The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
The NeoCons’ Confederate Problem—And America’s
shutterstock_258851933
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Since the Charleston shootings, GOP officials have been scrambling to comply with Leftist demands that Southern Whites be stripped of visible signs of their Confederate heritage. The GOP has actually been downplaying the Confederacy for years—Jeb Bush conspicuously removed Confederate banners and insignias from the Florida statehouse back in 2001. [Jeb Bush Ordered The Confederate Flag Removed From Florida Capitol 14 Years Ago, By Scott Conroy,Huffingtonpost.Com, June 19, 2015] (But the GOP’s efforts to dump the Mississippi state flag i ncluding the Southern Cross were frustrated when a majority of the population, including almost a quarter of the black population, voted to retain it).

Party operatives are stupid enough to believe that black votes are there for the taking if they run down the Confederacy ferociously enough; and that white Southerners will remain Republican no matter what. Plus of course the GOP’s whorish Big Business backers have capitulated, as when they withdrew support from the Boy Scouts of America for not accepting openly homosexual scoutmasters. But it is not so much blacks who seem offended by the Battle Flag(in South Carolina as much as 40% of the black inhabitants are content to leave it at the Capitol) as it is the national Main Stream Media—and above all the neoconservatives.

Neoconservatives have long stood out from other Republicans and members of Conservatism Inc. by virtue of the intensity of their loathing for the white South. And, as I demonstrate in my books on the American Conservative Movement, they have an almost total lock on the Conservative Establishment. The funding, media access, and all the leading publications of the movement are now controlled by neoconservatives. Other branches of conservatism survive, but they are either marginalized, like paleoconservatism, or merely tolerated dissent, like the Catholic Straussians and the socially leftist Libertarians—especially the ones, like the Randians, who vociferously support Israel.

Although neoconservative anti-Christian broadsides continued through the 1980s, with such Commentary contributors as Ruth Wisse and Hyam Maccoby, the Christian enemy took a back seat to other bêtes noires after the neoconservatives began to cultivate the Religious Right as part of a pro-Israel alliance.

But the neoconservatives were still in the forefront of South-bashing for decades, from their organized defamation of Mel Bradford, the conservative Southern candidate for the directorship of the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1981, through the crusade to remove Mississippian Senate Majority leader Trent Lott in 2002 after he had too fulsomely praised (former segregationist, former Democrat) South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond on his hundredth birthday, to the bile they are now pouring on the already-isolated defenders of the Southern cause.

None of this need surprise us. The persistent neoconservative prejudice against the South sprang from the ethnically parochial culture in which the older generation of neoconservatives grew up. In my youth, I was struck by the malice with which New York Jewish visitors to Florida described their road trips through the land of “rural bigots.” Next to the Germans, whom they assured me—the child of Austrian Jewish immigrants—were all Nazis, these Southern “anti-Semites” were the most unpalatable humans they were forced to share the planet with.

Neoconservative beneficiary National Review Editor Rich Lowry referred in a recent column to “institutionally racist backwater” that was the white South before both government reconstruction efforts and the influx of Northern suburbanites redeemed it. That is a polite way of expressing the anti-Southern bigotry that I heard from New York Jews in the 1950s, before the South ceased to be the South.

In what looks like a staggering effort to outdo the media Left, the quintessentially neoconservative New York Post ran a column by Lou Lumenick (email him) on June 25, demanding that we retire “this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact,” the movie Gone with the Wind, from TV and movie theaters. [‘Gone with the Wind’ should go the way of the Confederate flag]. Although Lumenick and his patrons do not find this film classic to be as much in need of censorship as other more offensively pro-Confederate movies like Birth Of A Nation, what makes Gone with the Wind particularly “insidious” is its “subtle racism”—disguised by the fact that its black co-star received an Academy Award.

Subsequently, the New York Post uncovered more insidious evidence of pro-Confederate pollution, this time in the Big Apple. It seems that the German Jewish press magnate Adolf S. Ochs, who moved his operations to New York from Chattanooga, Tennessee, had “strong ties to the Confederacy.” His mother Bertha Levy Ochs was a charter member of the Daughters of the Confederacy, and Bertha’s son, who set up the New York Times, brought her illiberalism to the neocons’ home base on the Hudson. Ochs even managed to have a mosaic with a design allegedly resembling the Battle Flag inserted in a wall in the subway station at Times Square. (See above)[Confederate flags adorn this Times Square subway station, By Georgett Roberts and Amanda Lozada, June 25, 2015]

(This is an interesting inadvertent reminder that there were Confederate Jews).

Perhaps the most colossal display of anti-Southern bigotry was produced by the Wall Street Journal-Weekly Standard luminary Max Boot. Writing in Commentary, Boot expressed impatience that the war against Southern symbols has stalled at halfway measures. According to Boot, we should not at this very late date just be getting rid of Confederate flags. Years ago, enlightened Americans should have followed “conservatives” like him in calling for the renaming of every landmark or street located in the former Confederacy that bears the name of a Confederate leader:

Remembrance does not require public displays of the Confederate flag, nor streets with names such as Jefferson Davis Highway — a road that always rankles me to drive down in Northern Virginia. Such gestures are designed to honor leaders of the Confederacy, who were responsible for the costliest war in American history — men who were traitors to this country, inveterate racists, and champions of slavery.

[Rightfully Reversing Decades of Secessionist Rehabilitation, June 24, 2015]

ORDER IT NOW

Boot implicitly compares the slaveholding South to Nazi Germany. And while he thinks we cannot prevent the descendants of German or Confederate soldiers from honoring the memories of fallen ancestors, he believes no public space can be conceded to those who revere what he considers to be a “vile cause.”

As I read this call for further humiliating the Southern whites, who have been the cannon fodder in so many neoconservative-incited wars, I thought about the strange situation that has made Boot, a Russian Jewish immigrant, a towering figure in American “conservatism.” He has ascended so high in our weird society that he is now dictating the unconditional surrender of Southern white goyim to the Cultural Marxist Zeitgeist.

This grotesque act begs for comparisons. It might be like a Palestinian activist who is mysteriously acclaimed as a spokesman for the Israeli conscience and then orders Israelis to take down all monuments to their Jewish past.

Needless to say, Israelis would never oblige such an impudent poseur—unlike our Southern white Republicans.

Still, to their credit, neoconservatives do not bleed all over the floor confessing their own past racist insensitivities. They simply speak as the conscience of the world. Whether we have Charles Krauthammer reproaching Trent Lott for his “historical blindness” in not vibrating to the greatest moral event in American history, the successful Civil Rights movement personified by MLK, or the entire neocon press coming down on the hapless Professor Bradford in 1981 for not appreciating the achievement of Lincoln in making us all more equal, or the stragglers in the crusade against Southern symbols, neoconservatives specialize in imposing their selective morality.

Thus Southern whites are excoriated for their past sins of racism—but Jews living in New York City are allowed to complain about blacks and even describe them with belittling epithets when they misbehave in Jewish neighborhoods.

For example, neoconservative progenitor Norman Podhoretz in February 1963 published in Commentary a thoughtful essay My Negro Problem—and Ours in which he expressed very frank feelings about blacks, miscegenation, “Negro anti-Semitism” and Negro “paranoid touchiness.” No-one did a Mel Bradford or Trent Lott on him. But in era when even Hilary Clinton is questioned because her husband’s campaign used Confederate symbols, perhaps they will now.

Here’s a quote:

The hatred I still feel for Negroes is the hardest of all the old feelings to face or admit, and it is the most hidden and the most overlarded by the conscious attitudes into which I have succeeded in willing myself. It no longer has, as for me it once did, any cause or justification (except, perhaps, that I am constantly being denied my right to an honest expression of the things I earned the right as a child to feel). How, then, do I know that this hatred has never entirely disappeared? I know it from the insane rage that can stir in me at the thought of Negro anti-Semitism; I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple; and I know it from the violence that can stir in me whenever I encounter that special brand of paranoid touchiness to which many Negroes are prone.

Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of Marxism His most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. Ha, Podheretz, what an insane bigot. And his ilk had the temerity to accuse Ron Paul falsely for what some ne’er do well follower he didn’t even know felt. As if – they ever cared, except to use it as an opportunistic political cudgel.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @Marty
    You missed the point. Podhoretz is not a bigot; his feelings about blacks are entirely rational stemming from serial beatings sustained as a result of their bigotry (though doubtless aimed at whites generally rather than just Jews). I developed the same feelings, 30 years later, and for the same reasons, after receiving the "blacks are as good as anyone else" training while a kid on the west coast. The slam on Podhoretz is for hypocrisy, not bigotry.
    , @viking
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQZZa2MdVVk

    heres another blast from a more recent past
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/the-neocons-confederate-problem-and-americas/#comment-1001141
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I guess I’m out of touch. I don’t have the slightest idea who Max Boot is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    A leading militarist writer, but with no actual military experience.
    , @Avery
    Max Boot was born in Russia (Moscow) of Jewish parents.

    He is now an American.
    His specialty is writing warmongering diatribes exhorting US to get involved in endless military conflicts all over the world.

    Not having been anywhere near a battle, he has no problem sending the sons of others to be killed for his harebrained macho fantasies.
    Like all other chickenhawks (e.g. Dick Cheeneey), these sick people need a constant flow of others' blood to keep them alive.
    , @Jonathan Silber
    I guess I’m out of touch. I don’t have the slightest idea who Max Boot is.

    I've heard of Boot, but Mr. Gottfried exaggerates his stature and influence in describing him as a "towering figure in American 'conservatism.'"

  3. Projection is the word that comes to mind. And do any of these people know what the word traitor means? The aim of the Confederacy was not to overthrow or replace the Union government.

    And if these idiots want to protest a flag that symbolizes racism, military aggression, horrific violence and slaughter, treason to the U.S., segregation and actual hatred, they could protest the flag of Israel which flies all over the U.S.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.
    , @guest
    "do any of these people know what the word traitor means?"

    I sympathize with them there, as it's hard to put yourself in a 19th century mindset regarding national loyalty. We live in a world where the federal government controls everything from how we think (education) to how our toilets flush. We live in a world where flea-buzzing nuisances like ISIS are considered not only threats but existential ones, and any deviation from total war against them may soon be interpreted as putting your life in jeopardy. How many times a day do I have to see combinations of the colors red, white and blue? None of this was true of 1860.

    To think that for a Virginian like Lee to fight for the union would be to betray his country, Virginia, is too big a cognitive leap.

    , @NewUnderground
    Why do you worship traitors and terrorists. THe white southern history=Nazi Germany. Pigs.
  4. @Sunbeam
    I guess I'm out of touch. I don't have the slightest idea who Max Boot is.

    A leading militarist writer, but with no actual military experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "A leading militarist writer, but with no actual military experience."

    Sounds like a name Dickens would have come up with then. Well if he were attuned to modern American slang.
  5. @Sunbeam
    I guess I'm out of touch. I don't have the slightest idea who Max Boot is.

    Max Boot was born in Russia (Moscow) of Jewish parents.

    He is now an American.
    His specialty is writing warmongering diatribes exhorting US to get involved in endless military conflicts all over the world.

    Not having been anywhere near a battle, he has no problem sending the sons of others to be killed for his harebrained macho fantasies.
    Like all other chickenhawks (e.g. Dick Cheeneey), these sick people need a constant flow of others’ blood to keep them alive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "Like all other chickenhawks (e.g. Dick Cheeneey), these sick people need a constant flow of others’ blood to keep them alive."

    Vampire Chickens.
  6. Excellent article. I think there may be an opportunity to tell your conservative friends that the “Conservative Establishment” is anti-white and hardly conservative.

    It is beyond silly that conservatives take figures like Charles Krauthammer and George Will seriously.

    Read More
  7. Professor Gottfried, you always oblige me to spend more time on the web than I had intended through your compelling prose.

    Best regards,
    AM

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann
    It is always good to read the erudition and probity of Herr Professor Gottfried. He is indeed a treasure in the new American Empire. A man who speaks the truth and is not afraid of the establishment. I used to read his column in the Lancaster Newspaper until the paper was taken over by the Leftist/Neo Con outsiders who injudiciously ousted Professor Gottfried in order to fit in more columnists from the NY Times and the Washington Post. Nemesis came around and now the same Lancaster paper is struggling to survive and we hope that it doesn't. I salute Professor Gottfried and wish him well.
  8. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Neocons don’t want white ‘racism’ to reflect on Zionist ‘racism’.

    Your bad is making my bad look bad.

    Read More
  9. Jews living in New York City are allowed to complain about blacks

    As their elected officials dutifully implement Jim Crow Stop and Frisk.

    Read More
  10. Are there any generous people out there that are willing to send me some buckets? I have filled all of mine with the crocodile tears that have been shed for the poor Palestinians and do not have any to collect the flood of tears flowing on behalf of Southern whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cleophus
    I don't have any for tears, but I've got some you can use to hold your snide and snotty bullsh*t.
  11. My only quibble is that Podhoretz wrote that in 1963. I doubt he would get away with that now.

    Otherwise, no points of disagreement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    I also doubt he would get away with it. He'd probably be too clever to write it, say it, or allow himself to think it most of the time. It'd still be there, of course.

    I was more struck by this bit "I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple".

    I can understand the rest of his sentiments from a Jewish boy who grew up poor in early 20c New York. I'll bet he earned the right to his thoughts as a kid.

    But that particular sentiment is a bit overdone, much like all those Arabs and Iranians assuming men will be driven insane with lust by the sight of women's hair. (Which always to me implied that these men cannot be trusted with self-government, or indeed with scissors.) If he had even offered eugenicist reasons or Jewish cultural integrity as reasons I would at least have considered these practical and intellectual, pro or con. But I can't believe he alluded to interracial sexual fantasies as an argument for segregation in an article for publication. And in the heyday of American Freudianism, at that.
    , @Jason Calley
    If he had written it in 1861 while living in Alabama, the social justice warriors would still be screaming about it.
  12. @Avery
    Max Boot was born in Russia (Moscow) of Jewish parents.

    He is now an American.
    His specialty is writing warmongering diatribes exhorting US to get involved in endless military conflicts all over the world.

    Not having been anywhere near a battle, he has no problem sending the sons of others to be killed for his harebrained macho fantasies.
    Like all other chickenhawks (e.g. Dick Cheeneey), these sick people need a constant flow of others' blood to keep them alive.

    “Like all other chickenhawks (e.g. Dick Cheeneey), these sick people need a constant flow of others’ blood to keep them alive.”

    Vampire Chickens.

    Read More
  13. @Robert E. Gee
    Projection is the word that comes to mind. And do any of these people know what the word traitor means? The aim of the Confederacy was not to overthrow or replace the Union government.

    And if these idiots want to protest a flag that symbolizes racism, military aggression, horrific violence and slaughter, treason to the U.S., segregation and actual hatred, they could protest the flag of Israel which flies all over the U.S.

    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried’s points, but technically why wouldn’t the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one’s rights, or even to be right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flower
    Randy, here is a question: when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans? Was it 7/4/1776? 1777? after Concord? after Yorktown? I'm curious, what's you opine on this? If you have a hard time putting your finger on it, try this one: when did the average American citizen cease being a traitor to the crown? 1814?

    So, next up, when did the citizens of Virginia (or the Carolina's, or Georgia or Alabama or...) cease being American's and become "Confederate Americans"? Was it Ft. Sumter? The First Bull Run? Did they ever change their citizenship? Be careful with your answer, remember, as big a group of traitors as the Northern States felt the Southerners were to the "Union", the Southerners felt that the North had become traitors to the Constitution, and with good reason.

    Take a quick look at the number of people in our govt who are highly placed and who carry a dual citizenship. Usually the the extra citizenship is Israeli. How do you feel about that? By strict definition, it is impossible to have a true "dual" citizenship, as a person must end up being disloyal to one or the other. Do you feel that anyone with a dual citizenship is a traitor to the US? Why?

    , @Chris Mallory
    At the time, citizens gave first allegiance to their state, not the Federal government. Anyway, it was the yankee trash of the North who invaded the South and started the war.

    And Max Boot isn't an "American" He is a Russian Jew who was mistakenly given US citizenship. No matter how long he lives here, he will never be an American.

    , @GW
    Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason but never put on trial. Lee lost his citizenship and it wasn't restored until well after his death.

    But there was a general sense of reconciliation, at least among political leaders at the time, in the post-war period.

    The problem with the civil war is that it continues to be fought by both neo-confederates who won't let it die and continue romanticize the Lost Cause, and with neo-abolitionists who aren't content with their victory and want permanent reconstruction to punish the South.
    , @random observer
    Veering OT:

    Or consider the German officers of 1938-44. I still tend to agree that they were right, and not only for the reasons most in the west now would agree. Also as German patriots and officers watching their country burning with no hope of victory.

    But they still betrayed their personal allegiance to Hitler, which all had sworn willingly and even as genuine supporters of his, even if I think there is a qualitative difference between an oath demanded by a party leader and chancellor and an oath to a true king. They considered it the same, and they swore it. They then betrayed it.

    And they also betrayed their allegiance to Germany, the state, strictly speaking, insofar as Hitler was the official leader of that state. Regardless of the many irregularities of procedure and method in the 1933-5 period, it's tough to argue that he was not the proper leader under the Weimar Constitution or that the Enabling Act and its amendments and emendations were not valid. (There is a technical case in there somewhere, especially around Hitler assuming the presidency, but he kept a presidential office staff separately and maintained the Reichstag, and even kept re-passing the enabling act. I'd call the lot invalid, but many would have disagreed).

    So those officers tried to kill the man to whom they had sworn personal allegiance and the leader of the state to whom they would have owed allegiance regardless. They made plausible claims of higher allegiance, both patriotic and religious/moral.

    Were they traitors? Were they right or wrong? Not necessarily the same question.

    Or consider my personal favourite case. Caesar's assassins.

    The European monarchical tradition considered him a bit of a forerunner, insofar as kings were cast in the mold of the Roman emperors who succeeded him, and even inferred that he, a pagan Roman, had been selected by providence to re-order Rome to pave the way for the Christian era, or some such. Even though he was no Christian, and not a monarch or the heir of Roman monarchs.

    He HAD been the patron of many of the those men, so they might be said to have owed him that much personal loyalty within the larger context of the Roman state.

    So for centuries, the assassins were viewed as having betrayed their loyalty to a friend and social and military patron, which is viable, and as having betrayed some higher loyalty as though to a divinely anointed king, which is not unless refracted through 1000 years of European history. So, for example, Dante put the top three assassins in the pit of hell reserved for traitors and oath breakers. Shakespeare offered a more balanced view, but one sees the same idea reflected in his play.

    That always bothered me, even though I'm a monarchist in a country with a monarch. Loyalty to a monarch is supposed to encompass loyalty to the form, institutions and laws of the state. Constitutional monarchy makes this easy, of course. Easier than once was the case. But Caesar was no monarch, but rather a potential usurper of the state, the traditional form of which was republican for over 400 years. Caesar was not even heir to one of the old kings, though his family was of ancient high lineage. SO why should reshaping the state and making his rule permanent be considered his just prerogative rather than itself a treason?

    And why should not the assassins, who did betray their social patron and did have selfish stakes in the republic, not be considered heroes just the same for turning on the usurper?

    The question may seem moot to an American, especially a Virginian, but I still tremble to tell off the great poet of Italy.

    But it brings me back to the sheer complexity of issues of loyalty, allegiance, betrayal and treason, even in cases where they appear simple to many.

    Or to bring it back to the topic. Robert E. Lee was a citizen of the United States and took up arms against it. On the other hand, he at least resigned his commission as an officer first. And he considered himself a citizen of Virginia first. Given the political understandings of the time, why should not his status as a Virginian have come first? And when will, for example, a Briton be called to the carpet for betraying "Europe" because he considered himself a Briton first?
    , @Robert E. Gee
    @Random Observer

    Secession was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, so I don't think the South was out of line, unless you believe that the reasons for secession were frivolous. Otherwise, the war was due to Lincoln's desire to maintain the Union. I also don't see how the South was aiding or comforting enemies of the North by secession, and there was no intent to destroy or bring down the Union if secession were allowed peacefully. I'm not a lawyer or a scholar, but I don't see how any definition of treason that I know fits Southern secession.

    Someone else mentioned the fact that Southerners never quit viewing themselves as Americans. If anything, the view was that the North strayed from the path of the Founding Fathers, and I think that looking at modern America and comparing the South to the rest of the nation, which is just an extension of the Northeast, the view that the North strayed has merit.
    , @guest
    Whence this idea that you are born owing allegiance merely because you're born a citizen of something? I realize it's easier to legitimize power that way, but there's no reason we need to play along. But I'm a follower of Lysander Spooner's "No Treason" on the issue, and may therefore not be of much help.

