At the conclusion of Zaid Jilani’s Neoconservatives Declare War on Donald Trump, he writes:
With Trump’s ascendancy, it’s possible that the parties will reorient their views on war and peace, with Trump moving the GOP to a more dovish direction and Clinton moving the Democrats towards greater support for war.
Even if Democrats come to dominate in the US, having conservatives identify as dovish would be a wonderful thing.
This would lead to a natural dichotomy between empire and GK Chesterton’s Patriotic Idea. Secessionists (eg. Basques and Catalans) and non-interventionists would come to be seen in a positive light. No longer would the left-wing enjoy the moral high ground, and conservatism, rather than Sanders’s socialism, might come to be in vogue among students.
In other news, Brexit is now the majority choice. The EU has been a disaster, and I hope a breakup leads to greater peace and stability. Following the EU might go NATO. And following NATO we might see the break up of Russia, which would hopefully not lead to a Napoleon of Notting Hill scenario.
“Don’t you really think the sacred Notting Hill at all absurd?”
“Absurd?” asked Wayne, blankly. “Why should I?”
The King stared back equally blankly.
“I beg your pardon?” he said.
“Notting Hill,” said the Provost, simply, “is a rise or high ground
of the common earth, on which men have built houses to live,
in which they are born, fall in love, pray, marry, and die.
Why should I think it absurd?”
How humane you are, how tender, how considerate. You will make war
for a frontier, or the imports of a foreign harbour; you will shed
blood for the precise duty on lace, or the salute to an admiral.
But for the things that make life itself worthy or miserable…how
humane you are.
This is a great column length explanation for why states have a right to secede. It hits all the high points.
Paul Gottfried has a good article at Unz.com on the Confederate Battle Flag.
The most interesting aspect of the war against Confederate symbols is not its predictable backing from black activist groups or the leftist media or members of the Rainbow Coalition. Those are the sources of support one would expect to find in this campaign. Far more striking is the overwhelming, effusive help that is coming from elements of what is imagined to be the conservative movement. Whether we look at the Murdoch media, listen to Republican office-holders throughout the South, or read statements prepared for our capitalist CEOs, the message is hardly different from that of black civil rights activists and organizational heads. Not at all surprising is the evidence of the usual Republican game of triangulating, which takes the form of doing anything to win groups on the left while assuming that what there is of a Right will stay with the GOP. Unfortunately, this game has done very well among Southern whites, who continue to vote overwhelmingly for any so-called moderate the party throws at them, whether McCain, W, or Lindsey Graham.
I have created a Facebook page for my pending book in defense of the Confederate Battle Flag. Please visit it and like it as you see fit. Thanks.
I have set up a blog for the Confederate Battle Flag book I am working on.
It is at www.keepherflying.wordpress.com
Yesterday I posted this on Facebook. So far it has gotten a lot of likes and comments:
The events of the past couple of weeks have inspired me to write a book in defense of the Confederate Battle Flag. I keep seeing and having the same debates over and over again, so it occurs to me that someone should record these common arguments in a handy form for use by our side. I’m announcing this publicly in order to keep my feet to the fire and avoid procrastination. More to come.
I posted this mainly to force my hand. Now I have no choice but to produce a book.
I have already expressed my disappointment with Donald Trump for so easily and reflexively going with the tide against the Confederate Battle Flag, but the fact that the PC ninnies are going after Trump on immigration, at least means he is doing something right.
Trump is impetuous and not really intellectually grounded in any sort of fundamental political philosophy other than economic nationalism and American patriotism, so I don’t think he thinks everything through. One point about the Battle Flag that I have been making as often as anyone will listen, is that this isn’t just about the Flag. It is about the Cultural Marxist Rightthink Borg flexing its muscle and demonstrating its power. So efforts to take down the Flag should be opposed on general principles by anyone who opposes the Cultural Marxist agenda. This is why it was not in Trump’s best interests to come out openly against the Flag. He could have at least deferred to the people of South Carolina as some other Presidential candidates have done. You can’t concede to the PC Rightthink Gestapo on one front (the Flag) and then resist them on another (immigration), because the Cultural Marxist agenda is all of a piece. It is about nothing less than the destruction of traditional Western and Christian society.
