 20th centuries, looking for their own versions of utopia. Some brave and noble people made the journey that would become cartoonishly immortalized for at least three generations now in the computer game Oregon Trail. But unfortunately for people of color, that pixelated utopia and vision of the promise land was explicitly designed to exclude them in real life….”
I’ve known about Oregon’s history of excluding blacks for years now (it is mentioned in the American Racial History Timeline), but the story gets murky after the adoption of the state constitution in 1857. After the 14th Amendment was adopted during Reconstruction, federal law superseded state law.
“Public measures at the middle of the century afford a variety of examples of the bias against change. In 1751, Parliament had received a bill for naturalizing foreign Protestants; it reached a committee before protests from the City of London and elsewhere persuaded Henry Pelham, first Lord of the Treasury, to abandon it. Two years later a similar effort was made on behalf of Jews. This “Jew Bill” earned an incredible notoriety despite its limited objectives. Its central provisions provided that Jews might be naturalized by private acts from which the words “on the true faith of a Christian” had been omitted from the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, which were still required. A similar statute had been accepted in the American colonies without opposition. The English bill slipped through an apathetic Parliament only to be repealed the next year after an immense public outcry. A careful Pelham tried to explain that only wealthy Jews would be able to afford a private bill and that the capital investments by this minority would add to public revenue. These restrained and reasonable arguments made no headway against ingrained prejudice and religious conservatism.”
“In this environment conventional wisdom came to hold that plots and conspiracies always ruled political action. This had not been an original discovery of the colonists. At least fifty years before the American Revolution they had in fact begun to absorb the ideas and assumptions of the radical opposition in England, the so-called eighteenth-century commonwealth men. The name was derived from the radicals of the previous century, the Roundheads, the makers of the English Civil War and the Commonwealth. The seventeenth century writers of this ideological bent included John Milton, James Harrington, and Algernon Sidney, among others. Their political ideas received something of a revision in the exclusion crisis of 1679-81 – the attempt to bar James II from the throne – and eighteenth-century radicals continued the process, adapting the older ideology in order to make it useful in the opposition to ministerial governments.
The eighteenth-century commonwealthmen have not survived a great names – John Trenchard, Thomas Gordon, and Benjamin Hoadly, Bishop of Winchester, were the most important – but in the fashioning of revolutionary ideology in America they had an influence that surpassed Locke’s. To be sure, they drew upon Locke and others more original than themselves. Indeed, their ideas were not original, and the heart of their political theory resembled closely the great Whig consensus of the century. They praised the mixed constitution of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and they attributed English liberty to it; and like Locke they postulated a state of nature from which rights arose within the civil polity, created by mutual consent, guaranteed; they argued that a contract formed government and that sovereignty resided in the people. These ideas were so widely shared in England as to be conventional, but the eighteenth-century radicals put them to unconventional uses. These radicals rarely got into Parliament – and never in numbers – but they formed an opposition to a succession of ministries and to the complancency of the age. While Whigs and English governments sang the praises of English institutions, English history, and English liberty, the radicals chanted hymns of mourning, dirges for the departing liberty of England and the rising corruption in English politics and society. Within all states, from ancient Rome to the present, they argued, there were attempts to enslave the people. The history of politics was nothing other than the history of the struggle between power and liberty. Trenchard and Gordon called one of Cato’s Letters: Essays on Liberty (1721) “Cautions Against the Natural Encroachments of Power”; in that essay they declared that “it is natural for Power to be striving to enlarge itself, and to be encroaching upon those that have none.” Cato’s Letters likens power to fire – “it warms, scorches, or destroys, according as it is watched, provoked, or increased. It is as dangerous as it is useful … it is apt to break its bounds.” There was in the radical ideology a profound distrust of power, then, power as force, as coercion, as aggression. What did power encroach upon? Liberty, usually defined as the use and enjoyment of one’s natural rights within the limits of law in civil society.”
The Radical Whigs were the wellspring of Americanism … it’s all there, Locke, universal natural rights derived from the social contract, individuals “exiting” the state of nature, the Roundheads, Cromwell and the Commonwealth, the Levellers, the Glorious Revolution, etc. In other words, the English radicalism of the 17th century became the American mainstream of political theory in the 18th century.
“The political ideas of Americans in 1760 did not take their origins from congregational democracy or revivalistic religion. Most American ideas were a part of the great tradition of the eighteenth-century common-wealthmen, the radical Whig ideology that arose from a series of upheavals in seventeenth-century England – the Civil War, the exclusion crisis of 1679-81, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 …
The American Revolution revealed that this radical Whig understanding of politics had embedded itself deeply in American minds. In Britain only the dissenting fringe accepted the Whig analysis.”