    In any case, the U.S., at least in its current incarnation, was born of a compact between states. You receive your citizenship at birth by virtue of your state citizenship, unless you happen to have been born on federal territory. This is true not in an abstruse but in a very real sense, because the states never lost their sovereignty in toto. Not even today have they, though that's only in theory. The Feds settled the question of ultimate sovereignty by force of arms, but the fact remains. They can't win your children's allegiance by conquest.
    , @guest
    "the constitution defined their actions as treason"

    Which constitution? The secret one outlawing secession which Lincoln kept hidden in his hat?
    , @Anonymous
    The Southern States were excising their constitutionally arguable right to secede from the Union therefore there was no treachery. The issue should have been settled in a court of law and not on the battlefield. That a civil war was fought shows that the US Constitution is indeed a purposefully flawed document that allows for endless war(s) and erosion of freedom, whether "legal" or not. Under the Articles of Confederation it is doubtful anyone would have had the will or the $$$ to go war and America would be a much different (better??) place with much less .gov in your face.
    , @Anonymous
    The South did not levy war against the US. It sent peace commissioners who were imprisoned. Ir offered the garrison at Fort Sumter to vacate and be fed while compensation for federal property was arrainged. The garrison refused and prepared to collect taxes on seceded South Carolina's goods. Lincoln then attempted to reinforce the garrison, which provoked the firing. The acts initiating war came from the North. Furthermore, treason is clearly defined in the Constitution. The South did not wage war on the other States our attempt to subvert the Federal government. Lincoln did both. Your concept of "alliegence" and "US" born citizens is a post Lincoln bayonet forced idea. We were citizens of our respective States with the complete freedom to move and change that.
  14. @SFG
    My only quibble is that Podhoretz wrote that in 1963. I doubt he would get away with that now.

    Otherwise, no points of disagreement.

    I also doubt he would get away with it. He’d probably be too clever to write it, say it, or allow himself to think it most of the time. It’d still be there, of course.

    I was more struck by this bit “I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple”.

    I can understand the rest of his sentiments from a Jewish boy who grew up poor in early 20c New York. I’ll bet he earned the right to his thoughts as a kid.

    But that particular sentiment is a bit overdone, much like all those Arabs and Iranians assuming men will be driven insane with lust by the sight of women’s hair. (Which always to me implied that these men cannot be trusted with self-government, or indeed with scissors.) If he had even offered eugenicist reasons or Jewish cultural integrity as reasons I would at least have considered these practical and intellectual, pro or con. But I can’t believe he alluded to interracial sexual fantasies as an argument for segregation in an article for publication. And in the heyday of American Freudianism, at that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I can understand the rest of his sentiments from a Jewish boy who grew up poor in early 20c New York. I’ll bet he earned the right to his thoughts as a kid.
     
    Mrs Podhoretz grew up in St Paul, just a few blocks from the Schulz family's barber shop. There were few blacks in town at the time, most over on Rondo Ave, which no longer exists. So had Midge written this, it would have been "My Irish Problem-- and Ours".
  15. @Sunbeam
    I guess I'm out of touch. I don't have the slightest idea who Max Boot is.

    I guess I’m out of touch. I don’t have the slightest idea who Max Boot is.

    I’ve heard of Boot, but Mr. Gottfried exaggerates his stature and influence in describing him as a “towering figure in American ‘conservatism.’”

    Read More
  16. Reminds me of how billionaire owner of Republican party and chicken-hawk on steroids Sheldon Adelson demands America open its borders to the Third World but then also uses the newspapers he owns in Israel to call immigrants into Israel “invaders”.

    And every single Republican candidate for potus licks his fetid hand. (except apparently Donald Trump)

    I guess the only thing Southern whites are good for is to die in wars for Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trumped
    One can always tell who has not kissed the ring of the billionaire elite behind the scenes based on coordinated attacks from the media. Trump seems to be the exception this year, just like Ron Paul and Buchanan were the only exceptions in past elections. Sadly, Rand seems to have done his best to make peace with the neocons, which only angered his dad's supporters and guaranteed he will flop.
    , @Realist
    Well said.
  17. Paul Gottfried wrote:

    Since the Charleston shootings, GOP officials have been scrambling to comply with Leftist demands that Southern Whites be stripped of visible signs of their Confederate heritage.

    I think this statement really embodies one of the primary fallacies of the Rightwing, that being that “leftists” are running the show. Ah, no.

    Look, these so-called Leftists are just stalking horses for the media. And who does the media really speak for? I get to that in a minute.

    How does this all play out? What is the typical mechanism through which this sort of thing proceeds? The media gives voice to these so-called Leftists on issues like the confederate flag, and other similar issues. Who are these leftists whose views the media is promoting? Typically these leftists are people who work for some nonprofit or something like that. These leftists speak out against the culture, beliefs and practices of the white working class majority.

    But why does the media give voice to them? Lots of people have opinions. Why does the media select these so-called leftists and promote their viewpoints to the world?

    Because those leftist viewpoints benefit the financial interests of the corporate media.

    How so? How does removing the confederate flag put money in the coffers of the corporate media?

    The media lives off of ad purchases by corporations. The more money corporations, especially big corporations, make, the more money the media makes.

    The confederate flag represents the traditional white working class culture. That same culture was behind racial segregation and jim crow. The corporations and the upper one percent have always wanted cheaper labor. The nonwhites provide that cheaper labor. And nonwhite immigrants provide growth of the economy.

    The culture of the traditional white working class has, and still is, the primary obstacle to the corporations’ obtaining of more cheap nonwhite labor and consumers.

    It’s war, a war between the big corporations and the white working class.

    The media is on the side of the big corporations.

    This war has been going on for decades.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled culture wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trumped
    It goes far beyond corporate profits. The battle flag of the south represents not tolerating or submitting to out of control and unconstitutional central planning from the federal govt. The symbol of revolt cannot be allowed - it must be demonized psychologically and the concept destroyed or else the people might start thinking they can defy the almighty elite.

    Most of the history of the war itself and issues like nullification have been buried by Marxist and neo con historians, so they can't have the truth come out - at least until the public is totally disarmed.
    , @guest
    It'd simplify things for you to realize Big Business is leftist. Read "The Naked Capitalist," or ask yourself what happened to the working class in the various workers' paradises.
  18. @Maj. Kong
    A leading militarist writer, but with no actual military experience.

    “A leading militarist writer, but with no actual military experience.”

    Sounds like a name Dickens would have come up with then. Well if he were attuned to modern American slang.

    Read More
  19. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It is time to see MLK as a trojan horse than a saint.

    It was all a ruse. King was a violent thug who beat up women and cackled about it.

    He fooled whitey that the Negro just wanted peace.

    Read More
  20. @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    Randy, here is a question: when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans? Was it 7/4/1776? 1777? after Concord? after Yorktown? I’m curious, what’s you opine on this? If you have a hard time putting your finger on it, try this one: when did the average American citizen cease being a traitor to the crown? 1814?

    So, next up, when did the citizens of Virginia (or the Carolina’s, or Georgia or Alabama or…) cease being American’s and become “Confederate Americans”? Was it Ft. Sumter? The First Bull Run? Did they ever change their citizenship? Be careful with your answer, remember, as big a group of traitors as the Northern States felt the Southerners were to the “Union”, the Southerners felt that the North had become traitors to the Constitution, and with good reason.

    Take a quick look at the number of people in our govt who are highly placed and who carry a dual citizenship. Usually the the extra citizenship is Israeli. How do you feel about that? By strict definition, it is impossible to have a true “dual” citizenship, as a person must end up being disloyal to one or the other. Do you feel that anyone with a dual citizenship is a traitor to the US? Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans
     
    What are you trying to do, rip a hole the size of the earth in the fabric of the universe. Consistent application of rules from one war to the next. Sheesh!
    , @random observer
    I'm not actually sure from all that whether we're on the same side, different sides, or each of us on all sides at once per this question. Especially see my later post, on which I was several times interrupted but have now posted, in which I rather clearly agree that there is validity in such things as the idea that state citizenship came first. Overall, I think my point is rather favourable to what I will loosely sum up as the "pro-Confederate" side of these comments. I merely started with the indisputable point that the Confederates, being US citizens, met the definition of treason already specified in the Constitution. I then proceeded to offer commentary as to why this might be true and they still be within their rights as sovereign states and as individual citizens of said states. What's to argue? It merely demonstrates that they had to choose between incompatible duties. I make no condemnation of those who chose either, nor am I obligated to do so.

    As to your points. It is a tad difficult to be too precise on the question of the American war of independence, but it's not quite as vague as you propose.

    All citizens of the colonies were legally British at the start.

    Some were British in rebellion before the Declaration of Independence, insofar as anyone already in arms was engaged in rebellion. Whether or not they had legitimate grievances, they took up arms. That was always a legal and moral event horizon, and the eventual US established its agreement with this ancient notion when it reacted to the Whiskey Rebellion.

    After the Declaration, any individual or institution adhering to the revolutionary committees, provincial or state congresses, or fighting against the Crown became a Briton in a state of rebellion. Anyone adhering to the loyalist cause or doing nothing either way but trying to live peaceably was a Briton not in a state of rebellion.

    Yorktown merely meant that the rebels won. It changed nothing in law.

    Those adhering to loyalism remained Britons in good standing without interruption. Those who left for Canada or elsewhere remained so. Those who stayed to try and keep their land and homes, and didn't get killed or run out by land-hungry neighbours, also remained Britons during the period of the peace talks. They just happened to be in areas under rebel control.

    Anyone lawfully in the United States after that presumably were US citizens whenever the US agreed they were. That's not for me to say.

    But those among them who had adhered to the rebel cause ceased to be traitors to the Crown at some point between September 3 1783, April 9 1784, and May 12 1784. Respectively, the signing of the Treaty of Paris, British ratification of same, and the exchange of completed ratifications in Paris. You'd have to ask a diplomatic historian or a treaty lawyer which was the effective date, but I assume the exchange of ratifications.

    So those Americans on the rebel, winning side ceased to be traitors to the Crown on May 12, 1784, with the Crown's recognition of the independence of the United States and forbearance of any further owed allegiance on the part of the people therein.

    So, no need to stretch it to 1814. The whole "Second War of Independence" notion is rubbish. The war to steal Canada is slightly more accurate. [My country, as I've noted on this site. One of the few points on which I am not wildly and excessively pro-American. I'd like a big wall size of the burned White House. I was born and raised a few miles from where the Upper Canada Parliament was burned by the US military in 1813. Admittedly, a less impressive structure.] The US had some grievances against Britain on the high seas, for stopping ships and kidnapping US citizen sailors. A valid casus belli, really. On the other hand, the UK had grievances because the US was harbouring actual British subjects deserting the Royal Navy. (The US has never looked kindly on its own fleeing deserters, either).

    All of which is much easier than the case of the South. The latter can at least theoretically forward the notion that the states were sovereign and had the right to secede, and their citizens to place state citizenship first. The rebels of 1776-84 could make no such claim, as they had always hitherto been British, their ancestors had either come from Britain or been naturalized British by moving to its colonies, and those colonies had had no prior existence to the British Crown. They were founded by Britons [Englishmen, initially] acting under the authority of the Crown and at no time had the territories been independent states outside the Crown's allegiance. There were arguments for their rights being abused by Parliament, but no case that they had ever had independent sovereignty.

    Your next is interesting from several points of view. The Union never accepted secession or that southerners had ceased to be US citizens, which from its point of view allowed it to both punish individuals as traitors [though only a fraction of officials and tinier fraction of those who had served in uniform] and to treat the rest as continuing citizens who retained the rights of citizens. To deny that citizenship and those rights would have been to retroactively recognize the independence of the Confederacy, by treating its people as having been citizens of another country now conquered. By the same token, to neglect to make the charge of treason, even if only some people were punished for it, would also have explicitly recognized that they had ceased to be US citizens, and thus that the Confederacy had been a true nation. So to avoid offering such recognition of the CSA after the fact, the US had to both recognize that the people were uninterrupted US citizens, and to recognize that they had been traitors and punish at least some on that basis.

    From a Unionist perspective, though, it might have been not so bad to offer such de facto after the fact recognition, once it was too late for the South or any foreign power to seize it as an opportunity. They could then have really treated it as conquest land, like the southwest, reorganized it as territories, probably still recognized the people as citizens [like other territorial people] but insist they petition for new statehood rather than maintain the old states. That would have demanded a far more abusive and longer occupation and probably meant a guerrilla war for generations. But it would have served some Republicans' goals.

    On the whole, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the states with prior sovereignty in 1789 could secede, and their citizens could place that citizenship first. But, among the seceding states, that only applied to Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia. The other southern states had been erected by settlers who were US citizens before those states existed, and on land that was US territory before those states were erected thereon, and erected by the process laid out in the US Constitution at that, and approved by the US Congress per that document.

    I'm all for the theory that all states joining the Union obtain all the rights of the original states, but secession is the breaking point of that doctrine. The founders of all but 4 Confederate states had been US citizens prior to founding their states, and had founded them per the US Constitution's procedures on soil that was US soil. They had prior allegiance to the United States as its citizens, they had never left US soil, and they had founded states on US soil under US law. Prior sovereignty is the one claim they could not make.

    Today, the only states that could claim that basis for secession would be the original 13 and Texas. Hawaii maybe, but it too was first annexed as a territory. The only claim it could make to prior sovereignty would be if it proposed to restore the Hawaiian monarchy.

    On dual citizenship, agreed there is inherent, unresolvable tension. I would never oppose any country that decided its citizenship is exclusive and demanded the choice. How I "feel" about it is that it is probably best not to permit it. For the record, I am a member of none of the categories in your preferred example.

    It's likely a bad idea for people holding high office or any office with a security clearance, for example.

    Though I'm not categorically opposed to it as such. I'm just content to let countries decide the matter for themselves, as well as to determine the obligations of those who hold their citizenship. I'd also be content with the idea that a country can permit dual nationality with some countries and not others. I don't know if any currently practice that. It would seem a sensible approach.

    It's not the case that one must inevitably betray one or the other. It depends on the relationship between the countries and the obligations of citizenship. The Swiss only require that you complete military service. If you've done that, you're done. That's what they ask. IF you ever had to fight against them, it would be treason and you should give up Swiss citizenship if America goes to war with them. Never going to happen, so you will not be required to either betray Switzerland or abandon its nationality.

    If you mean that one citizenship is usually active in a person's life and the other dormant, sure. So that means one may not be taking much active part in the civic life of the latter country, which I suppose is a very weak kind of allegiance. But it is certainly not a betrayal. Most free countries don't ask much of their citizens, living or expat, and so if one meets their requirements, there is no betrayal either. It's for each country to decide. In that sense, I agree it is difficult or impossible to truly be a citizen of two countries. Some manage it, most don't bother. But the requirement to betray anything will be rare indeed.

    And, obviously, anyone holding dual citizenship is not automatically a traitor to the US. They would have to first actually do something to betray the US. Strictly speaking, Constitutionally, to levy war against it or give aid and comfort to its enemies.
    , @random observer
    Also, what had the North done to the Constitution that was a bigger violation of states' rights than the Fugitive Slave Act?

    More specifically, what did the North do to the Constitution in 1860? Secession started before the Union called for troops to invade the South. The former spurred the latter. All the North had done was elect a president the South didn't like.
    , @Jeff77450
    >>>.....slow.....clap.....<<<
  21. @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    At the time, citizens gave first allegiance to their state, not the Federal government. Anyway, it was the yankee trash of the North who invaded the South and started the war.

    And Max Boot isn’t an “American” He is a Russian Jew who was mistakenly given US citizenship. No matter how long he lives here, he will never be an American.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Let's start a petition to send him home. We can call it.....Give Max The Boot.

    Whada ya think?
  22. I’m not a native Southerner but I can tell you that a lot of my Southern Born friends are pretty pissed right now. They feel that they and their ancestors are being blamed for what’s wrong in this country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Their anger needs to be first targeted against the militarists in the GOP, the Cultural Marxists can come second.
  23. @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason but never put on trial. Lee lost his citizenship and it wasn’t restored until well after his death.

    But there was a general sense of reconciliation, at least among political leaders at the time, in the post-war period.

    The problem with the civil war is that it continues to be fought by both neo-confederates who won’t let it die and continue romanticize the Lost Cause, and with neo-abolitionists who aren’t content with their victory and want permanent reconstruction to punish the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flower
    You are correct, the Civil War is still being fought today. The tragedy is, it has continued being fought for the same reason as in 1861.
  24. @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    Veering OT:

    Or consider the German officers of 1938-44. I still tend to agree that they were right, and not only for the reasons most in the west now would agree. Also as German patriots and officers watching their country burning with no hope of victory.

    But they still betrayed their personal allegiance to Hitler, which all had sworn willingly and even as genuine supporters of his, even if I think there is a qualitative difference between an oath demanded by a party leader and chancellor and an oath to a true king. They considered it the same, and they swore it. They then betrayed it.

    And they also betrayed their allegiance to Germany, the state, strictly speaking, insofar as Hitler was the official leader of that state. Regardless of the many irregularities of procedure and method in the 1933-5 period, it’s tough to argue that he was not the proper leader under the Weimar Constitution or that the Enabling Act and its amendments and emendations were not valid. (There is a technical case in there somewhere, especially around Hitler assuming the presidency, but he kept a presidential office staff separately and maintained the Reichstag, and even kept re-passing the enabling act. I’d call the lot invalid, but many would have disagreed).

    So those officers tried to kill the man to whom they had sworn personal allegiance and the leader of the state to whom they would have owed allegiance regardless. They made plausible claims of higher allegiance, both patriotic and religious/moral.

    Were they traitors? Were they right or wrong? Not necessarily the same question.

    Or consider my personal favourite case. Caesar’s assassins.

    The European monarchical tradition considered him a bit of a forerunner, insofar as kings were cast in the mold of the Roman emperors who succeeded him, and even inferred that he, a pagan Roman, had been selected by providence to re-order Rome to pave the way for the Christian era, or some such. Even though he was no Christian, and not a monarch or the heir of Roman monarchs.

    He HAD been the patron of many of the those men, so they might be said to have owed him that much personal loyalty within the larger context of the Roman state.

    So for centuries, the assassins were viewed as having betrayed their loyalty to a friend and social and military patron, which is viable, and as having betrayed some higher loyalty as though to a divinely anointed king, which is not unless refracted through 1000 years of European history. So, for example, Dante put the top three assassins in the pit of hell reserved for traitors and oath breakers. Shakespeare offered a more balanced view, but one sees the same idea reflected in his play.

    That always bothered me, even though I’m a monarchist in a country with a monarch. Loyalty to a monarch is supposed to encompass loyalty to the form, institutions and laws of the state. Constitutional monarchy makes this easy, of course. Easier than once was the case. But Caesar was no monarch, but rather a potential usurper of the state, the traditional form of which was republican for over 400 years. Caesar was not even heir to one of the old kings, though his family was of ancient high lineage. SO why should reshaping the state and making his rule permanent be considered his just prerogative rather than itself a treason?

    And why should not the assassins, who did betray their social patron and did have selfish stakes in the republic, not be considered heroes just the same for turning on the usurper?

    The question may seem moot to an American, especially a Virginian, but I still tremble to tell off the great poet of Italy.

    But it brings me back to the sheer complexity of issues of loyalty, allegiance, betrayal and treason, even in cases where they appear simple to many.

    Or to bring it back to the topic. Robert E. Lee was a citizen of the United States and took up arms against it. On the other hand, he at least resigned his commission as an officer first. And he considered himself a citizen of Virginia first. Given the political understandings of the time, why should not his status as a Virginian have come first? And when will, for example, a Briton be called to the carpet for betraying “Europe” because he considered himself a Briton first?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Given the political understandings of the time, why should not his status as a Virginian have come first?
     
    It was all the fault of another Virginian. James Madison.
  25. @Flower
    Randy, here is a question: when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans? Was it 7/4/1776? 1777? after Concord? after Yorktown? I'm curious, what's you opine on this? If you have a hard time putting your finger on it, try this one: when did the average American citizen cease being a traitor to the crown? 1814?

    So, next up, when did the citizens of Virginia (or the Carolina's, or Georgia or Alabama or...) cease being American's and become "Confederate Americans"? Was it Ft. Sumter? The First Bull Run? Did they ever change their citizenship? Be careful with your answer, remember, as big a group of traitors as the Northern States felt the Southerners were to the "Union", the Southerners felt that the North had become traitors to the Constitution, and with good reason.

    Take a quick look at the number of people in our govt who are highly placed and who carry a dual citizenship. Usually the the extra citizenship is Israeli. How do you feel about that? By strict definition, it is impossible to have a true "dual" citizenship, as a person must end up being disloyal to one or the other. Do you feel that anyone with a dual citizenship is a traitor to the US? Why?

    when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans

    What are you trying to do, rip a hole the size of the earth in the fabric of the universe. Consistent application of rules from one war to the next. Sheesh!

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Indeed. I do get to be consistent though, see below. The Americans in rebellion were traitors until British recognition said they were not.

    that doesn't mean they had no grievances. It doesn't even mean their victory was not a good thing for them and the world. But they were traitors. No doubt or wiggle room.
  26. @GW
    Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason but never put on trial. Lee lost his citizenship and it wasn't restored until well after his death.

    But there was a general sense of reconciliation, at least among political leaders at the time, in the post-war period.