Trump clearly has talents that have allowed him to make a lot of money, but paradoxically, he also strikes me as somewhat naive. I really wonder if he saw this backlash coming. Some cynics have said that Trump is in it to “build his brand,” but I disagree, because I think his campaign is likely to hurt his business fortunes. If Trump ran a string of Southern and Midwestern BBQ joints, then it might help his business, but he doesn’t. He builds and runs properties that are intended to cater to high end clientele, and such people tend to be PC poseurs because they are insulated from the real world and can afford to be. I’m disappointed with the position Trump took on the Flag, but I am not cynical about his campaign. I genuinely think that Trump thinks he would be a good President. I hope the attacks against him by the PC Stormtroopers for his entirely common sense position on immigration wake him up to the true nature of the Beast we are fighting. Defending the Battle Flag is part of that common struggle.
This has got to be one of the most bizarre things I have seen regarding the flag flap yet. It is an op-ed in the Washington Times, by Bruce Fein, that suggests that Congress should ban the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag (and other Confederate Flags I presume) on state grounds. It is mostly an explanation of the legal grounds on which this could be done. I don’t dispute the legal analysis, because the legal analysis is the least of the issues. This is very disappointing and surprising coming from Bruce Fein, who is closely associated in my mind with Ron Paul and has been at the forefront of the fight against the Patriot Act and making the case that fast track and the TPP are unconstitutional.
This strikes me as rank PC grandstanding. What I have previously called PC Peacocking. “Hey everyone, look at me! I’m a rightthinker, not one of them dirty ol’ wrongthinkers!” The states have a right to secede. The Confederate states peacefully seceded as was their right. Lincoln was wrong to invade them to “save” the Union. End of story. So is Bruce Fein a “strong compact” guy? Does he deny the right to secede? Or does he concede the right to secede, but just wants to make sure everyone knows he is a rightthinker?
Fein also reinforces the Cultural Marxist narrative, because he reinforces the simplistic morality tale of evil South and virtuous North. What about the slaveholding border states, Bruce? What about Lincoln’s clear expression that he was not going to war to free the slaves but rather to “save” the Union? What about the constitutional amendment Lincoln supported to forever enshrine slavery? So yes, slavery was a cause of secession, but it was not the cause of the War. There was one and only one cause of the War. Lincoln invaded us. No invasion, no war. So why is the Confederate Battle Flag not a “badge and incident” of secession, which is a right to be cherished, instead?
I’m not telling Fein anything he doesn’t know, but these things generally come as a package. People who support the “strong compact” theory usually reject strict “enumerated powers” doctrine and believe in a broad interpretation of the commerce clause, the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause. People who support the “loose compact” theory generally reject a broad interpretation of these. So is Fein a strong compact guy but also a strict enumerate powers guy, or is he a loose compact guy as one would assume based on his other positions, but just wants to make sure he inoculates himself against charges of wrongthink because of the crowd he runs with or the other Constitutional positions he takes? You can concede that slavery was a motivating factor in secession without muddling the issue of secession itself or the legal doctrines that generally flow with that. You can also do so without PC Clowning yourself and empowering the Cultural Marxist mindset that scoffs at your whole constitutionally constrained limited government concept because it hinders their leveling schemes.
In a post below, Hawthorne suggested that I should go “all in” for Trump as the best way to gin up some useful political theater. I was seriously considering it, although I still had some angst about whether or not I should support Rand Paul. Trump is not the best on all the issues, although he is the best on trade deals and building a wall, but he is a generalized “stick a thumb in the eye of the Regime” candidate. That is why I was very disappointed to read that he joined the anti-Confederate Battle Flag PC fest. (I literally crossed my fingers when I Googled to see if he had made a statement, hoping I wouldn’t be disappointed.) I was really hoping he would denounce the hysteria or at least defer to the people of South Carolina on the issue, but he chose to make a definitive statement in support of removing the flag, so I will not be supporting him.
I don’t really blame Trump as much as I do some of the other clowns. He was born in Queens, NY, had a typical American education and has not really been a part of a political milieu where he would learn better, or at least come to understand the sensibilities of some on the issue. Rand Paul and Rick Perry, for example, have no such excuse. But Trump is a fiesty contrarian and those instincts should have at least lead him to bite his tongue on the issue. The two candidates I was considering, Rand and Trump, have let me down. As of now, I have absolutely no one to support in the Republican primary. Unless someone acceptable gets in, I guess it’s time to start looking at who is running for the Constitution Party nomination.
This defection hurts more than most of the others. I have been critical of Rand, but I was still considering supporting him and voting for him as the best of a bunch of poor alternatives. He just made that decision easier. I will not vote for a flag turncoat. The Battle Flag is a test of whether or not you will stand up to the PC Rightthink Borg. Rand failed. At least he has relieved me of the angst I was having about whether I should support him out of deference to his father.