Is this the foundation on which to build a future ethnostate, one in which all individuals would have a duty to maintain its ethnic and cultural integrity as a trust for future generations, or is it a worldview that will morally collapse into extremes of universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism, which will find its political expression in liberal democracy and cycles of expanding rights claims?
Here’s a write up of the League of the South’s participation in the recent Lee-Jackson Day festivities in Lexington:
“League of the South members attended the annual pilgrimage to Lexington Va. Lexington is the final resting place for two of South’s greatest men, Robert E Lee and Thomas Stonewall Jackson. League members attended the wreath laying service at the Jackson monument in Stonewall Jackson Cemetery. There were many Southern People in attendance, The League of the South, The Virginia Flaggers, The SCV, The UDC, SCV Mechanized Cavalry, Order of the Confederate Rose, and many people who support their Southern Heritage. There was a parade that followed the wreath laying ceremony. After the parade League members distributed many Free Magnolias. The Southern Nationalist flag was flown alongside the Unreconstructed Virginia flag. The SN flag received a lot of attention. Many folks enquired about what the Flag stood for and it’s origins. Josh Newcomb was interviewed by channel 12 news. We were also briefly interviewed by a professor from Virginia Tech, with a more in-depth interview to come. We renewed connections with some longtime members of the League and people who have attended our demonstrations in Richmond. It’s my opinion that this was a great opportunity for recruitment. There’s seems to be a growing interest in Southern Nationalism, especially within the younger generation.”
Note: This is another example of how the controversy over the Confederate Battle Flag has been blown out of proportion. The League has used the Confederate Battle Flag several times at these heritage events. Last August, I drove to Mississippi where my wife used the Confederate Battle Flag at an event in Oxford.
Those who want to use the Confederate Battle Flag in public have always been free to do so. It’s their responsibility to organize their own events and invite people to participate in demonstrations. There are any number of heritage related issues such as the controversies in Lexington, at Ole Miss in Mississippi, or the renaming of the Confederate parks in Memphis where using the Confederate Battle Flag would be warranted.
Since we are celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a federal holiday in the United States, today would be an appropriate occasion to remind everyone here why the Civil Rights Movement emerged victorious in the 1960s.
The Civil Rights Movement triumphed over Southern segregationists like Bull Connor and Gov. George Wallace because they were able to make a successful moral appeal to the “American Creed” of equal rights. They successfully won over the hearts and minds of White Northerners watching the Civil Rights Movement unfold on network television by using direct action tactics in Birmingham and Selma that created sympathy for their crusade by framing it in terms of America’s republican values.
There’s nothing about the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. that I or anyone else in the blogosphere will be sharing this afternoon that can top this article that was published in August 2013 by The Daily Mail. This was the first time that I have seen this must read story. I can’t believe that I missed this:
“King’s secret sex life became such a talking point at the White House that recently released interviews with Jackie Kennedy revealed even she knew about it.
Jackie confided how her brother-in-law Bobby Kennedy had told her the FBI had recorded King trying to arrange a sex party on the night before the March on Washington in August 1963.
‘I can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible,’ sniffed the former First Lady. Bobby had told her that King ‘was calling up all these girls and arranging for a party of men and women, I mean, sort of an orgy’. …
“One of King’s most distinguished biographers, Taylor Branch, revealed how — on King’s trip to Norway to collect the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize — members of his entourage were found running after naked or near-naked prostitutes in the Oslo hotel where they were staying. Only a desperate appeal to hotel security saved them from being thrown out.
Branch also detailed how FBI agents bugged King’s hotel room in Washington in January 1964 and recorded him in adulterous full flow. ‘I’m f*****g for God! I’m not a negro tonight!’ he could be heard shouting.”
Note: Please do me a favor and share this article about the Rev. King with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. It needs to be circulated as much as possible!
Red Phillips has written an article in response to the debate over republicanism we are having on this website, and which has come up many times before on Facebook, which he connects to some recent changes in the League of the South.
In this article, he presents the Southern Nationalist camp as being divided into roughly three factions:
(1) Paleocons who, on the vital question of what the US Constitution really meant, believe that the Constitution wasn’t a radically centralizing document. Like most of the original Southern Nationalists, these people believe that Lincoln subverted the US Constitution and the original American Republic, but they may or may not support contemporary secession from the United States.