    The problem with the civil war is that it continues to be fought by both neo-confederates who won't let it die and continue romanticize the Lost Cause, and with neo-abolitionists who aren't content with their victory and want permanent reconstruction to punish the South.

    You are correct, the Civil War is still being fought today. The tragedy is, it has continued being fought for the same reason as in 1861.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    You are correct, the Civil War is still being fought today. The tragedy is, it has continued being fought for the same reason as in 1861.

     

    The difference being, today the Unionist side consists of those whose ancestors in 1861-5 were anywhere but between the Great Lakes and the Ohio and Potomac Rivers. In other words, they missed all the fun.

    The few Yankees interested in the War today are to be found at reenactments and on genealogical boards online, at both of which defaming the other side is considered atrocious form. (One "Yankee" lady was even taken to task for using the word "Tory" for the other side in the Revolution!) The ammunition at reenactments isn't real.

    Next time you hear someone ragging on the Lost Cause, ask him on whose side his ancestor fought in those days. It was probably some emperor's.

  27. THE NEO-CONS ARE JEWISH LEFT-WINGERS THAT INFILTRATED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
    THE USA IS A ONE-PARTY HOXOCRACY.

    Thanks for the great article, Sir. I agree with you on almost every point.

    The Neo-cons are actually liberals who infiltrated the Republican party for 2 reasons—because the Left was not pro-Israel enough for them and two, to control the opposition. Under the neo-cons, the Republican party has become a Jewish controlled opposition to the Jewish controlled Democratic party.

    Either way you vote, the Judaists win!

    The Jewish agenda is simple—to destroy white nations with:

    a. Liberalism (feminism, multi-culturalism, malcegenation, porn, homopathy).
    b. Flood them with 3rd world aliens, while keeping Israel pure.
    c. Demand unflinching support for Israel.

    Joe Biden admitted this here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349155/joe-biden-attributes-social-liberalism-jewish-control-hollywood-and-social-media

    Judaists like Saban and Soros own and operate the Democratic party; Adelson owns and operated the Republican party.

    The US and EU are like a criminal town where you run to the police for help, as a victim of crime, only to find that the police are owned and operated by the same criminal gang and are criminals too. These countries have hoax democracies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    The Jewish agenda is simple—to destroy white nations with:

    a. Liberalism (feminism, multi-culturalism, malcegenation, porn, homopathy).
    b. Flood them with 3rd world aliens, while keeping Israel pure.
    c. Demand unflinching support for Israel.
     

    in a word, Weimar.
  28. @leftist conservative
    Paul Gottfried wrote:

    Since the Charleston shootings, GOP officials have been scrambling to comply with Leftist demands that Southern Whites be stripped of visible signs of their Confederate heritage.

     

    I think this statement really embodies one of the primary fallacies of the Rightwing, that being that "leftists" are running the show. Ah, no.

    Look, these so-called Leftists are just stalking horses for the media. And who does the media really speak for? I get to that in a minute.

    How does this all play out? What is the typical mechanism through which this sort of thing proceeds? The media gives voice to these so-called Leftists on issues like the confederate flag, and other similar issues. Who are these leftists whose views the media is promoting? Typically these leftists are people who work for some nonprofit or something like that. These leftists speak out against the culture, beliefs and practices of the white working class majority.

    But why does the media give voice to them? Lots of people have opinions. Why does the media select these so-called leftists and promote their viewpoints to the world?

    Because those leftist viewpoints benefit the financial interests of the corporate media.

    How so? How does removing the confederate flag put money in the coffers of the corporate media?

    The media lives off of ad purchases by corporations. The more money corporations, especially big corporations, make, the more money the media makes.

    The confederate flag represents the traditional white working class culture. That same culture was behind racial segregation and jim crow. The corporations and the upper one percent have always wanted cheaper labor. The nonwhites provide that cheaper labor. And nonwhite immigrants provide growth of the economy.

    The culture of the traditional white working class has, and still is, the primary obstacle to the corporations' obtaining of more cheap nonwhite labor and consumers.

    It's war, a war between the big corporations and the white working class.

    The media is on the side of the big corporations.

    This war has been going on for decades.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled culture wars.

    It goes far beyond corporate profits. The battle flag of the south represents not tolerating or submitting to out of control and unconstitutional central planning from the federal govt. The symbol of revolt cannot be allowed – it must be demonized psychologically and the concept destroyed or else the people might start thinking they can defy the almighty elite.

    Most of the history of the war itself and issues like nullification have been buried by Marxist and neo con historians, so they can’t have the truth come out – at least until the public is totally disarmed.

    Read More
  29. @random observer
    I also doubt he would get away with it. He'd probably be too clever to write it, say it, or allow himself to think it most of the time. It'd still be there, of course.

    I was more struck by this bit "I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple".

    I can understand the rest of his sentiments from a Jewish boy who grew up poor in early 20c New York. I'll bet he earned the right to his thoughts as a kid.

    But that particular sentiment is a bit overdone, much like all those Arabs and Iranians assuming men will be driven insane with lust by the sight of women's hair. (Which always to me implied that these men cannot be trusted with self-government, or indeed with scissors.) If he had even offered eugenicist reasons or Jewish cultural integrity as reasons I would at least have considered these practical and intellectual, pro or con. But I can't believe he alluded to interracial sexual fantasies as an argument for segregation in an article for publication. And in the heyday of American Freudianism, at that.

    I can understand the rest of his sentiments from a Jewish boy who grew up poor in early 20c New York. I’ll bet he earned the right to his thoughts as a kid.

    Mrs Podhoretz grew up in St Paul, just a few blocks from the Schulz family’s barber shop. There were few blacks in town at the time, most over on Rondo Ave, which no longer exists. So had Midge written this, it would have been “My Irish Problem– and Ours”.

    Read More
  30. @Flower
    Randy, here is a question: when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans? Was it 7/4/1776? 1777? after Concord? after Yorktown? I'm curious, what's you opine on this? If you have a hard time putting your finger on it, try this one: when did the average American citizen cease being a traitor to the crown? 1814?

    So, next up, when did the citizens of Virginia (or the Carolina's, or Georgia or Alabama or...) cease being American's and become "Confederate Americans"? Was it Ft. Sumter? The First Bull Run? Did they ever change their citizenship? Be careful with your answer, remember, as big a group of traitors as the Northern States felt the Southerners were to the "Union", the Southerners felt that the North had become traitors to the Constitution, and with good reason.

    Take a quick look at the number of people in our govt who are highly placed and who carry a dual citizenship. Usually the the extra citizenship is Israeli. How do you feel about that? By strict definition, it is impossible to have a true "dual" citizenship, as a person must end up being disloyal to one or the other. Do you feel that anyone with a dual citizenship is a traitor to the US? Why?

    I’m not actually sure from all that whether we’re on the same side, different sides, or each of us on all sides at once per this question. Especially see my later post, on which I was several times interrupted but have now posted, in which I rather clearly agree that there is validity in such things as the idea that state citizenship came first. Overall, I think my point is rather favourable to what I will loosely sum up as the “pro-Confederate” side of these comments. I merely started with the indisputable point that the Confederates, being US citizens, met the definition of treason already specified in the Constitution. I then proceeded to offer commentary as to why this might be true and they still be within their rights as sovereign states and as individual citizens of said states. What’s to argue? It merely demonstrates that they had to choose between incompatible duties. I make no condemnation of those who chose either, nor am I obligated to do so.

    As to your points. It is a tad difficult to be too precise on the question of the American war of independence, but it’s not quite as vague as you propose.

    All citizens of the colonies were legally British at the start.

    Some were British in rebellion before the Declaration of Independence, insofar as anyone already in arms was engaged in rebellion. Whether or not they had legitimate grievances, they took up arms. That was always a legal and moral event horizon, and the eventual US established its agreement with this ancient notion when it reacted to the Whiskey Rebellion.

    After the Declaration, any individual or institution adhering to the revolutionary committees, provincial or state congresses, or fighting against the Crown became a Briton in a state of rebellion. Anyone adhering to the loyalist cause or doing nothing either way but trying to live peaceably was a Briton not in a state of rebellion.

    Yorktown merely meant that the rebels won. It changed nothing in law.

    Those adhering to loyalism remained Britons in good standing without interruption. Those who left for Canada or elsewhere remained so. Those who stayed to try and keep their land and homes, and didn’t get killed or run out by land-hungry neighbours, also remained Britons during the period of the peace talks. They just happened to be in areas under rebel control.

    Anyone lawfully in the United States after that presumably were US citizens whenever the US agreed they were. That’s not for me to say.

    But those among them who had adhered to the rebel cause ceased to be traitors to the Crown at some point between September 3 1783, April 9 1784, and May 12 1784. Respectively, the signing of the Treaty of Paris, British ratification of same, and the exchange of completed ratifications in Paris. You’d have to ask a diplomatic historian or a treaty lawyer which was the effective date, but I assume the exchange of ratifications.

    So those Americans on the rebel, winning side ceased to be traitors to the Crown on May 12, 1784, with the Crown’s recognition of the independence of the United States and forbearance of any further owed allegiance on the part of the people therein.

    So, no need to stretch it to 1814. The whole “Second War of Independence” notion is rubbish. The war to steal Canada is slightly more accurate. [My country, as I've noted on this site. One of the few points on which I am not wildly and excessively pro-American. I'd like a big wall size of the burned White House. I was born and raised a few miles from where the Upper Canada Parliament was burned by the US military in 1813. Admittedly, a less impressive structure.] The US had some grievances against Britain on the high seas, for stopping ships and kidnapping US citizen sailors. A valid casus belli, really. On the other hand, the UK had grievances because the US was harbouring actual British subjects deserting the Royal Navy. (The US has never looked kindly on its own fleeing deserters, either).

    All of which is much easier than the case of the South. The latter can at least theoretically forward the notion that the states were sovereign and had the right to secede, and their citizens to place state citizenship first. The rebels of 1776-84 could make no such claim, as they had always hitherto been British, their ancestors had either come from Britain or been naturalized British by moving to its colonies, and those colonies had had no prior existence to the British Crown. They were founded by Britons [Englishmen, initially] acting under the authority of the Crown and at no time had the territories been independent states outside the Crown’s allegiance. There were arguments for their rights being abused by Parliament, but no case that they had ever had independent sovereignty.

    Your next is interesting from several points of view. The Union never accepted secession or that southerners had ceased to be US citizens, which from its point of view allowed it to both punish individuals as traitors [though only a fraction of officials and tinier fraction of those who had served in uniform] and to treat the rest as continuing citizens who retained the rights of citizens. To deny that citizenship and those rights would have been to retroactively recognize the independence of the Confederacy, by treating its people as having been citizens of another country now conquered. By the same token, to neglect to make the charge of treason, even if only some people were punished for it, would also have explicitly recognized that they had ceased to be US citizens, and thus that the Confederacy had been a true nation. So to avoid offering such recognition of the CSA after the fact, the US had to both recognize that the people were uninterrupted US citizens, and to recognize that they had been traitors and punish at least some on that basis.

    From a Unionist perspective, though, it might have been not so bad to offer such de facto after the fact recognition, once it was too late for the South or any foreign power to seize it as an opportunity. They could then have really treated it as conquest land, like the southwest, reorganized it as territories, probably still recognized the people as citizens [like other territorial people] but insist they petition for new statehood rather than maintain the old states. That would have demanded a far more abusive and longer occupation and probably meant a guerrilla war for generations. But it would have served some Republicans’ goals.

    On the whole, I’m sympathetic to the idea that the states with prior sovereignty in 1789 could secede, and their citizens could place that citizenship first. But, among the seceding states, that only applied to Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia. The other southern states had been erected by settlers who were US citizens before those states existed, and on land that was US territory before those states were erected thereon, and erected by the process laid out in the US Constitution at that, and approved by the US Congress per that document.

    I’m all for the theory that all states joining the Union obtain all the rights of the original states, but secession is the breaking point of that doctrine. The founders of all but 4 Confederate states had been US citizens prior to founding their states, and had founded them per the US Constitution’s procedures on soil that was US soil. They had prior allegiance to the United States as its citizens, they had never left US soil, and they had founded states on US soil under US law. Prior sovereignty is the one claim they could not make.

    Today, the only states that could claim that basis for secession would be the original 13 and Texas. Hawaii maybe, but it too was first annexed as a territory. The only claim it could make to prior sovereignty would be if it proposed to restore the Hawaiian monarchy.

    On dual citizenship, agreed there is inherent, unresolvable tension. I would never oppose any country that decided its citizenship is exclusive and demanded the choice. How I “feel” about it is that it is probably best not to permit it. For the record, I am a member of none of the categories in your preferred example.

    It’s likely a bad idea for people holding high office or any office with a security clearance, for example.

    Though I’m not categorically opposed to it as such. I’m just content to let countries decide the matter for themselves, as well as to determine the obligations of those who hold their citizenship. I’d also be content with the idea that a country can permit dual nationality with some countries and not others. I don’t know if any currently practice that. It would seem a sensible approach.

    It’s not the case that one must inevitably betray one or the other. It depends on the relationship between the countries and the obligations of citizenship. The Swiss only require that you complete military service. If you’ve done that, you’re done. That’s what they ask. IF you ever had to fight against them, it would be treason and you should give up Swiss citizenship if America goes to war with them. Never going to happen, so you will not be required to either betray Switzerland or abandon its nationality.

    If you mean that one citizenship is usually active in a person’s life and the other dormant, sure. So that means one may not be taking much active part in the civic life of the latter country, which I suppose is a very weak kind of allegiance. But it is certainly not a betrayal. Most free countries don’t ask much of their citizens, living or expat, and so if one meets their requirements, there is no betrayal either. It’s for each country to decide. In that sense, I agree it is difficult or impossible to truly be a citizen of two countries. Some manage it, most don’t bother. But the requirement to betray anything will be rare indeed.

    And, obviously, anyone holding dual citizenship is not automatically a traitor to the US. They would have to first actually do something to betray the US. Strictly speaking, Constitutionally, to levy war against it or give aid and comfort to its enemies.

    Read More
  31. @iffen

    when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans
     
    What are you trying to do, rip a hole the size of the earth in the fabric of the universe. Consistent application of rules from one war to the next. Sheesh!

    Indeed. I do get to be consistent though, see below. The Americans in rebellion were traitors until British recognition said they were not.

    that doesn’t mean they had no grievances. It doesn’t even mean their victory was not a good thing for them and the world. But they were traitors. No doubt or wiggle room.

    Read More
  32. @CharlesV
    I'm not a native Southerner but I can tell you that a lot of my Southern Born friends are pretty pissed right now. They feel that they and their ancestors are being blamed for what's wrong in this country.

    Their anger needs to be first targeted against the militarists in the GOP, the Cultural Marxists can come second.

    Read More
  33. @Flower
    Randy, here is a question: when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans? Was it 7/4/1776? 1777? after Concord? after Yorktown? I'm curious, what's you opine on this? If you have a hard time putting your finger on it, try this one: when did the average American citizen cease being a traitor to the crown? 1814?

    So, next up, when did the citizens of Virginia (or the Carolina's, or Georgia or Alabama or...) cease being American's and become "Confederate Americans"? Was it Ft. Sumter? The First Bull Run? Did they ever change their citizenship? Be careful with your answer, remember, as big a group of traitors as the Northern States felt the Southerners were to the "Union", the Southerners felt that the North had become traitors to the Constitution, and with good reason.

    Take a quick look at the number of people in our govt who are highly placed and who carry a dual citizenship. Usually the the extra citizenship is Israeli. How do you feel about that? By strict definition, it is impossible to have a true "dual" citizenship, as a person must end up being disloyal to one or the other. Do you feel that anyone with a dual citizenship is a traitor to the US? Why?

    Also, what had the North done to the Constitution that was a bigger violation of states’ rights than the Fugitive Slave Act?

    More specifically, what did the North do to the Constitution in 1860? Secession started before the Union called for troops to invade the South. The former spurred the latter. All the North had done was elect a president the South didn’t like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flower
    I'm sure I've seen a more obvious case of over simplification, but excuse me for a moment while I try to figure which one it might have been.

    Yep, all of a sudden, one day, all the good ol' boys of Dixie woke up, stretched, and declared, "Y'know, today I think I'm gonna kick some Yankee butt."
    , @guest
    Who said the North had to do anything in particular? As if they'd have simply let the South go if the South had good reasons.

    By the way, electing not just a president the South didn't like but electing a president without the electoral votes of a single southern state is a big, big deal. If you can't see that, try imagining yourself an abolitionist and seeing a pro-slavery Democrat elected without a single northern vote.
    , @Trumped
    You mean like threatening military invasion on any state not collecting the full tariff rate?
    , @Anonymous
    "All the North had done was elect a president the South didn’t like."

    It was a President who supported the Morill Tariff Act; the one that placed a 47% tariff on Southern Goods exported out of the US in order to force sale to Northern Manufacturies at their prices.

    A tax that remained in place until Woodrow Wilson became President; the South wasn't "pi**y" about slavery, they were upset over fifty years of legal robbery by the North. You know, the same manufacturies that sent all of those jobs out of the country; so they could steal from EVERYONE, not just the South.

  34. The South was his country.

    Podheretz is very unusual in his community in being brought up around blacks, an inestimable advantage in learning the facts of life, is to get it young. The baseball bat incident (and his liberal sister apparently screaming the n-word at his assailants as they made off) occurred at a stage in his life when he could process it. It’s like love when you are young, nothing can do that for you as a mature adult. Andy Ostroy is a good example, his wife was murdered by an illegal immigrant, but his ultra liberal blogging continued nonetherless.

    Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is set. Liberalism is just as much a tradition as the Yamnaya wolf cult of rape and murder raids. The Yamnaya had superior technology and social organisation, and a myth (Trito) that justified what they were doing.

    After the world was made, the sky-gods gave cattle to “Third man” (*Trito). But the cattle were treacherously stolen by a three-headed, six-eyed serpent (*Ng hi, the Proto-Indo-European w root for negation). Third man entreated the storm god to help get the cattle back. Together they went to the mountain of the monster, killed it and freed the cattle. *Trito became the first warrior.

    I think we can guess who gets forced into the role of the spirit of negation in the modern world myth, and who is the casting director. With the ability to deliver overwhelming persuasion on any point, the technology of this tradition has already erased the moral vocabulary of the West, just as the Yamnaya erased the traditional tongues of indigenous Europeans and forced them to adopt a new language millennia ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is set
     
    Not an accurate statement.
    , @Sunbeam
    Dude,...

    Okay I had heard the word "Yamnaya" somewhere before (looking at Cochran's site?).

    I can accept you might be really interested in this subject, and have done extensive reading. Or maybe you are some kind of scholar whose specialty is "prehistory" (or at least writing).

    But do you honestly expect the bulk of us to get that reference? And to be blunt, weren't these guys pre-writing? How do you have any kind of myth recorded from that time?

    I've seen linguists claim latin or aramaic was spoken a certain way at a certain time. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, because I have absolutely no frame of reference to evaluate the claim.

    But you have a myth from the Yamnaya? Really? Including a hero name?

    Just saying if you want to use a reference like this, you might want to give some more background.

    If you quoted something about "Zeus fought Typhon, the King of Monsters" I'd get it. Maybe a little obscure, and I would not be shocked at all that an educated person was not totally clued in to something an English schoolboy in the 1880's would have known about matter-of-factly.

    But I got nothin' on the Yamnaya. Wolf cult of rape and murder? Gotta use that one if I ever play d&d again.

    , @Tom_R
    YAMNAYA WERE A GREAT ANCIENT CIVILIZATION;
    SAM HARRIS FOUND THE MOST BARBARIC TEXT IN THE WORLD....AND IT IS.....

    Your accusation against the Yamnaya, a great civilization, is completely false. There is no evidence for raping wolves like you claim. The oldest ancient surviving text of the ancient Proto-Indo-Europeans is the Rig Veda, which is a wonderful book of hymns. The Trito myth is not in it and is either not real, or a later one in some later IE group, not the Yamnaya per se.

    On the contrary, there is a whole lot more violence in the bible and the Jewish Torah (OT).

    For example:

    Abraham was a pimp.

    Moses was a mass murderer. Luckily, he did not exist, and is just a myth.

    See: http://www.thegodmurders.com/Moses.html

    http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

    http://www.usbible.com/War/moses_hitler.htm

    No wonder Sam Harris said this:

    “There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament [i.e. Torah]. The Koran pales in comparison”--Sam Harris.
  35. @Rurik
    Reminds me of how billionaire owner of Republican party and chicken-hawk on steroids Sheldon Adelson demands America open its borders to the Third World but then also uses the newspapers he owns in Israel to call immigrants into Israel "invaders".

    And every single Republican candidate for potus licks his fetid hand. (except apparently Donald Trump)

    I guess the only thing Southern whites are good for is to die in wars for Israel.

    One can always tell who has not kissed the ring of the billionaire elite behind the scenes based on coordinated attacks from the media. Trump seems to be the exception this year, just like Ron Paul and Buchanan were the only exceptions in past elections. Sadly, Rand seems to have done his best to make peace with the neocons, which only angered his dad’s supporters and guaranteed he will flop.

    Read More
  36. a. Liberalism (feminism, multi-culturalism, malcegenation, porn, homopathy).
    b. Flood them with 3rd world aliens, while keeping Israel pure.
    c. Demand unflinching support for Israel.

    http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

    Read More
  37. My thanks go to to Righteous Jew Paul Gottfried for another interesting and informative article.

    I’d rather have Paul Gottfriend in my camp than most American whites.

    I know it from the insane rage that can stir in me at the thought of Negro anti-Semitism; I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple; and I know it from the violence that can stir in me whenever I encounter that special brand of paranoid touchiness to which many Negroes are prone.

    Thanks Norm. I knew putting out images of Jewish women with black men was on the list, but I hadn’t thought of promoting and highlighting black antisemitism, or black racial aggression, to Jews.

    And if these idiots want to protest a flag that symbolizes racism, military aggression, horrific violence and slaughter, treason to the U.S., segregation and actual hatred, they could protest the flag of Israel which flies all over the U.S.

    Indeed. But that would be consistent with their stated beliefs, so it’s out.

    Are there any generous people out there that are willing to send me some buckets? I have filled all of mine with the crocodile tears that have been shed for the poor Palestinians and do not have any to collect the flood of tears flowing on behalf of Southern whites.

    Sorry, the Jews are currently busy planning the next Operation Kill Arab Children, they’ll have to get back to you.

    My only quibble is that Podhoretz wrote that in 1963. I doubt he would get away with that now.

    Agreed. We should stick to modern concerns, like Emmit Till. ;)

    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried’s points, but technically why wouldn’t the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    Because a State (n: 3 a politically organized body of people under a single government [syn: nation, country, land, commonwealth, res publica, body politic) that secedes from a union is no more a traitor than a (battered) wife who divorces her husband; the very idea is nonsensical. And you seem to have your history backwards; the North invaded and waged a bloody war of conquest against the South, not the other way around. The Union fits the mold of the traitor, though.

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    Please cite the relevant portions of the Constitution.

    At the time, citizens gave first allegiance to their state, not the Federal government.

    Because that’s what America was, and Americans were, before the Second American Revolution destroyed the Republic and gave birth to the Empire.

    The problem with the civil war is that it continues to be fought by both neo-confederates who won’t let it die and continue romanticize the Lost Cause, and with neo-abolitionists who aren’t content with their victory and want permanent reconstruction to punish the South.

    The problem is that by any non-leftist metric, Dixie would be far better off today had she won the war. Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there’s a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @GW

    The problem is that by any non-leftist metric, Dixie would be far better off today had she won the war. Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there’s a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.
     
    I normally agree with you Svig, but here is a non-leftist, pro-Dixie, race-realist Christian disagreeing:


    No, God has blessed the South even through the loss of the war. Had the Confederacy continued, we may have faced a fate not unlike South Africa’s. Because hierarchical racial systems work so well economically – really too well – they inevitably demographically overwhelm the host civilization, giving it both the vigor and the sterility of a hybrid. God, it appears, is the great composer of historical events. He purged the South of its demographic problem while providing a just recompense to the abolitionist rebels of the North. He left the South with a mythic, tragic narrative, of heroes like Lee and Jackson known the world over for their steadfast character and courage.
     
    http://faithandheritage.com/2015/06/lee-wilson-and-the-kinist-future/
    , @Reg Cæsar

    . Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there’s a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.
     
    Your remaining 10% includes the 16th and 18th Amendments. Those alone call to mind the 80/20 rule.

    Do you also expect us to believe that Southern congressmen voted against the whole New Deal after their constituents gave its author 90% of their votes? Documentation, please…

    Then there's the rash of pro-gun legislation of the last two decades. How is that leftist, you ask? Well, those rights apply to more than just the white man. That's pretty revolutionary, isn't it?
  38. The persistent neoconservative prejudice against the South sprang from the ethnically parochial culture in which the older generation of neoconservatives grew up.

    Parochialism, provincialism, an antidote are the haunting beautiful songs of the Civil War. Julia Ward Howe gets across the mission and the zeal of the North. Listening to a dozen rebel songs renders laughable the reduction of the Confederacy to slavery and racism.

    I will share my favorite one of all, The Dreadful Engagement. From the newly arrived Irish immigrant and Confederate perspective. Both insider/outsider, more detached and introspective. Added benefit of demonstrating Irish diaspora dominance in popular music; it’s superiorly crafted and soulful.
    Deserves to be more widely known.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dahlia
    Meanwhile, this guy is a little angry (written in 1866? by Major James Randolph, printed in 1914)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omqqGViq3Ng

    (To clarify in the above, Dreadful Engagement is retro, a reworked Irish ballad based on a real battle and events)
  39. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    vell, vell

    I wonder… suppose Lincoln had lived and worked with the south to gradually rid America of blacks by giving blacks their own nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I wonder… suppose Lincoln had lived and worked with the south to gradually rid America of blacks by giving blacks their own nation.

     

    The Colonization Society faced its strongest opposition in the lowland South. To send blacks abroad, you would have to point guns at whites as well as blacks. Southerners just love having their Negroes nearby. Just ask Svigor.
  40. @Sean
    The South was his country.


    Podheretz is very unusual in his community in being brought up around blacks, an inestimable advantage in learning the facts of life, is to get it young. The baseball bat incident (and his liberal sister apparently screaming the n-word at his assailants as they made off) occurred at a stage in his life when he could process it. It's like love when you are young, nothing can do that for you as a mature adult. Andy Ostroy is a good example, his wife was murdered by an illegal immigrant, but his ultra liberal blogging continued nonetherless.

    Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is set. Liberalism is just as much a tradition as the Yamnaya wolf cult of rape and murder raids. The Yamnaya had superior technology and social organisation, and a myth (Trito) that justified what they were doing.


    After the world was made, the sky-gods gave cattle to "Third man" (*Trito). But the cattle were treacherously stolen by a three-headed, six-eyed serpent (*Ng hi, the Proto-Indo-European w root for negation). Third man entreated the storm god to help get the cattle back. Together they went to the mountain of the monster, killed it and freed the cattle. *Trito became the first warrior.
     
    I think we can guess who gets forced into the role of the spirit of negation in the modern world myth, and who is the casting director. With the ability to deliver overwhelming persuasion on any point, the technology of this tradition has already erased the moral vocabulary of the West, just as the Yamnaya erased the traditional tongues of indigenous Europeans and forced them to adopt a new language millennia ago.

    Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is set

    Not an accurate statement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff77450
    Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, "Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is *largely* set."

    Or, "Being brought up in a well defined, well articulated tradition goes a long way towards influencing the development of an individual's worldview."
  41. @Sean
    The South was his country.


    Podheretz is very unusual in his community in being brought up around blacks, an inestimable advantage in learning the facts of life, is to get it young. The baseball bat incident (and his liberal sister apparently screaming the n-word at his assailants as they made off) occurred at a stage in his life when he could process it. It's like love when you are young, nothing can do that for you as a mature adult. Andy Ostroy is a good example, his wife was murdered by an illegal immigrant, but his ultra liberal blogging continued nonetherless.

    Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is set. Liberalism is just as much a tradition as the Yamnaya wolf cult of rape and murder raids. The Yamnaya had superior technology and social organisation, and a myth (Trito) that justified what they were doing.


    After the world was made, the sky-gods gave cattle to "Third man" (*Trito). But the cattle were treacherously stolen by a three-headed, six-eyed serpent (*Ng hi, the Proto-Indo-European w root for negation). Third man entreated the storm god to help get the cattle back. Together they went to the mountain of the monster, killed it and freed the cattle. *Trito became the first warrior.
     
    I think we can guess who gets forced into the role of the spirit of negation in the modern world myth, and who is the casting director. With the ability to deliver overwhelming persuasion on any point, the technology of this tradition has already erased the moral vocabulary of the West, just as the Yamnaya erased the traditional tongues of indigenous Europeans and forced them to adopt a new language millennia ago.

    Dude,…

    Okay I had heard the word “Yamnaya” somewhere before (looking at Cochran’s site?).

    I can accept you might be really interested in this subject, and have done extensive reading. Or maybe you are some kind of scholar whose specialty is “prehistory” (or at least writing).

    But do you honestly expect the bulk of us to get that reference? And to be blunt, weren’t these guys pre-writing? How do you have any kind of myth recorded from that time?

    I’ve seen linguists claim latin or aramaic was spoken a certain way at a certain time. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, because I have absolutely no frame of reference to evaluate the claim.

    But you have a myth from the Yamnaya? Really? Including a hero name?

    Just saying if you want to use a reference like this, you might want to give some more background.

    If you quoted something about “Zeus fought Typhon, the King of Monsters” I’d get it. Maybe a little obscure, and I would not be shocked at all that an educated person was not totally clued in to something an English schoolboy in the 1880′s would have known about matter-of-factly.

    But I got nothin’ on the Yamnaya. Wolf cult of rape and murder? Gotta use that one if I ever play d&d again.

    Read More
  42. @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    @Random Observer

    Secession was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, so I don’t think the South was out of line, unless you believe that the reasons for secession were frivolous. Otherwise, the war was due to Lincoln’s desire to maintain the Union. I also don’t see how the South was aiding or comforting enemies of the North by secession, and there was no intent to destroy or bring down the Union if secession were allowed peacefully. I’m not a lawyer or a scholar, but I don’t see how any definition of treason that I know fits Southern secession.

    Someone else mentioned the fact that Southerners never quit viewing themselves as Americans. If anything, the view was that the North strayed from the path of the Founding Fathers, and I think that looking at modern America and comparing the South to the rest of the nation, which is just an extension of the Northeast, the view that the North strayed has merit.

    Read More
  43. Dixie would be far better off today had she won the war

    Dixie would struggle to equal a country like Brazil.

    gradually rid America of blacks by giving blacks their own nation.

    Their ancestors paid the price; they have earned a share of this country.

    Read More
  44. @Robert E. Gee
    Projection is the word that comes to mind. And do any of these people know what the word traitor means? The aim of the Confederacy was not to overthrow or replace the Union government.

    And if these idiots want to protest a flag that symbolizes racism, military aggression, horrific violence and slaughter, treason to the U.S., segregation and actual hatred, they could protest the flag of Israel which flies all over the U.S.

    “do any of these people know what the word traitor means?”

    I sympathize with them there, as it’s hard to put yourself in a 19th century mindset regarding national loyalty. We live in a world where the federal government controls everything from how we think (education) to how our toilets flush. We live in a world where flea-buzzing nuisances like ISIS are considered not only threats but existential ones, and any deviation from total war against them may soon be interpreted as putting your life in jeopardy. How many times a day do I have to see combinations of the colors red, white and blue? None of this was true of 1860.

    To think that for a Virginian like Lee to fight for the union would be to betray his country, Virginia, is too big a cognitive leap.

    Read More
  45. @Flower
    You are correct, the Civil War is still being fought today. The tragedy is, it has continued being fought for the same reason as in 1861.

    You are correct, the Civil War is still being fought today. The tragedy is, it has continued being fought for the same reason as in 1861.

    The difference being, today the Unionist side consists of those whose ancestors in 1861-5 were anywhere but between the Great Lakes and the Ohio and Potomac Rivers. In other words, they missed all the fun.

    The few Yankees interested in the War today are to be found at reenactments and on genealogical boards online, at both of which defaming the other side is considered atrocious form. (One “Yankee” lady was even taken to task for using the word “Tory” for the other side in the Revolution!) The ammunition at reenactments isn’t real.

    Next time you hear someone ragging on the Lost Cause, ask him on whose side his ancestor fought in those days. It was probably some emperor’s.

    Read More
  46. I’d rather have Paul Gottfriend in my camp than most American whites.

    Seriously, this guy defends my people with more eloquence and enthusiasm than anyone I know.

    Read More
  47. @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    Whence this idea that you are born owing allegiance merely because you’re born a citizen of something? I realize it’s easier to legitimize power that way, but there’s no reason we need to play along. But I’m a follower of Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” on the issue, and may therefore not be of much help.

    In any case, the U.S., at least in its current incarnation, was born of a compact between states. You receive your citizenship at birth by virtue of your state citizenship, unless you happen to have been born on federal territory. This is true not in an abstruse but in a very real sense, because the states never lost their sovereignty in toto. Not even today have they, though that’s only in theory. The Feds settled the question of ultimate sovereignty by force of arms, but the fact remains. They can’t win your children’s allegiance by conquest.

    Read More
  48. Nobody has brought up the fact that the Neocon’s attacks on the Confederacy are examples of their monumental chutzpah when you consider the fact that Jews were not only among the biggest supporters of the Confederacy and were conspicuously and notably absent from the pre-war abolitionist movement in the north. Jewish owned ships controlled the shipment of slaves out of Africa and as a group Jews held far more slaves per capita than their southern gentile compatriots: one in three Jews had personal slaves. There were large Jewish owned plantations plantations that used hundred more. They also held financial liens on many of the gentile owned plantations. Jews had much more to lose than their their gentile compatriots by the ending of slavery.

    One has only to Google “Jewish Confederate officers” to see how very prominent their presence was. (There was no similar over representation among northern officers. In fact they lobbied Lincoln for the ability to avoid conscription by the paying of a $200 fee).

    Abraham Lincoln was forced to issue his “greenbacks” specifically because international banks had sought to defacto cut off his access to funds to pay for the northern war effort by insisting on usurious interest rates as high as 36%. The Confederacy, interestingly enough, never had a similar problem.

    Nobody better exemplified this Jewish support of the south better than Judah Benjamin who ended by being The Confederacy’s Secretary of State. Judah arose out of the out out the same curious Charleston, South Carolina slave trading, cotton, and tobacco trading milieu that was to later to produce the immensely powerful (and rabidly pro Zionist) presidential adviser Bernard Baruch.

    The Wikipedia entry for Benjamin used to mention the rather revealing fact that Benjamin had to hastily flee North America shortly after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln because he was afraid that he would be implicated in the assassination plot. No other high official of the Confederacy apparently had a similar fear of of implication.

    Benjamin’s passage from our shores has been increasingly fictionalized as well. There used to be a prominent rumor that Benjamin fled the south with what remained of the gold in the Confederate treasury. This amount ($250,000) was apparently limited to what could be carried in one large ox or horse driven drayage wagon. Years ago I had read that he had simply been picked up by a ship and directly brought to England. Now Wikipeda includes in its biography of Benjamin a rather convoluted route for his escape, apparently to cover up what happened to the gold that he was rumored to have carried. (Apparently Benjamin later embellished this highly unlikely itinerary himself.)

    Benjamin’s later history after arriving in his new home in England is especially revealing. He was called to the bar in the UK in just June of 1866, an astoundingly short period of time for a newly arrived foreigner. He had to have had some very powerful supporters to be able to do this. Despite having no previous experience or the all important local contacts and references (i.e. “the old school ties”) in the British legal system, he was able to rise to the highest levels of the British legal system Queen’s Counsel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Counsell) in half of the normal fourteen years required by the best of candidates with the best of references. He became very wealthy because of a law book that he published. (This reminds me of how massive book contracts were meant to increase the coffers of both the spendthrift Winston Churchill his post war years and the ever greedy and compliant Newt Gingrich.) Wikipedia now fails to mention the financial success of the book and chooses to claim that Benjamin had financial difficulties in his later years. This would have been very hard to believe considering his profitable service to the Rothschilds. These services were later to include his defending against financial claims made by the US government against Confederate assets that were thought to be held in the UK. Wikipedia fails to mention what these assets were but they undoubtedly include the rumors about the gold that Benjamin was rumored to have transported out of the southern states when he fled.

    Interesting Note: Judah Benjamin is a personal hero of no less a figure than prominent NeoLib Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Apparently she is more than willing to overlook his roots in the Confederacy.

    Read More
  49. @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    “the constitution defined their actions as treason”

    Which constitution? The secret one outlawing secession which Lincoln kept hidden in his hat?

    Read More
  50. @Rurik
    Reminds me of how billionaire owner of Republican party and chicken-hawk on steroids Sheldon Adelson demands America open its borders to the Third World but then also uses the newspapers he owns in Israel to call immigrants into Israel "invaders".

    And every single Republican candidate for potus licks his fetid hand. (except apparently Donald Trump)

    I guess the only thing Southern whites are good for is to die in wars for Israel.

    Well said.

    Read More
  51. @leftist conservative
    Paul Gottfried wrote:

    Since the Charleston shootings, GOP officials have been scrambling to comply with Leftist demands that Southern Whites be stripped of visible signs of their Confederate heritage.

     

    I think this statement really embodies one of the primary fallacies of the Rightwing, that being that "leftists" are running the show. Ah, no.

    Look, these so-called Leftists are just stalking horses for the media. And who does the media really speak for? I get to that in a minute.

    How does this all play out? What is the typical mechanism through which this sort of thing proceeds? The media gives voice to these so-called Leftists on issues like the confederate flag, and other similar issues. Who are these leftists whose views the media is promoting? Typically these leftists are people who work for some nonprofit or something like that. These leftists speak out against the culture, beliefs and practices of the white working class majority.

    But why does the media give voice to them? Lots of people have opinions. Why does the media select these so-called leftists and promote their viewpoints to the world?

    Because those leftist viewpoints benefit the financial interests of the corporate media.

    How so? How does removing the confederate flag put money in the coffers of the corporate media?

    The media lives off of ad purchases by corporations. The more money corporations, especially big corporations, make, the more money the media makes.

    The confederate flag represents the traditional white working class culture. That same culture was behind racial segregation and jim crow. The corporations and the upper one percent have always wanted cheaper labor. The nonwhites provide that cheaper labor. And nonwhite immigrants provide growth of the economy.

    The culture of the traditional white working class has, and still is, the primary obstacle to the corporations' obtaining of more cheap nonwhite labor and consumers.

    It's war, a war between the big corporations and the white working class.

    The media is on the side of the big corporations.

    This war has been going on for decades.

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled culture wars.

    It’d simplify things for you to realize Big Business is leftist. Read “The Naked Capitalist,” or ask yourself what happened to the working class in the various workers’ paradises.

    Read More
  52. @random observer
    Veering OT:

    Or consider the German officers of 1938-44. I still tend to agree that they were right, and not only for the reasons most in the west now would agree. Also as German patriots and officers watching their country burning with no hope of victory.

    But they still betrayed their personal allegiance to Hitler, which all had sworn willingly and even as genuine supporters of his, even if I think there is a qualitative difference between an oath demanded by a party leader and chancellor and an oath to a true king. They considered it the same, and they swore it. They then betrayed it.

    And they also betrayed their allegiance to Germany, the state, strictly speaking, insofar as Hitler was the official leader of that state. Regardless of the many irregularities of procedure and method in the 1933-5 period, it's tough to argue that he was not the proper leader under the Weimar Constitution or that the Enabling Act and its amendments and emendations were not valid. (There is a technical case in there somewhere, especially around Hitler assuming the presidency, but he kept a presidential office staff separately and maintained the Reichstag, and even kept re-passing the enabling act. I'd call the lot invalid, but many would have disagreed).

    So those officers tried to kill the man to whom they had sworn personal allegiance and the leader of the state to whom they would have owed allegiance regardless. They made plausible claims of higher allegiance, both patriotic and religious/moral.

    Were they traitors? Were they right or wrong? Not necessarily the same question.

    Or consider my personal favourite case. Caesar's assassins.

    The European monarchical tradition considered him a bit of a forerunner, insofar as kings were cast in the mold of the Roman emperors who succeeded him, and even inferred that he, a pagan Roman, had been selected by providence to re-order Rome to pave the way for the Christian era, or some such. Even though he was no Christian, and not a monarch or the heir of Roman monarchs.

    He HAD been the patron of many of the those men, so they might be said to have owed him that much personal loyalty within the larger context of the Roman state.

    So for centuries, the assassins were viewed as having betrayed their loyalty to a friend and social and military patron, which is viable, and as having betrayed some higher loyalty as though to a divinely anointed king, which is not unless refracted through 1000 years of European history. So, for example, Dante put the top three assassins in the pit of hell reserved for traitors and oath breakers. Shakespeare offered a more balanced view, but one sees the same idea reflected in his play.

    That always bothered me, even though I'm a monarchist in a country with a monarch. Loyalty to a monarch is supposed to encompass loyalty to the form, institutions and laws of the state. Constitutional monarchy makes this easy, of course. Easier than once was the case. But Caesar was no monarch, but rather a potential usurper of the state, the traditional form of which was republican for over 400 years. Caesar was not even heir to one of the old kings, though his family was of ancient high lineage. SO why should reshaping the state and making his rule permanent be considered his just prerogative rather than itself a treason?

    And why should not the assassins, who did betray their social patron and did have selfish stakes in the republic, not be considered heroes just the same for turning on the usurper?

    The question may seem moot to an American, especially a Virginian, but I still tremble to tell off the great poet of Italy.

    But it brings me back to the sheer complexity of issues of loyalty, allegiance, betrayal and treason, even in cases where they appear simple to many.