(2) Paleocons who, on the vital question of what the US Constitution really meant, believe the Constitution was a radically centralizing document, but who believe the Union was always terrible bargain for the South, and who support contemporary secession from the United States for various reasons.
(3) The “new guard” of anti-republicans who reject Americanism root-and-branch and want to secede for contemporary reasons.
There’s also the “heritage movement” which is centered on the SCV and various flagger groups. This faction is focused exclusively on defending Confederate memory and generally eschews interest in contemporary issues. The vast majority of these people are Rainbow Confederates who oppose modern day secession. They are not Southern Nationalists, but there is so much overlap in these circles that including them in the broader “Southern movement” is warranted here.
Insofar as the League of the South goes, there’s a broad spectrum of views within the organization, but the imperative of seceding from the present day United States is the common ground that unites us. There’s a consensus that “anything is better than this” and other points of contention can be sorted out after secession. We’re also united on the point of opposing the demographic displacement of White Southerners.
In any case, secession isn’t what is being debated here. Instead, it is the rise of the “new guard” and our ideas within the League. It’s true that there are anti-republicans within the League. Since I am closely associated with this faction, I will act as our spokesman and lay out our point of view on several key areas of disagreement:
Shouldn’t it be obvious by now that the US Constitution was a failure? If we grant that it was a failure, why should we revere it? Why should such a failure, which has guided us toward this disaster, be our model for moving forward?
Does it matter at this far gone point what the US Constitution “really meant”? If it has been an abject failure in sustaining a culturally conservative society in practice, it was clearly flawed. What’s more, examining those flaws and taking measures to correct them should be our starting point for creating our next government.
2.) The Articles of Confederation – This scheme of government lasted for all of six years - please note this website is now older than the Articles of Confederation – before it was scrapped by the Founders themselves. Why should a form of government that was so unstable and so quickly undermined by speculators inspire confidence as a model for creating a new government?
3.) The Confederacy – Like the Articles of Confederation, the Confederacy lasted all of four years, which was due in large part to its own instability. The Confederacy was an attempt to create a slave-based republic. Otherwise, the Confederate Constitution was a close copy of the US Constitution with only a few minor changes.
The Confederacy lost the war because the South was polarized and divided over slavery. Large swathes of the Upper South were anti-Confederate, indifferent to the Confederate cause, or fought for the Union. But why insist on dredging this up now? Slavery is a moot issue. No one in the Southern Nationalist movement wants to restore slavery. Labeling ourselves “Confederates” or “Neo-Confederates” only accomplishes one thing … linking our cause to a dead republic, which no one can ever bring back, that was fought over a moot issue that no one cares about anymore.
4.) The “Old Republic” – There are a lot of paleocons who romanticize the “Old Republic” that was destroyed by Abraham Lincoln.
Should this “Old Republic” be our model for moving forward with our next government? It’s worth noting here that this “Old Republic” lasted for all of three generations – roughly 70 years – before it too collapsed under its own weight. It died on the battlefield where the winning side was fighting for a “new nation” which was “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Now, the argument will be made by paleocons here that it was Lincoln who subverted the “Old Republic,” but they can’t ignore the fact that the winning side in that war, which represented the majority of White Americans, was the one that fought for abolitionism and an egalitarian proposition nation, and which spent the next twelve years after the war trying to “reconstruct” the South along those lines.
Is this not disturbing? Is this not thought provoking?
The first ever image of “Uncle Sam”
5.) Republicanism – This is the core issue that divides the anti-republican camp from the paleocons: upon close reflection, anti-republicans have serious doubts about the stability of the republican form of government, and would prefer a different form of government altogether as a model for moving forward.
The “Old Republic,” which is revered by paleocons, was destroyed by Americans who were convinced that the United States wasn’t republican enough, which is to say, it wasn’t free enough or equal enough. The whole course of American history has followed the leveling trajectory unleashed by the American Revolution. There’s no room for any debate within the “mainstream” in the United States outside of the boundaries of liberalism with its two poles of “freedom” and “equality.” According to Americanism, nothing else in life is good except more freedom or more equality.
Paleocons deny that America is a product of the same Enlightenment liberalism which convulsed all of Europe in the Age of Revolution. In order to do this, they have to deny that America’s philosophical foundations are rooted in classical liberalism – in John Locke, Montesquieu, and the British Radical Whig tradition:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The Declaration of Independence lays out the most famous statement of “rights talk” classical liberalism in the world: the notion that the sole purpose of government is to secure the individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government here is just a social contract, a grand bargain, between individuals with equal rights that can be abolished whenever the principles of liberalism are felt to be violated.