    Or to bring it back to the topic. Robert E. Lee was a citizen of the United States and took up arms against it. On the other hand, he at least resigned his commission as an officer first. And he considered himself a citizen of Virginia first. Given the political understandings of the time, why should not his status as a Virginian have come first? And when will, for example, a Briton be called to the carpet for betraying "Europe" because he considered himself a Briton first?

    Given the political understandings of the time, why should not his status as a Virginian have come first?

    It was all the fault of another Virginian. James Madison.

    Read More
  53. @Chris Mallory
    At the time, citizens gave first allegiance to their state, not the Federal government. Anyway, it was the yankee trash of the North who invaded the South and started the war.

    And Max Boot isn't an "American" He is a Russian Jew who was mistakenly given US citizenship. No matter how long he lives here, he will never be an American.

    Let’s start a petition to send him home. We can call it…..Give Max The Boot.

    Whada ya think?

    Read More
  54. @random observer
    Also, what had the North done to the Constitution that was a bigger violation of states' rights than the Fugitive Slave Act?

    More specifically, what did the North do to the Constitution in 1860? Secession started before the Union called for troops to invade the South. The former spurred the latter. All the North had done was elect a president the South didn't like.

    I’m sure I’ve seen a more obvious case of over simplification, but excuse me for a moment while I try to figure which one it might have been.

    Yep, all of a sudden, one day, all the good ol’ boys of Dixie woke up, stretched, and declared, “Y’know, today I think I’m gonna kick some Yankee butt.”

    Read More
  55. @Anon
    vell, vell

    I wonder... suppose Lincoln had lived and worked with the south to gradually rid America of blacks by giving blacks their own nation.

    I wonder… suppose Lincoln had lived and worked with the south to gradually rid America of blacks by giving blacks their own nation.

    The Colonization Society faced its strongest opposition in the lowland South. To send blacks abroad, you would have to point guns at whites as well as blacks. Southerners just love having their Negroes nearby. Just ask Svigor.

    Read More
  56. @Avi Marranazo
    Professor Gottfried, you always oblige me to spend more time on the web than I had intended through your compelling prose.

    Best regards,
    AM

    It is always good to read the erudition and probity of Herr Professor Gottfried. He is indeed a treasure in the new American Empire. A man who speaks the truth and is not afraid of the establishment. I used to read his column in the Lancaster Newspaper until the paper was taken over by the Leftist/Neo Con outsiders who injudiciously ousted Professor Gottfried in order to fit in more columnists from the NY Times and the Washington Post. Nemesis came around and now the same Lancaster paper is struggling to survive and we hope that it doesn’t. I salute Professor Gottfried and wish him well.

    Read More
  57. @Dahlia

    The persistent neoconservative prejudice against the South sprang from the ethnically parochial culture in which the older generation of neoconservatives grew up.
     
    Parochialism, provincialism, an antidote are the haunting beautiful songs of the Civil War. Julia Ward Howe gets across the mission and the zeal of the North. Listening to a dozen rebel songs renders laughable the reduction of the Confederacy to slavery and racism.

    I will share my favorite one of all, The Dreadful Engagement. From the newly arrived Irish immigrant and Confederate perspective. Both insider/outsider, more detached and introspective. Added benefit of demonstrating Irish diaspora dominance in popular music; it's superiorly crafted and soulful.
    Deserves to be more widely known.

    https://youtu.be/HdIGFOGzjJ8

    Meanwhile, this guy is a little angry (written in 1866? by Major James Randolph, printed in 1914)

    (To clarify in the above, Dreadful Engagement is retro, a reworked Irish ballad based on a real battle and events)

    Read More
  58. @random observer
    Also, what had the North done to the Constitution that was a bigger violation of states' rights than the Fugitive Slave Act?

    More specifically, what did the North do to the Constitution in 1860? Secession started before the Union called for troops to invade the South. The former spurred the latter. All the North had done was elect a president the South didn't like.

    Who said the North had to do anything in particular? As if they’d have simply let the South go if the South had good reasons.

    By the way, electing not just a president the South didn’t like but electing a president without the electoral votes of a single southern state is a big, big deal. If you can’t see that, try imagining yourself an abolitionist and seeing a pro-slavery Democrat elected without a single northern vote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    By the way, electing not just a president the South didn’t like but electing a president without the electoral votes of a single southern state is a big, big deal.
     
    Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

    Harding, Hoover and Eisenhower managed to pick off the odd state below the M-D Line.
  59. @Svigor
    My thanks go to to Righteous Jew Paul Gottfried for another interesting and informative article.

    I'd rather have Paul Gottfriend in my camp than most American whites.


    I know it from the insane rage that can stir in me at the thought of Negro anti-Semitism; I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple; and I know it from the violence that can stir in me whenever I encounter that special brand of paranoid touchiness to which many Negroes are prone.
     
    Thanks Norm. I knew putting out images of Jewish women with black men was on the list, but I hadn't thought of promoting and highlighting black antisemitism, or black racial aggression, to Jews.

    And if these idiots want to protest a flag that symbolizes racism, military aggression, horrific violence and slaughter, treason to the U.S., segregation and actual hatred, they could protest the flag of Israel which flies all over the U.S.
     
    Indeed. But that would be consistent with their stated beliefs, so it's out.

    Are there any generous people out there that are willing to send me some buckets? I have filled all of mine with the crocodile tears that have been shed for the poor Palestinians and do not have any to collect the flood of tears flowing on behalf of Southern whites.
     
    Sorry, the Jews are currently busy planning the next Operation Kill Arab Children, they'll have to get back to you.

    My only quibble is that Podhoretz wrote that in 1963. I doubt he would get away with that now.
     
    Agreed. We should stick to modern concerns, like Emmit Till. ;)

    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried’s points, but technically why wouldn’t the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].
     
    Because a State (n: 3 a politically organized body of people under a single government [syn: nation, country, land, commonwealth, res publica, body politic) that secedes from a union is no more a traitor than a (battered) wife who divorces her husband; the very idea is nonsensical. And you seem to have your history backwards; the North invaded and waged a bloody war of conquest against the South, not the other way around. The Union fits the mold of the traitor, though.

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.
     
    Please cite the relevant portions of the Constitution.

    At the time, citizens gave first allegiance to their state, not the Federal government.
     
    Because that's what America was, and Americans were, before the Second American Revolution destroyed the Republic and gave birth to the Empire.

    The problem with the civil war is that it continues to be fought by both neo-confederates who won’t let it die and continue romanticize the Lost Cause, and with neo-abolitionists who aren’t content with their victory and want permanent reconstruction to punish the South.
     
    The problem is that by any non-leftist metric, Dixie would be far better off today had she won the war. Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there's a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.

    The problem is that by any non-leftist metric, Dixie would be far better off today had she won the war. Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there’s a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.

    I normally agree with you Svig, but here is a non-leftist, pro-Dixie, race-realist Christian disagreeing:

    No, God has blessed the South even through the loss of the war. Had the Confederacy continued, we may have faced a fate not unlike South Africa’s. Because hierarchical racial systems work so well economically – really too well – they inevitably demographically overwhelm the host civilization, giving it both the vigor and the sterility of a hybrid. God, it appears, is the great composer of historical events. He purged the South of its demographic problem while providing a just recompense to the abolitionist rebels of the North. He left the South with a mythic, tragic narrative, of heroes like Lee and Jackson known the world over for their steadfast character and courage.

    http://faithandheritage.com/2015/06/lee-wilson-and-the-kinist-future/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    As a southerner I never understand when someone fetishizes the Old South, or at least parts of it.

    Scarlett and Rhett were no friends of me or mine.

    One day I am going to find a quote I read once. I think it was Sherman, but it was from a northern general who had spent a lot of time in the South, and it was written in the early days of the war.

    It was some paragraph, that said something like plantation owners acquired ever more slaves, and ever more land.

    The poorer whites had less opportunity as time goes by, and they inevitably moved west to other states to pursue their own interests.

    Inevitably the states become majority black, and eventually there would come a slave rebellion that could not be put down.

    The argument was that the Southern plantation system had its own "internal contradictions," and regardless of the outcome of the war it wasn't going to last.

    It was only a paragraph, well written, and I thought the reasoning was sound.

    I guess it depends on whether you identify more with plantation owners or stout yeomen.
  60. “Boot implicitly compares the slaveholding South to Nazi Germany”

    From the point of view of blacks and black sympathizers, that’s a valid comparison.

    Southern whites have to either stand up and defend slavery, Jim Crow, and apartheid or surrender to their critics. I’m unaware of a third option. It’s embarrassing to see Southern whites wave the Confederate Battle Flag while meekly capitulating to every leftist demand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Like kicking the Palestinians out their lands going with allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state, it's not that simple and never was. Mosby said the war was indeed about slavery, but he fought for his country. I suppose the battle flag today is a symbol of willingness to battle hard for one's people, even if you don't agree with what that war was about.
    , @Reg Cæsar


    “Boot implicitly compares the slaveholding South to Nazi Germany”
     
    From the point of view of blacks and black sympathizers, that’s a valid comparison.
     
    It might make sense, had modern neo-Nazis bought the Jews' vote the way the Dems bought the blacks'-- long before the party's civil rights activity.
  61. @random observer
    Also, what had the North done to the Constitution that was a bigger violation of states' rights than the Fugitive Slave Act?

    More specifically, what did the North do to the Constitution in 1860? Secession started before the Union called for troops to invade the South. The former spurred the latter. All the North had done was elect a president the South didn't like.

    You mean like threatening military invasion on any state not collecting the full tariff rate?

    Read More
  62. @GW

    The problem is that by any non-leftist metric, Dixie would be far better off today had she won the war. Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there’s a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.
     
    I normally agree with you Svig, but here is a non-leftist, pro-Dixie, race-realist Christian disagreeing:


    No, God has blessed the South even through the loss of the war. Had the Confederacy continued, we may have faced a fate not unlike South Africa’s. Because hierarchical racial systems work so well economically – really too well – they inevitably demographically overwhelm the host civilization, giving it both the vigor and the sterility of a hybrid. God, it appears, is the great composer of historical events. He purged the South of its demographic problem while providing a just recompense to the abolitionist rebels of the North. He left the South with a mythic, tragic narrative, of heroes like Lee and Jackson known the world over for their steadfast character and courage.
     
    http://faithandheritage.com/2015/06/lee-wilson-and-the-kinist-future/

    As a southerner I never understand when someone fetishizes the Old South, or at least parts of it.

    Scarlett and Rhett were no friends of me or mine.

    One day I am going to find a quote I read once. I think it was Sherman, but it was from a northern general who had spent a lot of time in the South, and it was written in the early days of the war.

    It was some paragraph, that said something like plantation owners acquired ever more slaves, and ever more land.

    The poorer whites had less opportunity as time goes by, and they inevitably moved west to other states to pursue their own interests.

    Inevitably the states become majority black, and eventually there would come a slave rebellion that could not be put down.

    The argument was that the Southern plantation system had its own “internal contradictions,” and regardless of the outcome of the war it wasn’t going to last.

    It was only a paragraph, well written, and I thought the reasoning was sound.

    I guess it depends on whether you identify more with plantation owners or stout yeomen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert E. Gee
    Sunbeam, my ancestors weren't slave owners, and I don't long for the plantation system either. My southern ancestors were small farmers in good times and laborers in bad times, before and after the war. I still honor my Confederate ancestors. Why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't southern states publicly display the history and heritage of the majority of those states? There are memorials to black history and even holocaust museums all over my state.
  63. @Sean
    The South was his country.


    Podheretz is very unusual in his community in being brought up around blacks, an inestimable advantage in learning the facts of life, is to get it young. The baseball bat incident (and his liberal sister apparently screaming the n-word at his assailants as they made off) occurred at a stage in his life when he could process it. It's like love when you are young, nothing can do that for you as a mature adult. Andy Ostroy is a good example, his wife was murdered by an illegal immigrant, but his ultra liberal blogging continued nonetherless.

    Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is set. Liberalism is just as much a tradition as the Yamnaya wolf cult of rape and murder raids. The Yamnaya had superior technology and social organisation, and a myth (Trito) that justified what they were doing.


    After the world was made, the sky-gods gave cattle to "Third man" (*Trito). But the cattle were treacherously stolen by a three-headed, six-eyed serpent (*Ng hi, the Proto-Indo-European w root for negation). Third man entreated the storm god to help get the cattle back. Together they went to the mountain of the monster, killed it and freed the cattle. *Trito became the first warrior.
     
    I think we can guess who gets forced into the role of the spirit of negation in the modern world myth, and who is the casting director. With the ability to deliver overwhelming persuasion on any point, the technology of this tradition has already erased the moral vocabulary of the West, just as the Yamnaya erased the traditional tongues of indigenous Europeans and forced them to adopt a new language millennia ago.

    YAMNAYA WERE A GREAT ANCIENT CIVILIZATION;
    SAM HARRIS FOUND THE MOST BARBARIC TEXT IN THE WORLD….AND IT IS…..

    Your accusation against the Yamnaya, a great civilization, is completely false. There is no evidence for raping wolves like you claim. The oldest ancient surviving text of the ancient Proto-Indo-Europeans is the Rig Veda, which is a wonderful book of hymns. The Trito myth is not in it and is either not real, or a later one in some later IE group, not the Yamnaya per se.

    On the contrary, there is a whole lot more violence in the bible and the Jewish Torah (OT).

    For example:

    Abraham was a pimp.

    Moses was a mass murderer. Luckily, he did not exist, and is just a myth.

    See: http://www.thegodmurders.com/Moses.html

    http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

    http://www.usbible.com/War/moses_hitler.htm

    No wonder Sam Harris said this:

    “There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament [i.e. Torah]. The Koran pales in comparison”–Sam Harris.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/was-the-aryan-conquest-of-europe-peaceful/
  64. I was trying to point out that the tendency Paul Gottfried is complaining about, which is using Enlightenment (ie tradition- independent) rationality, as a weapon against Southerners and before them tight knit Italian or Irish neighbourhoods (loathed and feared as Catholic) operates with a narrative, whereby they prove themselves as worthy members of their community by attacking other communities, who are seen as treacherous and malevolent by definition. So you might as well try and reason with the young Yamnaya males in their wolf packs (too abstruse; substitute the Wendols in the 13th Warrior film).

    The Liberal tradition sees US Jews as useful auxiliaries, like the ‘class ally’ urkas (career criminals) in the Soviet labour camps who were given licence to do anything they wanted to political prisoners. US Jews are not required to be ethnic masochists, and in their own narrative myth they see themselves as paragons of rationality, so I’m afraid it futile pointing out their failing to measure up to the standards they are holding others to.

    Read More
  65. @Realist
    Let's start a petition to send him home. We can call it.....Give Max The Boot.

    Whada ya think?

    The first of millions who should be deported.

    Read More
  66. @Tom_R
    YAMNAYA WERE A GREAT ANCIENT CIVILIZATION;
    SAM HARRIS FOUND THE MOST BARBARIC TEXT IN THE WORLD....AND IT IS.....

    Your accusation against the Yamnaya, a great civilization, is completely false. There is no evidence for raping wolves like you claim. The oldest ancient surviving text of the ancient Proto-Indo-Europeans is the Rig Veda, which is a wonderful book of hymns. The Trito myth is not in it and is either not real, or a later one in some later IE group, not the Yamnaya per se.

    On the contrary, there is a whole lot more violence in the bible and the Jewish Torah (OT).

    For example:

    Abraham was a pimp.

    Moses was a mass murderer. Luckily, he did not exist, and is just a myth.

    See: http://www.thegodmurders.com/Moses.html

    http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

    http://www.usbible.com/War/moses_hitler.htm

    No wonder Sam Harris said this:

    “There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament [i.e. Torah]. The Koran pales in comparison”--Sam Harris.
    Read More
  67. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    National Review “Conservatism”=Mass murder of Conservative Orthodox Christian Russians in thermonuclear war+enthusiasm for social and cultural filth(homo marriage+homo-pedophile Boy Scout Troop Leaders).

    The kind of “conservatism” that violent psychopathic serial rapist Billy Clinton from Hot Springs and his fat-ankled-hairy-violent bulldyke wife promote as Democratic Party Family Values.

    Read More
  68. @Mark Caplan

    "Boot implicitly compares the slaveholding South to Nazi Germany"
     
    From the point of view of blacks and black sympathizers, that's a valid comparison.

    Southern whites have to either stand up and defend slavery, Jim Crow, and apartheid or surrender to their critics. I'm unaware of a third option. It's embarrassing to see Southern whites wave the Confederate Battle Flag while meekly capitulating to every leftist demand.

    Like kicking the Palestinians out their lands going with allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state, it’s not that simple and never was. Mosby said the war was indeed about slavery, but he fought for his country. I suppose the battle flag today is a symbol of willingness to battle hard for one’s people, even if you don’t agree with what that war was about.

    Read More
  69. @Sunbeam
    As a southerner I never understand when someone fetishizes the Old South, or at least parts of it.

    Scarlett and Rhett were no friends of me or mine.

    One day I am going to find a quote I read once. I think it was Sherman, but it was from a northern general who had spent a lot of time in the South, and it was written in the early days of the war.

    It was some paragraph, that said something like plantation owners acquired ever more slaves, and ever more land.

    The poorer whites had less opportunity as time goes by, and they inevitably moved west to other states to pursue their own interests.

    Inevitably the states become majority black, and eventually there would come a slave rebellion that could not be put down.

    The argument was that the Southern plantation system had its own "internal contradictions," and regardless of the outcome of the war it wasn't going to last.

    It was only a paragraph, well written, and I thought the reasoning was sound.

    I guess it depends on whether you identify more with plantation owners or stout yeomen.

    Sunbeam, my ancestors weren’t slave owners, and I don’t long for the plantation system either. My southern ancestors were small farmers in good times and laborers in bad times, before and after the war. I still honor my Confederate ancestors. Why shouldn’t I? Why shouldn’t southern states publicly display the history and heritage of the majority of those states? There are memorials to black history and even holocaust museums all over my state.

    Read More
  70. I think Paul Gottfried must have teamed up with another Jew, Gilad Atzmon, to write this article.

    Read More
  71. Marty [AKA "wick"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Fran Macadam
    Ha, Podheretz, what an insane bigot. And his ilk had the temerity to accuse Ron Paul falsely for what some ne'er do well follower he didn't even know felt. As if - they ever cared, except to use it as an opportunistic political cudgel.

    You missed the point. Podhoretz is not a bigot; his feelings about blacks are entirely rational stemming from serial beatings sustained as a result of their bigotry (though doubtless aimed at whites generally rather than just Jews). I developed the same feelings, 30 years later, and for the same reasons, after receiving the “blacks are as good as anyone else” training while a kid on the west coast. The slam on Podhoretz is for hypocrisy, not bigotry.

    Read More
  72. I encounter that special brand of paranoid touchiness to which many Negroes are prone.

    Can we substitute for the phrase “the pot calling the kettle black”, the Jew accusing the Negro of paranoid touchiness? As in “Woah, talk about the Jew calling the Negro paranoid and touchy!”

    Read More
  73. @guest
    Who said the North had to do anything in particular? As if they'd have simply let the South go if the South had good reasons.

    By the way, electing not just a president the South didn't like but electing a president without the electoral votes of a single southern state is a big, big deal. If you can't see that, try imagining yourself an abolitionist and seeing a pro-slavery Democrat elected without a single northern vote.

    By the way, electing not just a president the South didn’t like but electing a president without the electoral votes of a single southern state is a big, big deal.

    Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

    Harding, Hoover and Eisenhower managed to pick off the odd state below the M-D Line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Those five were elected after the war.

    The bigger impact of the 1860 election was not just the election of Lincoln and the Republicans on soley Northern votes, it was the split in the Democratic Party.

    Think of 1860 like recent Canadian elections, Stephen Harper has a majority in parliament, but the combined left regularly polls at 60% of the vote.
  74. @Mark Caplan

    "Boot implicitly compares the slaveholding South to Nazi Germany"
     
    From the point of view of blacks and black sympathizers, that's a valid comparison.

    Southern whites have to either stand up and defend slavery, Jim Crow, and apartheid or surrender to their critics. I'm unaware of a third option. It's embarrassing to see Southern whites wave the Confederate Battle Flag while meekly capitulating to every leftist demand.

    “Boot implicitly compares the slaveholding South to Nazi Germany”

    From the point of view of blacks and black sympathizers, that’s a valid comparison.

    It might make sense, had modern neo-Nazis bought the Jews’ vote the way the Dems bought the blacks’– long before the party’s civil rights activity.

    Read More
  75. Of course the Jew strategy is to keep whites under their thumb. Jew power in America (other than money) is derived from their ability to maintain groups of people as victims of whites. Except for Trump, the whole Republican establishment is under their spell. They are all begging for a Jew sugar daddy and acceptance by the Jew controlled media.

    This is all about maintaining Jew hegemony over US culture – it has nothing to do with the wellbeing of minorities or righting a wrong – it is only about Jew power. Example, blacks in Israel are told “leave or go to jail.” What a contradiction. There is no bottom to the diabolical dishonest twisted Jew mind.

    Krauthammer, Boot, and company are foot solders for anti-Christian Jew Zionism.

    Read More
  76. @Svigor
    My thanks go to to Righteous Jew Paul Gottfried for another interesting and informative article.

    I'd rather have Paul Gottfriend in my camp than most American whites.


    I know it from the insane rage that can stir in me at the thought of Negro anti-Semitism; I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple; and I know it from the violence that can stir in me whenever I encounter that special brand of paranoid touchiness to which many Negroes are prone.
     
    Thanks Norm. I knew putting out images of Jewish women with black men was on the list, but I hadn't thought of promoting and highlighting black antisemitism, or black racial aggression, to Jews.

    And if these idiots want to protest a flag that symbolizes racism, military aggression, horrific violence and slaughter, treason to the U.S., segregation and actual hatred, they could protest the flag of Israel which flies all over the U.S.
     
    Indeed. But that would be consistent with their stated beliefs, so it's out.

    Are there any generous people out there that are willing to send me some buckets? I have filled all of mine with the crocodile tears that have been shed for the poor Palestinians and do not have any to collect the flood of tears flowing on behalf of Southern whites.
     
    Sorry, the Jews are currently busy planning the next Operation Kill Arab Children, they'll have to get back to you.

    My only quibble is that Podhoretz wrote that in 1963. I doubt he would get away with that now.
     
    Agreed. We should stick to modern concerns, like Emmit Till. ;)

    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried’s points, but technically why wouldn’t the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].
     
    Because a State (n: 3 a politically organized body of people under a single government [syn: nation, country, land, commonwealth, res publica, body politic) that secedes from a union is no more a traitor than a (battered) wife who divorces her husband; the very idea is nonsensical. And you seem to have your history backwards; the North invaded and waged a bloody war of conquest against the South, not the other way around. The Union fits the mold of the traitor, though.

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.
     
    Please cite the relevant portions of the Constitution.

    At the time, citizens gave first allegiance to their state, not the Federal government.
     
    Because that's what America was, and Americans were, before the Second American Revolution destroyed the Republic and gave birth to the Empire.

    The problem with the civil war is that it continues to be fought by both neo-confederates who won’t let it die and continue romanticize the Lost Cause, and with neo-abolitionists who aren’t content with their victory and want permanent reconstruction to punish the South.
     
    The problem is that by any non-leftist metric, Dixie would be far better off today had she won the war. Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there's a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.

    . Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there’s a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.

    Your remaining 10% includes the 16th and 18th Amendments. Those alone call to mind the 80/20 rule.

    Do you also expect us to believe that Southern congressmen voted against the whole New Deal after their constituents gave its author 90% of their votes? Documentation, please…

    Then there’s the rash of pro-gun legislation of the last two decades. How is that leftist, you ask? Well, those rights apply to more than just the white man. That’s pretty revolutionary, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    The name of this magazine is disgusting (I consider it scarcely less offensive than "Nazi Magazine"), but the article itself is sober in tone and well-documented (including charts!). It should provide source material for Caesarian comments for years to come.

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/10/tea-party-yankees/

    , @Trumped
    And former neocon turned salon liberal michael lind has a new article up on politico specifically blaming the South for the U.S. not having gun control laws similar to Britain, Australia, Canada, or new Zealand.

    The U.S. would have had a defacto gun ban if it were not for the south voting out the Dems en masse after the Clinton gun ban in 94, and then deciding the election against Gore. Media elites and political figures in the late 90s and early 2000s were openly calling for banning all privately held firearems, but politicians were terrified after 94 and 2000.

    The vast majority of senators in the northeast favor major gun control, where almost none in the south do.

  77. You expect thanks when you are proud your ancestors participated in genocide?
    Move to Germany, I hear they respect that sort of thing there.
    BTW I would love to elaborate, but you aren’t worth the hammer

    Yeah, I one * this ****ing thread.

    “Genocide” is what we’re calling losing a series of wars, now?

    K.

    P.S., the natives were savages fond of rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, and murder. They fought for the land, but they lost.

    Dixie would struggle to equal a country like Brazil.

    Dixie would probably about what she is now, economically. At least. ‘Cept without all the Yankee leftist garbage since.

    Whence this idea that you are born owing allegiance merely because you’re born a citizen of something?

    Yankee-Judea.

    It’d simplify things for you to realize Big Business is leftist.

    And that would be too obvious.

    The Colonization Society faced its strongest opposition in the lowland South. To send blacks abroad, you would have to point guns at whites as well as blacks. Southerners just love having their Negroes nearby. Just ask Svigor.

    Yes, I’m sure that blacks would have stayed put had the South won the war, and avoided all the leftism spewing out of the Northeast since then.

    As if they’d have simply let the South go if the South had good reasons.

    This. It’s funny to watch Syon succumb to his pride and tie himself in knots avoiding this monumentally simple fact.

    I normally agree with you Svig, but here is a non-leftist, pro-Dixie, race-realist Christian disagreeing:

    I think the voting record is far more persuasive than that fellow.

    It’s embarrassing to see Southern whites wave the Confederate Battle Flag while meekly capitulating to every leftist demand.

    Sounds like something that only goes on in your head, but…k.

    One day I am going to find a quote I read once. I think it was Sherman -

    The day I care what that psychopath said, in any positive way, is the day I’ll eat a bullet.

    Your remaining 10% includes the 16th and 18th Amendments. Those alone call to mind the 80/20 rule.

    Do you also expect us to believe that Southern congressmen voted against the whole New Deal after their constituents gave its author 90% of their votes? Documentation, please…

    Then there’s the rash of pro-gun legislation of the last two decades. How is that leftist, you ask? Well, those rights apply to more than just the white man. That’s pretty revolutionary, isn’t it?

    Not sure I can derive a point from all of this…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trumped
    Genocide is what the same northern generals who engaged in war crimes against the civilians of the south did against the Indians shortly after the war ended.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Not sure I can derive a point from all of this…

     

    You evidently exempt income taxation, Prohibition, bimetallism, Social Security and the rest of the New Deal, the world wars, and the military draft from your selective definition of "leftist sewage", just because Southerners embraced them. But they all look pretty Bolshevik to me.
  78. If you actually want a list of all leftist sewage that emanated from the Northeast, and was passed into law over the opposition of Southern legislators, check out Hunter Wallace’s site. I’m afraid I’m not up to the Herculean task of listing it all.

    Read More
  79. @Reg Cæsar

    . Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there’s a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.
     
    Your remaining 10% includes the 16th and 18th Amendments. Those alone call to mind the 80/20 rule.

    Do you also expect us to believe that Southern congressmen voted against the whole New Deal after their constituents gave its author 90% of their votes? Documentation, please…

    Then there's the rash of pro-gun legislation of the last two decades. How is that leftist, you ask? Well, those rights apply to more than just the white man. That's pretty revolutionary, isn't it?

    The name of this magazine is disgusting (I consider it scarcely less offensive than “Nazi Magazine”), but the article itself is sober in tone and well-documented (including charts!). It should provide source material for Caesarian comments for years to come.

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/10/tea-party-yankees/

    Read More
  80. @Reg Cæsar

    . Pick a post-bellum leftist federal law, any leftist federal law; there’s a 90% chance it was passed over the opposition of Southern representatives.
     
    Your remaining 10% includes the 16th and 18th Amendments. Those alone call to mind the 80/20 rule.

    Do you also expect us to believe that Southern congressmen voted against the whole New Deal after their constituents gave its author 90% of their votes? Documentation, please…

    Then there's the rash of pro-gun legislation of the last two decades. How is that leftist, you ask? Well, those rights apply to more than just the white man. That's pretty revolutionary, isn't it?

    And former neocon turned salon liberal michael lind has a new article up on politico specifically blaming the South for the U.S. not having gun control laws similar to Britain, Australia, Canada, or new Zealand.

    The U.S. would have had a defacto gun ban if it were not for the south voting out the Dems en masse after the Clinton gun ban in 94, and then deciding the election against Gore. Media elites and political figures in the late 90s and early 2000s were openly calling for banning all privately held firearems, but politicians were terrified after 94 and 2000.

    The vast majority of senators in the northeast favor major gun control, where almost none in the south do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The 1994 election produced GOP gains nationwide, Bernie Sanders barely scraped by in Vermont with 44% of the vote. Meanwhile, Texas returned a Democratic majority of House representatives until 2004.

    In 1994, the incumbent D House Speaker, lost in WA, which had the most numerical R gains. (Subsequently lost over the years)

    Mitch McConnell and Richard Shelby were gun banners in the 1990s, they've changed since, but I'll bet it wasn't willingly.
  81. @Svigor

    You expect thanks when you are proud your ancestors participated in genocide?
    Move to Germany, I hear they respect that sort of thing there.
    BTW I would love to elaborate, but you aren't worth the hammer

    Yeah, I one * this ****ing thread.
     
    "Genocide" is what we're calling losing a series of wars, now?

    K.

    P.S., the natives were savages fond of rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, and murder. They fought for the land, but they lost.

    Dixie would struggle to equal a country like Brazil.
     
    Dixie would probably about what she is now, economically. At least. 'Cept without all the Yankee leftist garbage since.

    Whence this idea that you are born owing allegiance merely because you’re born a citizen of something?
     
    Yankee-Judea.

    It’d simplify things for you to realize Big Business is leftist.
     
    And that would be too obvious.

    The Colonization Society faced its strongest opposition in the lowland South. To send blacks abroad, you would have to point guns at whites as well as blacks. Southerners just love having their Negroes nearby. Just ask Svigor.
     
    Yes, I'm sure that blacks would have stayed put had the South won the war, and avoided all the leftism spewing out of the Northeast since then.

    As if they’d have simply let the South go if the South had good reasons.
     
    This. It's funny to watch Syon succumb to his pride and tie himself in knots avoiding this monumentally simple fact.

    I normally agree with you Svig, but here is a non-leftist, pro-Dixie, race-realist Christian disagreeing:
     
    I think the voting record is far more persuasive than that fellow.

    It’s embarrassing to see Southern whites wave the Confederate Battle Flag while meekly capitulating to every leftist demand.
     
    Sounds like something that only goes on in your head, but...k.

    One day I am going to find a quote I read once. I think it was Sherman -
     
    The day I care what that psychopath said, in any positive way, is the day I'll eat a bullet.

    Your remaining 10% includes the 16th and 18th Amendments. Those alone call to mind the 80/20 rule.

    Do you also expect us to believe that Southern congressmen voted against the whole New Deal after their constituents gave its author 90% of their votes? Documentation, please…

    Then there’s the rash of pro-gun legislation of the last two decades. How is that leftist, you ask? Well, those rights apply to more than just the white man. That’s pretty revolutionary, isn’t it?
     
    Not sure I can derive a point from all of this...

    Genocide is what the same northern generals who engaged in war crimes against the civilians of the south did against the Indians shortly after the war ended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    Genocide is what the same northern generals who engaged in war crimes against the civilians of the south did against the Indians shortly after the war ended.

     

    As opposed to what Andy Jackson did.
  82. The vast majority of senators in the northeast favor major gun control…

    Even for whites?

    where almost none in the south do.

    Not even for blacks?

    …for the U.S. not having gun control laws similar to Britain, Australia, Canada, or new Zealand.

    David Kopel’s Samurai book in the early ’90s found New Zealand’s laws slightly tougher than America’s, but still tolerable, e.g., you may need a license, but it’s sturdy like a passport, showing respect for the holder. Has this changed in the meantime?

    Australia’s laws are quite insulting for a white populace (in fact the “conservative” “Liberal” PM [he was neither!] took pains to insult America.) Thank Murdoch propaganda.

    Canada’s laws are like New Zealand’s, minus the respect. The UK’s are absolutely disgraceful. The only place an Englishman can exercise his ancient common-law rights is Ulster. (Man and Jersey, too, but they’re by, not in, the UK.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Canada gave up on their firearm registry when Canadians out west refused to register their guns and had mass demonstrations challenging the government to arrest them all.
    , @Trumped
    Considering those northern senators voted on bills that applied to everyone, the answer is yes.

    As far as Canada, they outright prohibit AR15 rifles from being sold - the most popular selling rifle in America - and limit magazines to FIVE round capacity. That does not even include the hoops needed to jump through for licensing where one is considered guilty and has to prove a reason to own a gun. That would sort of be like licensing bloggers and limiting them to one post a month.

    The gun laws are terrible in the former British empire - with the general theme being licensing that can and is revoked for arbitrary bureaucratic reasons and an ancient right to self defense is ridiculed. Not to mention having all sorts of basic options banned from the public.

    I know a new Zealander, and the climate is changing to the point he is considering selling off his guns to avoid taking a huge hit like those in Australia did when virtually all semi auto rifles and handguns were ordered to be turned in for destruction.
  83. Back in the 1860s the poor whites in the south were as willing to fight in a Civil War to protect the very same slavery that drove down their wages and contributed to their poverty as they are presently willing to fight and die in the Mideast, an endeavor that only benefits Israel.

    This makes southerners look like incredible boobs and dunces, the ultimate shabbos goyim.

    I have always had the feeling that the various fundamentalist religions (Baptists, Pentecostals etc) that arose so strongly in the south in the late eighteenth and early to mid nineteenth centuries only did so only because they were made popular by increasingly favorable coverage in those media organs and popular political figures controlled by the elites. These elites had become increasingly wary of the more mainstream Protestant sects, especially those which had their original roots in the UK (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.) and which had become ever increasingly anti slavery, especially after slavery was outlawed in the British empire in the 1830s. This made them a particular danger to the slaveholders and other southern financial interests dependent on southern agriculture.

    Even the well to do slave holders and other wealthy southern gentiles must have felt the need to divorce themselves from their previous religious affiliations specifically to avoid the dangerous contagion of abolitionism that was increasingly coming out church directives from north. This is the real reason for the huge growth of the Baptist Church in the south, even among the educated,wealthy classes which are usually immune to the calls for religious revival and anti-science fundamentalism but were willing to put up with often bizarre and anti Enlightenment Baptist theology simply because it was also neutral about slavery. To this day many members of this elite still remain non church going Baptists, its cultural but not religious supporters.

    This sort of media manipulation reminds me of the present day in which the well known fundamentalists preachers seem to have unlimited access to the TV and radio media while at the same time receiving virtual immunity from the media for their widespread financial malfeasance but only just as long as they continue to pledge unwavering fealty to Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zach
    So you don't think that southern whites in 1860 were just as afraid of black crime as all whites are today? For small landowners ending slavery must have seemed the same as opening the doors to all the penitentiaries would seem today.
  84. @Reg Cæsar

    By the way, electing not just a president the South didn’t like but electing a president without the electoral votes of a single southern state is a big, big deal.
     
    Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

    Harding, Hoover and Eisenhower managed to pick off the odd state below the M-D Line.

    Those five were elected after the war.

    The bigger impact of the 1860 election was not just the election of Lincoln and the Republicans on soley Northern votes, it was the split in the Democratic Party.

    Think of 1860 like recent Canadian elections, Stephen Harper has a majority in parliament, but the combined left regularly polls at 60% of the vote.

    Read More
  85. @Svigor

    You expect thanks when you are proud your ancestors participated in genocide?
    Move to Germany, I hear they respect that sort of thing there.
    BTW I would love to elaborate, but you aren't worth the hammer

    Yeah, I one * this ****ing thread.
     
    "Genocide" is what we're calling losing a series of wars, now?

    K.

    P.S., the natives were savages fond of rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, and murder. They fought for the land, but they lost.

    Dixie would struggle to equal a country like Brazil.
     
    Dixie would probably about what she is now, economically. At least. 'Cept without all the Yankee leftist garbage since.

    Whence this idea that you are born owing allegiance merely because you’re born a citizen of something?
     
    Yankee-Judea.

    It’d simplify things for you to realize Big Business is leftist.
     
    And that would be too obvious.

    The Colonization Society faced its strongest opposition in the lowland South. To send blacks abroad, you would have to point guns at whites as well as blacks. Southerners just love having their Negroes nearby. Just ask Svigor.
     
    Yes, I'm sure that blacks would have stayed put had the South won the war, and avoided all the leftism spewing out of the Northeast since then.

    As if they’d have simply let the South go if the South had good reasons.
     
    This. It's funny to watch Syon succumb to his pride and tie himself in knots avoiding this monumentally simple fact.

    I normally agree with you Svig, but here is a non-leftist, pro-Dixie, race-realist Christian disagreeing:
     
    I think the voting record is far more persuasive than that fellow.

    It’s embarrassing to see Southern whites wave the Confederate Battle Flag while meekly capitulating to every leftist demand.
     
    Sounds like something that only goes on in your head, but...k.

    One day I am going to find a quote I read once. I think it was Sherman -
     
    The day I care what that psychopath said, in any positive way, is the day I'll eat a bullet.

    Your remaining 10% includes the 16th and 18th Amendments. Those alone call to mind the 80/20 rule.

    Do you also expect us to believe that Southern congressmen voted against the whole New Deal after their constituents gave its author 90% of their votes? Documentation, please…

    Then there’s the rash of pro-gun legislation of the last two decades. How is that leftist, you ask? Well, those rights apply to more than just the white man. That’s pretty revolutionary, isn’t it?
     
    Not sure I can derive a point from all of this...

    Not sure I can derive a point from all of this…

    You evidently exempt income taxation, Prohibition, bimetallism, Social Security and the rest of the New Deal, the world wars, and the military draft from your selective definition of “leftist sewage”, just because Southerners embraced them. But they all look pretty Bolshevik to me.

    Read More
  86. @Trumped
    Genocide is what the same northern generals who engaged in war crimes against the civilians of the south did against the Indians shortly after the war ended.

    Genocide is what the same northern generals who engaged in war crimes against the civilians of the south did against the Indians shortly after the war ended.

    As opposed to what Andy Jackson did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trumped
    Absolutely - but make no mistake, the same uniforms that neo cons and Marxists praise for making war on civilians in the south commenced genocide a mere few months later against the Indians.
  87. @Trumped
    And former neocon turned salon liberal michael lind has a new article up on politico specifically blaming the South for the U.S. not having gun control laws similar to Britain, Australia, Canada, or new Zealand.

    The U.S. would have had a defacto gun ban if it were not for the south voting out the Dems en masse after the Clinton gun ban in 94, and then deciding the election against Gore. Media elites and political figures in the late 90s and early 2000s were openly calling for banning all privately held firearems, but politicians were terrified after 94 and 2000.

    The vast majority of senators in the northeast favor major gun control, where almost none in the south do.

    The 1994 election produced GOP gains nationwide, Bernie Sanders barely scraped by in Vermont with 44% of the vote. Meanwhile, Texas returned a Democratic majority of House representatives until 2004.

    In 1994, the incumbent D House Speaker, lost in WA, which had the most numerical R gains. (Subsequently lost over the years)

    Mitch McConnell and Richard Shelby were gun banners in the 1990s, they’ve changed since, but I’ll bet it wasn’t willingly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trumped
    Bill Clinton himself said the gun control issue cost the Dems the congress in 94, the south as a voting bloc, and Gore the race in 2000. It set off a chain reaction that turned the region to voting for the GOP for the first time in modern history. I personally know plenty of life long dems who switched over that issue - and the election results from 94 on demonstrate this.
  88. @Reg Cæsar

    The vast majority of senators in the northeast favor major gun control…
     
    Even for whites?

    where almost none in the south do.

     

    Not even for blacks?


    …for the U.S. not having gun control laws similar to Britain, Australia, Canada, or new Zealand.
     
    David Kopel's Samurai book in the early '90s found New Zealand's laws slightly tougher than America's, but still tolerable, e.g., you may need a license, but it's sturdy like a passport, showing respect for the holder. Has this changed in the meantime?

    Australia's laws are quite insulting for a white populace (in fact the "conservative" "Liberal" PM [he was neither!] took pains to insult America.) Thank Murdoch propaganda.

    Canada's laws are like New Zealand's, minus the respect. The UK's are absolutely disgraceful. The only place an Englishman can exercise his ancient common-law rights is Ulster. (Man and Jersey, too, but they're by, not in, the UK.)

    Canada gave up on their firearm registry when Canadians out west refused to register their guns and had mass demonstrations challenging the government to arrest them all.

    Read More
  89. @Reg Cæsar

    The vast majority of senators in the northeast favor major gun control…
     
    Even for whites?

    where almost none in the south do.

     

    Not even for blacks?


    …for the U.S. not having gun control laws similar to Britain, Australia, Canada, or new Zealand.
     
    David Kopel's Samurai book in the early '90s found New Zealand's laws slightly tougher than America's, but still tolerable, e.g., you may need a license, but it's sturdy like a passport, showing respect for the holder. Has this changed in the meantime?

    Australia's laws are quite insulting for a white populace (in fact the "conservative" "Liberal" PM [he was neither!] took pains to insult America.) Thank Murdoch propaganda.

    Canada's laws are like New Zealand's, minus the respect. The UK's are absolutely disgraceful. The only place an Englishman can exercise his ancient common-law rights is Ulster. (Man and Jersey, too, but they're by, not in, the UK.)

    Considering those northern senators voted on bills that applied to everyone, the answer is yes.