Paleocons strangely deny that the American Revolution was an ideological war while turning a blind eye to how the legacy of the American Revolution, the toxic ideology of Americanism, was invoked by each and every single successful leveling movement that followed in its wake, whether it was Jeffersonianism that leveled the “Old Republic” into a full blown democracy (while the ink was barely dry on the US Constitution), or the abolition, free love, and women’s suffrage movements which drew their strength from the radical legacy of the American Revolution, or the Civil Rights Movement, which first became an issue after the war, or contemporary feminism and women’s rights and the ongoing struggle for homosexual liberation.
Maybe Yankees are to blame for all of this though and separating from them would have sufficed to check this downward spiral into the dark pit of “social justice”? That’s a comforting thought, but it fails to take into account that republican extremism, and the historical absence of a culture that blossomed in the bosom of slavery, is the reason why Yankees are like that in the first place. Without the practical reality of having to manage millions of negroes in their midst, Yankees set out about following the destructive abstract principles of Americanism to their ultimate radical conclusion.
The French took republicanism to even greater extremes during the French Revolution where the same conflict that played out in the United States between the South and the North over slavery, white supremacy, and “rights talk” was replicated in the conflict between Saint-Domingue and metropolitan France. The course of republicanism in the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Ireland and other Western countries should raise even graver doubts about the stability of the republican form of government.
The bottom line here is that it is hard to look around the modern world and see much hope for a stable, conservative society in the numerous examples of countries that have adopted the republican form of government. Wherever we look (Lincoln’s America, Jacobin France, and Weimar Germany being only three of the worst examples), we see nothing but a landscape of social decline in the West after countless elections.
6.) The Confederate Battle Flag – See the Confederacy.
See also the “New Confederate Army” and CSA.Gov. We have no objection to 1.) defending Confederate memory or 2.) honoring our ancestors. At the same time, we fail to see the point of living in the past and getting bogged down in debates over moot issues when our very future existence as a people is now under threat. Also, it doesn’t help matters that the last two generations have spent so much time trashing the aesthetic of the CBF and ghettoizing its appeal into a symbol of a degraded subculture:
Republics prize the self expression of the individual
7.) Focusing on the Present – We believe that our cause, which is a fight to secure the future existence of our people, dwarfs the cause of the Confederacy in its importance. Existence matters far more than independence. Our existence is under threat and nothing else remotely comes close in our priorities.
8.) Ethnonationalism – Ethnonationalism emerged during the 19th century Romantic movement in reaction to the 18th century civic nationalism of the French Republic. The US was founded on the older concept of civic nationalism, which is to say, the ideal of the union of free men against tyrants. The American Founders rejected their English heritage and Anglophobia dominated the US until the twentieth century when the rise of Germany forced an Anglo-American rapprochement.
9.) The Proposition Nation – From the very beginning of American history, Americans thought of their country as some kind of shining beacon of republican freedom, a “City on a Hill,” that other European countries were supposed to emulate, or else.
To say that America wasn’t driven by ideological fervor requires ignoring inconvenient facts like how Jefferson cheered on the French Revolution, or how Americans glorified European revolutionaries like Kossuth and Garibaldi, or how the US clashed with the Holy Alliance, which represented the old order, or supported the spread of republicanism in Latin America, which culminated in an intervention in Cuba.
America as an ethnonationalist republic makes even less sense considering how Britain was America’s primary antagonist in the 19th century. The fact is, Americans have always wanted to spread their cherished “institutions” overseas – and here too, remember, because the Yankees came here to teach us the true meaning of “freedom” and “equality” after the war. The postwar South was not up to their “republican” standard.
10.) True Southern Nationalism – For some reason, Red has convinced himself that only republicans can be Southern Nationalists. It’s as if the history of the South begins in 1776 and is synonymous with the United States. Nothing else that happened before that date counts on the republican calender.
In reality, the formative years of Southern culture were in the colonial era when slavery and the plantation system were introduced. The South already had a distinct culture before the American Revolution. What made the South distinct from the Northeastern colonies is due to the legacy of that time period, not to republicanism, which was adopted by both sections of the United States. The primary difference was that the Southern colonies were slave societies which led to the same sort of cultural conservatism found in the British and French West Indies which also proved resistant to the excesses of republican ideological fervor.
By the 1850s, George Fitzhugh and other Southern antebellum writers had become severely critical of the suffocating influence of Jefferson’s republicanism.