    As far as Canada, they outright prohibit AR15 rifles from being sold – the most popular selling rifle in America – and limit magazines to FIVE round capacity. That does not even include the hoops needed to jump through for licensing where one is considered guilty and has to prove a reason to own a gun. That would sort of be like licensing bloggers and limiting them to one post a month.

    The gun laws are terrible in the former British empire – with the general theme being licensing that can and is revoked for arbitrary bureaucratic reasons and an ancient right to self defense is ridiculed. Not to mention having all sorts of basic options banned from the public.

    I know a new Zealander, and the climate is changing to the point he is considering selling off his guns to avoid taking a huge hit like those in Australia did when virtually all semi auto rifles and handguns were ordered to be turned in for destruction.

    Read More
  90. @Maj. Kong
    The 1994 election produced GOP gains nationwide, Bernie Sanders barely scraped by in Vermont with 44% of the vote. Meanwhile, Texas returned a Democratic majority of House representatives until 2004.

    In 1994, the incumbent D House Speaker, lost in WA, which had the most numerical R gains. (Subsequently lost over the years)

    Mitch McConnell and Richard Shelby were gun banners in the 1990s, they've changed since, but I'll bet it wasn't willingly.

    Bill Clinton himself said the gun control issue cost the Dems the congress in 94, the south as a voting bloc, and Gore the race in 2000. It set off a chain reaction that turned the region to voting for the GOP for the first time in modern history. I personally know plenty of life long dems who switched over that issue – and the election results from 94 on demonstrate this.

    Read More
  91. @Reg Cæsar


    Genocide is what the same northern generals who engaged in war crimes against the civilians of the south did against the Indians shortly after the war ended.

     

    As opposed to what Andy Jackson did.

    Absolutely – but make no mistake, the same uniforms that neo cons and Marxists praise for making war on civilians in the south commenced genocide a mere few months later against the Indians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Sherman's March to the Sea was an act of death and destruction straight out of the Levites slaughter of Hebrews at the foot of Mt. Sinai, an action/attitude that sets Michael Ledeen all aquiver -- Allen Bloom would have approved --

    from Gottfried's linked article, http://www.vdare.com/articles/claes-ryn-allan-bloom-leo-strauss-and-me


    in Strauss disciple Bloom’s best-seller The Closing of the American Mind.
    Bloom successfully took it upon himself in 1987 to teach American Christians what America can aspire to be, as he put it, “when it’s truly itself.” Bloom’s authentic America, which a universal nation that is true to its Founding and political creed, seeks to bring secular, individually-based democracy to the entire planet. When Americans engage in war, it is intended as an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality, which is meant for all earthlings.
     
    The US firebombing of Germany consciously mirrored Sherman's war making and delivering of mass destruction and terror, an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality.

    Elliot Engel is chomping at the bit to bomb Iran, an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality.

    Palestinians have been subjected to unequal treatment by Jews for over 70 years. Let's all get behind "an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learning Israelis our belief in equality.

    And in the spirit of turnabout being fair play, I propose a war on New York City, home-base of the egregiously un-equal:
    When Americans engage in war, it is intended as an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality, which is meant for all earthlings.

    Sherman's March to the Sea through Wall Street.
    Firebomb Wall Street.
    BWSTTGASO

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  92. @SFG
    My only quibble is that Podhoretz wrote that in 1963. I doubt he would get away with that now.

    Otherwise, no points of disagreement.

    If he had written it in 1861 while living in Alabama, the social justice warriors would still be screaming about it.

    Read More
  93. Ben Bernanke, born in Augusta, Georgia, and was raised on East Jefferson Street in Dillon, South Carolina.

    Pretty sure Deborah Lipstadt was born and raised in the South.

    Gertrude Stein’s grandparents settled in Baltimore, MD where they set up a company that sold uniforms to BOTH the Union and the Confederate armies. Family feuds over these “dual loyalties” induced Gertrude’s father, Daniel, and her uncle Solomon to leave Baltimore and strike out on their own in Allegheny City, PA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    Family feuds over these “dual loyalties”
     
    Happened all over the South among the commoners. Sometimes, if they couldn't move away they just changed the spelling of the surname and claimed they weren't related.
  94. @Trumped
    Absolutely - but make no mistake, the same uniforms that neo cons and Marxists praise for making war on civilians in the south commenced genocide a mere few months later against the Indians.

    Sherman’s March to the Sea was an act of death and destruction straight out of the Levites slaughter of Hebrews at the foot of Mt. Sinai, an action/attitude that sets Michael Ledeen all aquiver — Allen Bloom would have approved —

    from Gottfried’s linked article, http://www.vdare.com/articles/claes-ryn-allan-bloom-leo-strauss-and-me

    in Strauss disciple Bloom’s best-seller The Closing of the American Mind.
    Bloom successfully took it upon himself in 1987 to teach American Christians what America can aspire to be, as he put it, “when it’s truly itself.” Bloom’s authentic America, which a universal nation that is true to its Founding and political creed, seeks to bring secular, individually-based democracy to the entire planet. When Americans engage in war, it is intended as an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality, which is meant for all earthlings.

    The US firebombing of Germany consciously mirrored Sherman’s war making and delivering of mass destruction and terror, an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality.

    Elliot Engel is chomping at the bit to bomb Iran, an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality.

    Palestinians have been subjected to unequal treatment by Jews for over 70 years. Let’s all get behind “an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learning Israelis our belief in equality.

    And in the spirit of turnabout being fair play, I propose a war on New York City, home-base of the egregiously un-equal:
    When Americans engage in war, it is intended as an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality, which is meant for all earthlings.

    Sherman’s March to the Sea through Wall Street.
    Firebomb Wall Street.
    BWSTTGASO

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Read More
  95. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    i, personally, don’t think the current efforts go far enough in expunging from the historical record the vileness of southern culture, and concomitant sectionalist pride. as such, the southern region of the united states should be renamed so as to eliminate all southern reference (i.e., “the not so north”, or “north vs. more north (more north being the new name for the vaunted, sacrosanct northern states), perhaps completely expurgating those thirteen (13) states which traitorously dared to abide by their unconscionable constitutional principles is warranted whereby redaction of those aforementioned states would be eliminated from subsequent cartographic vade mecum.)

    Read More
  96. I am not a neo conservative, and I have been bashing the not so neo nazi south for decades. Your history is worse than Nazi Germany because it was allowed to fester for so long. Southerners are disgusting in their worship of teh traitors and terrorists the old south represents. Sherman didn’t do enough.

    Read More
  97. @Robert E. Gee
    Projection is the word that comes to mind. And do any of these people know what the word traitor means? The aim of the Confederacy was not to overthrow or replace the Union government.

    And if these idiots want to protest a flag that symbolizes racism, military aggression, horrific violence and slaughter, treason to the U.S., segregation and actual hatred, they could protest the flag of Israel which flies all over the U.S.

    Why do you worship traitors and terrorists. THe white southern history=Nazi Germany. Pigs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SB
    And upon what do base your distorted assumption?
    , @OilcanFloyd
    @New Underground:
    Apparently you don't know what a traitor or a terrorist is, and you haven't read much of what I have posted. It's also apparent that you don't know much about either the history of the South or of Nazi Germany if you compare the two places.

    I don't long for the old-South. If I were anything like my ancestors, I would be a small farmer competing with slavery. What I would like is to be a Southerner in a free South. Free of people like you.

    I have no idea what kind of people my ancestors were on a personal level, but I do know that they weren't what people like you accuse them of being. They weren't slave owners, and they didn't live off the labor, blood or productivity of others. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for not being rapists of anyone, black or white. I don't worship my ancestors, but I do honor their sacrifices and the deaths of the ones who fought and died in the War, which is as it should be.

    My guess is that you are Jewish and possibly even a hasbarist due to your Nazi obsession, and for the use of pig as a slur.
  98. @Flower
    Randy, here is a question: when did the average British colonist, living in any of the 13 colonies, cease being British citizens and become Americans? Was it 7/4/1776? 1777? after Concord? after Yorktown? I'm curious, what's you opine on this? If you have a hard time putting your finger on it, try this one: when did the average American citizen cease being a traitor to the crown? 1814?

    So, next up, when did the citizens of Virginia (or the Carolina's, or Georgia or Alabama or...) cease being American's and become "Confederate Americans"? Was it Ft. Sumter? The First Bull Run? Did they ever change their citizenship? Be careful with your answer, remember, as big a group of traitors as the Northern States felt the Southerners were to the "Union", the Southerners felt that the North had become traitors to the Constitution, and with good reason.

    Take a quick look at the number of people in our govt who are highly placed and who carry a dual citizenship. Usually the the extra citizenship is Israeli. How do you feel about that? By strict definition, it is impossible to have a true "dual" citizenship, as a person must end up being disloyal to one or the other. Do you feel that anyone with a dual citizenship is a traitor to the US? Why?

    >>>…..slow…..clap…..<<<

    Read More
  99. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Realist
    "Like all other chickenhawks (e.g. Dick Cheeneey), these sick people need a constant flow of others’ blood to keep them alive."

    Vampire Chickens.

    How about “vampirehawks”?

    Read More
  100. here the founder of the southern poverty law center tells us how the confederate flag which he loves is just as much a part of his heritage as martin luther king march

    this will take this bastard down if enough people help make it viral he will get a taste of his own witch hunting

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trumped
    Hilarious. Let's all send this to drudge to make it go viral.
  101. @Fran Macadam
    Ha, Podheretz, what an insane bigot. And his ilk had the temerity to accuse Ron Paul falsely for what some ne'er do well follower he didn't even know felt. As if - they ever cared, except to use it as an opportunistic political cudgel.

    heres another blast from a more recent past

    Read More
  102. @Tom_R
    THE NEO-CONS ARE JEWISH LEFT-WINGERS THAT INFILTRATED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
    THE USA IS A ONE-PARTY HOXOCRACY.

    Thanks for the great article, Sir. I agree with you on almost every point.

    The Neo-cons are actually liberals who infiltrated the Republican party for 2 reasons—because the Left was not pro-Israel enough for them and two, to control the opposition. Under the neo-cons, the Republican party has become a Jewish controlled opposition to the Jewish controlled Democratic party.

    Either way you vote, the Judaists win!

    The Jewish agenda is simple—to destroy white nations with:

    a. Liberalism (feminism, multi-culturalism, malcegenation, porn, homopathy).
    b. Flood them with 3rd world aliens, while keeping Israel pure.
    c. Demand unflinching support for Israel.

    Joe Biden admitted this here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349155/joe-biden-attributes-social-liberalism-jewish-control-hollywood-and-social-media

    Judaists like Saban and Soros own and operate the Democratic party; Adelson owns and operated the Republican party.

    The US and EU are like a criminal town where you run to the police for help, as a victim of crime, only to find that the police are owned and operated by the same criminal gang and are criminals too. These countries have hoax democracies.

    The Jewish agenda is simple—to destroy white nations with:

    a. Liberalism (feminism, multi-culturalism, malcegenation, porn, homopathy).
    b. Flood them with 3rd world aliens, while keeping Israel pure.
    c. Demand unflinching support for Israel.

    in a word, Weimar.

    Read More
  103. @SolontoCroesus
    Ben Bernanke, born in Augusta, Georgia, and was raised on East Jefferson Street in Dillon, South Carolina.

    Pretty sure Deborah Lipstadt was born and raised in the South.

    Gertrude Stein's grandparents settled in Baltimore, MD where they set up a company that sold uniforms to BOTH the Union and the Confederate armies. Family feuds over these "dual loyalties" induced Gertrude's father, Daniel, and her uncle Solomon to leave Baltimore and strike out on their own in Allegheny City, PA.

    Family feuds over these “dual loyalties”

    Happened all over the South among the commoners. Sometimes, if they couldn’t move away they just changed the spelling of the surname and claimed they weren’t related.

    Read More
  104. @iffen

    Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is set
     
    Not an accurate statement.

    Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, “Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is *largely* set.”

    Or, “Being brought up in a well defined, well articulated tradition goes a long way towards influencing the development of an individual’s worldview.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    In my youth, I was struck by the malice with which New York Jewish visitors to Florida described their road trips through the land of “rural bigots.” Next to the Germans, whom they assured me—the child of Austrian Jewish immigrants—were all Nazis, these Southern “anti-Semites” were the most unpalatable humans they were forced to share the planet with.
     
    Paul Gottfried apparently wasn't brought up in the New York tradition, so he is hardly evidence that upbringing isn't overwhelmingly important. On the other hand, I don't suppose schoolboys in the south got the feeling they were being persecuted by blacks like Norman Podhoretz did in NYC.

    The actual flag being complained about was adopted purely as a military convenience to, as General P. G. T. Beauregard put it, know our friends from our Enemies. Carl Schmitt saw that as the basis of politics, he was known for seeing no conflict between good and evil, just power struggles in which the thing is to win and impose one's own order. Paul Gottfried wrote about Schmitt.


    Value-indoctrination through political education and public policy has become increasingly important in pluralistic democracies combined with administrative states. Schmitt's remarks on liberalism and democracy illuminate this modern paradox of pluralistic societies imposing particular values by shame or by force. In the absence of settled community, such societies are left with an unpleasant choice: the persuasiveness of the political, which Schmitt understood as steadily erupting conflict, or the imposition of values created by intellectuals but reputed to be universal. There may be no way to avoid one or the other and it may even be possible to suffer both fates simultaneously.
     
    I have read that neocons actually believe there are true values, but the masses can't be trusted to understand them, so wise men (the neocons) have to conceal what they are about.
    , @iffen
    Now that I have thought about it some more, what Sean wrote is likely correct. Some of us just fall through the cracks.
  105. @Anonymous
    i, personally, don't think the current efforts go far enough in expunging from the historical record the vileness of southern culture, and concomitant sectionalist pride. as such, the southern region of the united states should be renamed so as to eliminate all southern reference (i.e., "the not so north", or "north vs. more north (more north being the new name for the vaunted, sacrosanct northern states), perhaps completely expurgating those thirteen (13) states which traitorously dared to abide by their unconscionable constitutional principles is warranted whereby redaction of those aforementioned states would be eliminated from subsequent cartographic vade mecum.)

    Try capitalizing next time.

    Read More
  106. You evidently exempt income taxation, Prohibition, bimetallism, Social Security and the rest of the New Deal, the world wars, and the military draft from your selective definition of “leftist sewage”, just because Southerners embraced them. But they all look pretty Bolshevik to me.

    Ah, I see what you’re saying now. I wasn’t, but I see what you’re saying.

    Read More
  107. @viking
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQZZa2MdVVk
    here the founder of the southern poverty law center tells us how the confederate flag which he loves is just as much a part of his heritage as martin luther king march

    this will take this bastard down if enough people help make it viral he will get a taste of his own witch hunting

    Hilarious. Let’s all send this to drudge to make it go viral.

    Read More
  108. @rabbitbait
    Back in the 1860s the poor whites in the south were as willing to fight in a Civil War to protect the very same slavery that drove down their wages and contributed to their poverty as they are presently willing to fight and die in the Mideast, an endeavor that only benefits Israel.

    This makes southerners look like incredible boobs and dunces, the ultimate shabbos goyim.

    I have always had the feeling that the various fundamentalist religions (Baptists, Pentecostals etc) that arose so strongly in the south in the late eighteenth and early to mid nineteenth centuries only did so only because they were made popular by increasingly favorable coverage in those media organs and popular political figures controlled by the elites. These elites had become increasingly wary of the more mainstream Protestant sects, especially those which had their original roots in the UK (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.) and which had become ever increasingly anti slavery, especially after slavery was outlawed in the British empire in the 1830s. This made them a particular danger to the slaveholders and other southern financial interests dependent on southern agriculture.

    Even the well to do slave holders and other wealthy southern gentiles must have felt the need to divorce themselves from their previous religious affiliations specifically to avoid the dangerous contagion of abolitionism that was increasingly coming out church directives from north. This is the real reason for the huge growth of the Baptist Church in the south, even among the educated,wealthy classes which are usually immune to the calls for religious revival and anti-science fundamentalism but were willing to put up with often bizarre and anti Enlightenment Baptist theology simply because it was also neutral about slavery. To this day many members of this elite still remain non church going Baptists, its cultural but not religious supporters.

    This sort of media manipulation reminds me of the present day in which the well known fundamentalists preachers seem to have unlimited access to the TV and radio media while at the same time receiving virtual immunity from the media for their widespread financial malfeasance but only just as long as they continue to pledge unwavering fealty to Israel.

    So you don’t think that southern whites in 1860 were just as afraid of black crime as all whites are today? For small landowners ending slavery must have seemed the same as opening the doors to all the penitentiaries would seem today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    . . . just as afraid of black crime as all whites are today
     
    speak for yourself.

    I have no fear of my many Black neighbors in my inner-city neighborhood.

  109. My very simple theory is you scratch the surface of neocons and the south – you get rabid Trotskyist Zionists and political power base of rapture Christians. Both groups plan on being chosen the winners of their respective end time scenarios. Difference is the neocons plan on managing the various fools to their own demise, while the southern rature-ites plan on being victorious by God’s design. Both look to Israel as something pivotal for their goals. Both groups need each other, but only one has contempt for their partner. Trashing the confederate is just an outlet of neocon contempt for the southern Amen lobby.

    Read More
  110. @NewUnderground
    Why do you worship traitors and terrorists. THe white southern history=Nazi Germany. Pigs.

    And upon what do base your distorted assumption?

    Read More
  111. Why do you worship traitors and terrorists. THe white southern history=Nazi Germany. Pigs.

    Leftists hate us because we won’t worship traitors and terrorists, and because we aren’t the pigs leftists are.

    Read More
  112. @Marian
    My very simple theory is you scratch the surface of neocons and the south - you get rabid Trotskyist Zionists and political power base of rapture Christians. Both groups plan on being chosen the winners of their respective end time scenarios. Difference is the neocons plan on managing the various fools to their own demise, while the southern rature-ites plan on being victorious by God's design. Both look to Israel as something pivotal for their goals. Both groups need each other, but only one has contempt for their partner. Trashing the confederate is just an outlet of neocon contempt for the southern Amen lobby.

    That is a simple theory.

    Read More
  113. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Wow poverty, illness and racism, that’s some great “heritage.” They should have outlawed that flag in 1865 on pain of federal prosecution. It’s a shame that they let those traitors off the hook.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    try this little exercise: map a road-trip to all the cities and towns in the South that are named for ancient, classical cities.

    The South was home to some of the most highly developed centers of learning and cultural accomplishment in the states, in their time, that is, before Sherman reduced them to rubble, providing a playbook for ISIS.

    Some of the major centers of learning are still prominent in the South. Kentucky was a center of university scholarship. Davidson College in NC says "Harvard is the Davidson of the North".

    Several of the fortunes that migrated to New York City got their start in the South -- the Guggenheims, Cohens (Cone), Untermyer, etc. come readily to mind.

  114. @Anonymous
    Wow poverty, illness and racism, that's some great "heritage." They should have outlawed that flag in 1865 on pain of federal prosecution. It's a shame that they let those traitors off the hook.

    try this little exercise: map a road-trip to all the cities and towns in the South that are named for ancient, classical cities.

    The South was home to some of the most highly developed centers of learning and cultural accomplishment in the states, in their time, that is, before Sherman reduced them to rubble, providing a playbook for ISIS.

    Some of the major centers of learning are still prominent in the South. Kentucky was a center of university scholarship. Davidson College in NC says “Harvard is the Davidson of the North”.

    Several of the fortunes that migrated to New York City got their start in the South — the Guggenheims, Cohens (Cone), Untermyer, etc. come readily to mind.

    Read More
  115. @Zach
    So you don't think that southern whites in 1860 were just as afraid of black crime as all whites are today? For small landowners ending slavery must have seemed the same as opening the doors to all the penitentiaries would seem today.

    . . . just as afraid of black crime as all whites are today

    speak for yourself.

    I have no fear of my many Black neighbors in my inner-city neighborhood.

    Read More
  116. The Republican “BATTLE FLAG” is a WHITE CLOTH.

    ————————–
    You are offended by my Confederate flag? —–JE SUIS CHARLIE HEBDO ! ——
    That is what they piously preached to the muslims when they offended them..
    JE SUIS CHARLIE HEBDO as long as “they” approve …………… actually the Confederate flag is not about race, but about COMRADE-UNCLE-Sam –it’s a symbol against the over reaching police state of federalism. Just as is the GADSDEN flag. Go examine the photos of early 1900′s Ku Klux Klan rallies, those are “AMERICAN” flags the Klan is carrying.
    ALL traces/symbols of FREEDOM are being erased. Andrew Jackson who DARED stand up to the International BANKERS is under attack on the $20
    “The American people, North and South, went into the [Civil] war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects … what they thus lost they have never got back.” H. L. Mencken
    All those CongressSCUM who voted for Obamatrade are every so quickly running around trying to get removed any statue or symbol from the era of the Civil War. Such are the last reminder to a brainwashed public that once upon a time Americans fought against what is happening everywhere nowadays.
    Mel Gibson suppressed because EVERY one of his movies preached FREEDOM

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    NO- the Republicant's battle flag is a white eagle on a white background...
  117. @Jeff77450
    Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, "Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is *largely* set."

    Or, "Being brought up in a well defined, well articulated tradition goes a long way towards influencing the development of an individual's worldview."

    In my youth, I was struck by the malice with which New York Jewish visitors to Florida described their road trips through the land of “rural bigots.” Next to the Germans, whom they assured me—the child of Austrian Jewish immigrants—were all Nazis, these Southern “anti-Semites” were the most unpalatable humans they were forced to share the planet with.

    Paul Gottfried apparently wasn’t brought up in the New York tradition, so he is hardly evidence that upbringing isn’t overwhelmingly important. On the other hand, I don’t suppose schoolboys in the south got the feeling they were being persecuted by blacks like Norman Podhoretz did in NYC.

    The actual flag being complained about was adopted purely as a military convenience to, as General P. G. T. Beauregard put it, know our friends from our Enemies. Carl Schmitt saw that as the basis of politics, he was known for seeing no conflict between good and evil, just power struggles in which the thing is to win and impose one’s own order. Paul Gottfried wrote about Schmitt.

    Value-indoctrination through political education and public policy has become increasingly important in pluralistic democracies combined with administrative states. Schmitt’s remarks on liberalism and democracy illuminate this modern paradox of pluralistic societies imposing particular values by shame or by force. In the absence of settled community, such societies are left with an unpleasant choice: the persuasiveness of the political, which Schmitt understood as steadily erupting conflict, or the imposition of values created by intellectuals but reputed to be universal. There may be no way to avoid one or the other and it may even be possible to suffer both fates simultaneously.

    I have read that neocons actually believe there are true values, but the masses can’t be trusted to understand them, so wise men (the neocons) have to conceal what they are about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That's Plato's thing--the "noble lie"--not the neocons'. Not that they don't agree, but so have plenty of other people. Attributing unique belief in the noble lie to neocons, which for some reason or other caught on around the time of Iraq War II, is overarguing. Not only are they wrong, we're saying, but they know it and they don't even care! If only. I assure you they believe what they say, at least as much as the next lying, scumbag politician/ideologue.

    You have to lie, brazenly, to pull off something like Iraq II, you might say. Yes, but you also have to lie to yourself and others to convince anyone that there's no such thing as race, for instance, or that Social Security or Obamacare is a good idea, or any of the many absurdities which pass as normal. I've read Strauss' "Persecution and the Art of Writing," and one giant point too often left out is that the "esoteric" messages he's talking about are written at times when telling the truth is dangerous. Plato's mentor, Socrates, was put to death for his teaching, remember. When Strauss wrote the Soviet Union still existed. Needless to say lying there coukd be justifiable on grounds here irrelevant.

  118. To most of us in the South, the flag symbolizes our desire to be left alone.

    But leaving people alone is not what the statist cult of the northeast is all about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Allan Bloom/Leo Strauss are only too happy to leave you alone -- in your grave

    Bloom successfully took it upon himself in 1987 to teach American Christians what America can aspire to be, as he put it, “when it’s truly itself.” Bloom’s authentic America, which a universal nation that is true to its Founding and political creed, seeks to bring secular, individually-based democracy to the entire planet. When Americans engage in war, it is intended as an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality, which is meant for all earthlings. http://www.vdare.com/articles/claes-ryn-allan-bloom-leo-strauss-and-me
     
    You may be left alone after you endorse a creed that is so universal that any individual who does not join it must be killed.

    This is what passes for the intellectual elite among neocons.

    Maybe if the Rockefellers had given more people, or different people, passage and sinecures as Strauss enjoyed, perhaps the neocons would not be so crabby and genocidally-inclined.
  119. @The Grate Deign
    To most of us in the South, the flag symbolizes our desire to be left alone.

    But leaving people alone is not what the statist cult of the northeast is all about.

    Allan Bloom/Leo Strauss are only too happy to leave you alone — in your grave

    Bloom successfully took it upon himself in 1987 to teach American Christians what America can aspire to be, as he put it, “when it’s truly itself.” Bloom’s authentic America, which a universal nation that is true to its Founding and political creed, seeks to bring secular, individually-based democracy to the entire planet. When Americans engage in war, it is intended as an “educational project,” designed to instill in slow-learners our belief in equality, which is meant for all earthlings. http://www.vdare.com/articles/claes-ryn-allan-bloom-leo-strauss-and-me

    You may be left alone after you endorse a creed that is so universal that any individual who does not join it must be killed.

    This is what passes for the intellectual elite among neocons.

    Maybe if the Rockefellers had given more people, or different people, passage and sinecures as Strauss enjoyed, perhaps the neocons would not be so crabby and genocidally-inclined.

    Read More
  120. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sean

    In my youth, I was struck by the malice with which New York Jewish visitors to Florida described their road trips through the land of “rural bigots.” Next to the Germans, whom they assured me—the child of Austrian Jewish immigrants—were all Nazis, these Southern “anti-Semites” were the most unpalatable humans they were forced to share the planet with.
     
    Paul Gottfried apparently wasn't brought up in the New York tradition, so he is hardly evidence that upbringing isn't overwhelmingly important. On the other hand, I don't suppose schoolboys in the south got the feeling they were being persecuted by blacks like Norman Podhoretz did in NYC.

    The actual flag being complained about was adopted purely as a military convenience to, as General P. G. T. Beauregard put it, know our friends from our Enemies. Carl Schmitt saw that as the basis of politics, he was known for seeing no conflict between good and evil, just power struggles in which the thing is to win and impose one's own order. Paul Gottfried wrote about Schmitt.


    Value-indoctrination through political education and public policy has become increasingly important in pluralistic democracies combined with administrative states. Schmitt's remarks on liberalism and democracy illuminate this modern paradox of pluralistic societies imposing particular values by shame or by force. In the absence of settled community, such societies are left with an unpleasant choice: the persuasiveness of the political, which Schmitt understood as steadily erupting conflict, or the imposition of values created by intellectuals but reputed to be universal. There may be no way to avoid one or the other and it may even be possible to suffer both fates simultaneously.
     
    I have read that neocons actually believe there are true values, but the masses can't be trusted to understand them, so wise men (the neocons) have to conceal what they are about.

    That’s Plato’s thing–the “noble lie”–not the neocons’. Not that they don’t agree, but so have plenty of other people. Attributing unique belief in the noble lie to neocons, which for some reason or other caught on around the time of Iraq War II, is overarguing. Not only are they wrong, we’re saying, but they know it and they don’t even care! If only. I assure you they believe what they say, at least as much as the next lying, scumbag politician/ideologue.

    You have to lie, brazenly, to pull off something like Iraq II, you might say. Yes, but you also have to lie to yourself and others to convince anyone that there’s no such thing as race, for instance, or that Social Security or Obamacare is a good idea, or any of the many absurdities which pass as normal. I’ve read Strauss’ “Persecution and the Art of Writing,” and one giant point too often left out is that the “esoteric” messages he’s talking about are written at times when telling the truth is dangerous. Plato’s mentor, Socrates, was put to death for his teaching, remember. When Strauss wrote the Soviet Union still existed. Needless to say lying there coukd be justifiable on grounds here irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    It one gives evidence on oath, the oath does not involves swearing that one has always told the truth on every occasion. It is a lawyer's ploy to ask a witness if they ever tell lies, everyone has told little white or "noble" lies.

    Iraq II was pulled off by Office of Special Plans using the same methods as Team B. Shulsky said quite openly that he was using a 'that's what they want us to think' analysis. In other words the neocons assumed the whole US intelligence apparatus was being fooled just as Team B (with Pipes senior) had assumed a generation before. Young Pipes will no doubt have some follower on the threat analysis team that recommends war with Iran. Shulsky published a paper on 'Leo Strauss and the world of intelligence', comparing him to the fictional master spy George Smiley's ability to look beneath the surface appearance of things and determine the truth.

    The Straussian reading of Plato was the Philosophers alone have knowledge of the truth, and must keep this secret from the deluded masses (addled by adherence to patriotism, permissiveness and even religion) lest society require philosophers to drink the hemlock. Neocons, partly at least, came from Trotskyism which considered itself the truth. So neocons are not denying an ultimate transcending truth exists, when they say, as they do, that society is not ready for a particular fact.

    Carl Schmitt disbelieved in the existence of any transcending truth. For him once there is no common ground the real meaning of politics as a struggle between our friends and the foe comes into focus. In his first address to Congress Lincoln said the leaders of the South dreamt of abolishing popular government in the South, and that they were backed by all the crowned heads of Europe. Lincoln made himself a dictator (as Washington had). Schmitt called Lincoln a commissarial dictator.

    For Schmitt (and I suppose perhaps for Lincoln) the enemy had to be beaten, but were not an enormity that had to be destroyed. The neocon take on the South is that it's an extant evil.

  121. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    The Southern States were excising their constitutionally arguable right to secede from the Union therefore there was no treachery. The issue should have been settled in a court of law and not on the battlefield. That a civil war was fought shows that the US Constitution is indeed a purposefully flawed document that allows for endless war(s) and erosion of freedom, whether “legal” or not. Under the Articles of Confederation it is doubtful anyone would have had the will or the $$$ to go war and America would be a much different (better??) place with much less .gov in your face.

    Read More
  122. @Jeff77450
    Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, "Once being brought up in a tradition, your worldview is *largely* set."

    Or, "Being brought up in a well defined, well articulated tradition goes a long way towards influencing the development of an individual's worldview."

    Now that I have thought about it some more, what Sean wrote is likely correct. Some of us just fall through the cracks.

    Read More
  123. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @albert
    The Republican "BATTLE FLAG" is a WHITE CLOTH.

    --------------------------
    You are offended by my Confederate flag? -----JE SUIS CHARLIE HEBDO ! ------
    That is what they piously preached to the muslims when they offended them..
    JE SUIS CHARLIE HEBDO as long as "they" approve ............... actually the Confederate flag is not about race, but about COMRADE-UNCLE-Sam --it's a symbol against the over reaching police state of federalism. Just as is the GADSDEN flag. Go examine the photos of early 1900's Ku Klux Klan rallies, those are "AMERICAN" flags the Klan is carrying.
    ALL traces/symbols of FREEDOM are being erased. Andrew Jackson who DARED stand up to the International BANKERS is under attack on the $20
    "The American people, North and South, went into the [Civil] war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects ... what they thus lost they have never got back." H. L. Mencken
    All those CongressSCUM who voted for Obamatrade are every so quickly running around trying to get removed any statue or symbol from the era of the Civil War. Such are the last reminder to a brainwashed public that once upon a time Americans fought against what is happening everywhere nowadays.
    Mel Gibson suppressed because EVERY one of his movies preached FREEDOM

    NO- the Republicant’s battle flag is a white eagle on a white background…

    Read More
  124. ‘Neoconservatives have long stood out from other Republicans and members of Conservatism Inc. by virtue of the intensity of their loathing for the white South’…

    Because they are essentially Jewish in conceptual origin, when in late 1960s after Six Day War happened in mid east, the Jewish left in USA suddenly became alarmed that the then anti war left could not be trusted to fight for Israel, hence the conceptual shift into NeoCon ideology for many previously Democrat leftist USA Jews.

    This was a curious shift, as they came with many social ideas of an ethnic minority but with the Hawkish intent of military supply and action to secure Israel. NeoCons are not true Conservatives in any sense, but an artificial hijacking of the right by the Jewish foreign affairs and monetarist think tanks, who are militant on mid east affairs and monetary policy – but retain many liberal ideas on domestic social issues and a strong aversion to traditional Conservative ( ie the national founding narrative) Christian state symbolism.

    Read More
  125. @NewUnderground
    Why do you worship traitors and terrorists. THe white southern history=Nazi Germany. Pigs.

    @New Underground:
    Apparently you don’t know what a traitor or a terrorist is, and you haven’t read much of what I have posted. It’s also apparent that you don’t know much about either the history of the South or of Nazi Germany if you compare the two places.

    I don’t long for the old-South. If I were anything like my ancestors, I would be a small farmer competing with slavery. What I would like is to be a Southerner in a free South. Free of people like you.

    I have no idea what kind of people my ancestors were on a personal level, but I do know that they weren’t what people like you accuse them of being. They weren’t slave owners, and they didn’t live off the labor, blood or productivity of others. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for not being rapists of anyone, black or white. I don’t worship my ancestors, but I do honor their sacrifices and the deaths of the ones who fought and died in the War, which is as it should be.

    My guess is that you are Jewish and possibly even a hasbarist due to your Nazi obsession, and for the use of pig as a slur.

    Read More
  126. NewUnderground says,”…I have been bashing the not so neo nazi south for decades. Your history is worse than Nazi Germany because it was allowed to fester for so long. Southerners are disgusting in their worship of teh traitors and terrorists the old south represents. Sherman didn’t do enough…”

    You should really show us evil Southerners whose boss and kick us out of the Union.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oh its just me
    normally i'd say someone as stupid as "NewUnderground " is a troll, but sadly enough plenty of people like him exist.
  127. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Allen Guelzo as well is another who has shown himself to be a Lincoln Cultist south hater in the New England Puritan manner. See his essay in the July issue of “National Review” concerning the Confederate Battle Flag.

    Read More
  128. I think the neocon/globalist elite -want a fight – the sjw are just cowards who know they have a big brother behind them to back them up. 99% wouldn’t have the guts to do what they are doing if they didn’t have big government, big academia behind them.

    The funny thing is they fool themselves that they are counter culture.

    Yes, I think a fight is coming. We didn’t chose our enemies, our enemies chose us.

    Read More
  129. @Sam J.
    NewUnderground says,"...I have been bashing the not so neo nazi south for decades. Your history is worse than Nazi Germany because it was allowed to fester for so long. Southerners are disgusting in their worship of teh traitors and terrorists the old south represents. Sherman didn’t do enough..."

    You should really show us evil Southerners whose boss and kick us out of the Union.

    normally i’d say someone as stupid as “NewUnderground ” is a troll, but sadly enough plenty of people like him exist.

    Read More
  130. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @random observer
    Off topic insofar as I agree with Gottfried's points, but technically why wouldn't the Confederates be traitors to the US? Born citizens of it, they abjured that allegiance and levied war against it [the explicit constitutional definition of treason against the United States].

    None of that necessarily detracts from the rights of the states to secede, it merely observes an inconsistency between that right and the undoubted facts that the citizens of those states were US citizens and the constitution defined their actions as treason.

    If anything, it demands a more nuanced approach to anyone who is called a traitor in any situation. It might be possible to be both a traitor and within one's rights, or even to be right.

    The South did not levy war against the US. It sent peace commissioners who were imprisoned. Ir offered the garrison at Fort Sumter to vacate and be fed while compensation for federal property was arrainged. The garrison refused and prepared to collect taxes on seceded South Carolina’s goods. Lincoln then attempted to reinforce the garrison, which provoked the firing. The acts initiating war came from the North. Furthermore, treason is clearly defined in the Constitution. The South did not wage war on the other States our attempt to subvert the Federal government. Lincoln did both. Your concept of “alliegence” and “US” born citizens is a post Lincoln bayonet forced idea. We were citizens of our respective States with the complete freedom to move and change that.

    Read More
  131. “The South did not levy war against the US. It sent peace commissioners who were imprisoned. Ir offered the garrison at Fort Sumter to vacate and be fed while compensation for federal property was arrainged. The garrison refused and prepared to collect taxes on seceded South Carolina’s goods. Lincoln then attempted to reinforce the garrison, which provoked the firing. ”

    Yeah, but in retrospect it seems like a stupid move. Hindsight is 20/20, but I’ve read several convincing arguments that if Fort Sumter hadn’t been fired on, the War well could not have happened, and the South would have split, if not amicably, and not without future conflict being on the table concerning western expansion.

    People tend to forget about it though, but there was considerable ambivalence on both sides about this war (“It’s not really my fight”) and a number of states that voted to join the conflict might not have if those Citadel cadets hadn’t got jolly.

    I guess we’ll never know, but while the whole North disapproved of slavery, not all of them were really gung ho like New England abolitionists to jump into the conflict. That all changed after Fort Sumter.

    But that also neglects the fact that a number of counties in the Appalachian and other regions of the South never actually “rebelled.” You can find a number of counties in upstate South Carolina even that actually didn’t join the rebellion – although practically given the geography and the inevitable attraction of young men to join “great causes” they did. I’ve also read of lowland counties in Mississippi and Louisiana that technically weren’t on board with the whole thing.

    This leads me to a curious position. I had ancestors that fought on the southern side in the Civil War. I don’t particularly have any feelings about the “Confederate Battle Flag” (except to push the buttons of someone in San Francisco or New York). I wholeheartedly support Rebel Flags on Trucks, and businesses named “Dixie” something. But in my opinion I’m not so sure they know or have ever thought much about what it all meant.

    But make no mistake about it, I personally hate the planter class and actually wouldn’t mind pissing on the grave of one (and I have so very many to choose from).

    Personally I don’t think Slavery would have lasted another 30 years, but that is my take on it. But I have zero confidence in the abilities of the planters to have created a society that wasn’t FUBAR.

    Read More
  132. @Anonymous
    That's Plato's thing--the "noble lie"--not the neocons'. Not that they don't agree, but so have plenty of other people. Attributing unique belief in the noble lie to neocons, which for some reason or other caught on around the time of Iraq War II, is overarguing. Not only are they wrong, we're saying, but they know it and they don't even care! If only. I assure you they believe what they say, at least as much as the next lying, scumbag politician/ideologue.

    You have to lie, brazenly, to pull off something like Iraq II, you might say. Yes, but you also have to lie to yourself and others to convince anyone that there's no such thing as race, for instance, or that Social Security or Obamacare is a good idea, or any of the many absurdities which pass as normal. I've read Strauss' "Persecution and the Art of Writing," and one giant point too often left out is that the "esoteric" messages he's talking about are written at times when telling the truth is dangerous. Plato's mentor, Socrates, was put to death for his teaching, remember. When Strauss wrote the Soviet Union still existed. Needless to say lying there coukd be justifiable on grounds here irrelevant.

    It one gives evidence on oath, the oath does not involves swearing that one has always told the truth on every occasion. It is a lawyer’s ploy to ask a witness if they ever tell lies, everyone has told little white or “noble” lies.

    Iraq II was pulled off by Office of Special Plans using the same methods as Team B. Shulsky said quite openly that he was using a ‘that’s what they want us to think’ analysis. In other words the neocons assumed the whole US intelligence apparatus was being fooled just as Team B (with Pipes senior) had assumed a generation before. Young Pipes will no doubt have some follower on the threat analysis team that recommends war with Iran. Shulsky published a paper on ‘Leo Strauss and the world of intelligence’, comparing him to the fictional master spy George Smiley’s ability to look beneath the surface appearance of things and determine the truth.

    The Straussian reading of Plato was the Philosophers alone have knowledge of the truth, and must keep this secret from the deluded masses (addled by adherence to patriotism, permissiveness and even religion) lest society require philosophers to drink the hemlock. Neocons, partly at least, came from Trotskyism which considered itself the truth. So neocons are not denying an ultimate transcending truth exists, when they say, as they do, that society is not ready for a particular fact.

    Carl Schmitt disbelieved in the existence of any transcending truth. For him once there is no common ground the real meaning of politics as a struggle between our friends and the foe comes into focus. In his first address to Congress Lincoln said the leaders of the South dreamt of abolishing popular government in the South, and that they were backed by all the crowned heads of Europe. Lincoln made himself a dictator (as Washington had). Schmitt called Lincoln a commissarial dictator.

    For Schmitt (and I suppose perhaps for Lincoln) the enemy had to be beaten, but were not an enormity that had to be destroyed. The neocon take on the South is that it’s an extant evil.

    Read More
  133. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @random observer
    Also, what had the North done to the Constitution that was a bigger violation of states' rights than the Fugitive Slave Act?

    More specifically, what did the North do to the Constitution in 1860? Secession started before the Union called for troops to invade the South. The former spurred the latter. All the North had done was elect a president the South didn't like.

    “All the North had done was elect a president the South didn’t like.”

    It was a President who supported the Morill Tariff Act; the one that placed a 47% tariff on Southern Goods exported out of the US in order to force sale to Northern Manufacturies at their prices.

    A tax that remained in place until Woodrow Wilson became President; the South wasn’t “pi**y” about slavery, they were upset over fifty years of legal robbery by the North. You know, the same manufacturies that sent all of those jobs out of the country; so they could steal from EVERYONE, not just the South.

    Read More
  134. In a perverse sort of way, I will be glad when the hate speech laws are put into place. Saying that the War was fought over tariffs will get people burned at the stake and rightly so.

    Read More
  135. […] Republicans in office. For example, here’s Gottfried again in a piece entitled “The NeoCons’ Confederate Problem.” And if you have the stomach for it, watch Republican Jenny Horne screech that the […]

    Read More
  136. @iffen
    Are there any generous people out there that are willing to send me some buckets? I have filled all of mine with the crocodile tears that have been shed for the poor Palestinians and do not have any to collect the flood of tears flowing on behalf of Southern whites.

    I don’t have any for tears, but I’ve got some you can use to hold your snide and snotty bullsh*t.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS