WEBSTER'S BLOGSPOT

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

After you've read Islam 101, then what?

Well, I would recommend (though others may disagree) that you make use of the Lawrence Auster page on Islam, specifically The Search for Moderate Islam, Part I, Does it exist?

The entire series is posted at FrontPageMag and linked up over at the aforementioned Lawrence Auster on Islam page. But just to wet your appetite, I'll extract a passage from Part I of the series and post it here.

Mr. Auster writes:

The issue is momentous. If we subscribe to the promise of a moderate Islam, we will make its cultivation the central focus and goal in the war against militant Islam. If this moderate Islam in fact exists, our efforts may help Muslims transform their civilization for the better and relieve the world of the curse of Muslim extremism. But if moderate Islam does not exist, yet we delude ourselves into thinking that it exists, we would inevitably find ourselves trapped in a cultural equivalent of the Oslo "peace process," forever negotiating with and empowering our mortal enemies in the pathetic hope that they will turn out to be friends. Alternatively, if we understand that there is no such thing and can be no such thing as moderate Islam, that would obviously result in very different policies.

As I said before, this article (among many others) is provided for your convenience in the left sidebar of this blog in a handy-dandy easy to use format. Enjoy!

Updates to the On Islam section

Once again, for anyone not familiar with this section of the blog yet, this is located in the left sidebar of Webster's under the heading On Islam.

We've now added more articles to the Lawrence Auster page, as well as updating the introduction to the page. But the page itself is by no means finished as yet, neither with regard to the articles collected there, nor regarding the introduction, which, in its current state is just an expansion of a temporary intro until I can put together a better one (basically this means I need to become more familiar with the articles themselves, then I can write a proper introduction to the page). Your comments and suggestions on the page are welcome, and we've provided a comments button in the nav bar to accomodate them should you have any pertaining to that page particularly.

Also, I've added Mr. Tefft's FrontPage interview under the aforementioned section in the left sidebar. Y'all stay tuned and stay on the lookout for more additions, both to the section in question and to the Lawrence Auster page we've put together. Compiling all this material under one heading has really been fun and enlightening, and I have a few more ideas for improving on what we've done so far.

Again, your comments and suggestions are very welcome and will be well received, I assure you. Thanks to everyone again, particularly CTO, Lawrence Auster, and John Savage. Your assistance so far has been invaluable.

FrontPage interview with Bruce Tefft

More on the incompatibility of Islam with the West

I was over at VFR earlier scanning Auster's new articles when this one caught my attention. Certainly I was compelled to go over to FrontPage Mag. and read the entire interview with Mr. Tefft, so I did, and here's something intriguing that I found and thought I would share. At one point in the interview Tefft concludes his answer to an FP question in the following manner:

Tefft:

... But I'm an ex-spy, not a theologian -- from the spy-war aspect, the best thing the West can do in this war with Islam is to publicize and support morally and monetarily the apostates and ex-Muslims. They know the evils of Islam better than any outsider.

When I read this at first it sounded good and reasonable and made a lot of sense to me. Certainly a Muslim apostate/ex-Muslim who has renounced the religion of Islam would know much more than an outsider about the evils of, and inherent to Islam. And it cannot be bad, if Islam is so evil, for a Muslim to come to the light and renounce his faith in the religion of Mohammed, can it? Therefore we should publicize and fund these people, right? Then I came to my senses and recalled the Islamic principle of Taqiyya, or religious deception. In fact, earlier in the interview Tefft makes light of the practice of this principle in Islam when he states:

For a Muslim to pledge allegiance to a non-Muslim nation state would be either hypocritical or blasphemous -- something a true Muslim would not, or could not do. This is the case unless he was under a special jihadist dispensation from an Islamic cleric (as the 9/11 hijackers were) to infiltrate enemy territory and to act as the enemy does, in order to perform his mission. (italics added)

But further explanation of the principle, how it may be used and to what extent, may be found in Gregory M. Davis's excellent summation on the principles of Islam, Islam 101.

Mr. Davis writes:

Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one's neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy. It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement -- and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb -- impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions. Jihad Watch's own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception. (italics added)

So, what are we to conclude from this? Well, the conclusion I draw from it is that it would be virtually impossible to determine for sure whether you were dealing with a legitimate and sincere apostate/ex-Muslim given this principle of taqiyya in Islam to deceive the enemy in pursuit of victory over him. I mean, if the supposed apostate, working under the principle of taqiyya as described here is going to, in Tefft's words, "act as the enemy does," then he's going to dress like him, talk like him, groom himself like him, and most importantly rail against the evils and injustices of his true faith in accordance with his underlying purpose of accomplishing his mission, is he not?

So what is the answer to this dilemma? If we have no way of knowing who we're dealing with, friend or foe acting as friend, due to the deceitfulness authorized of his religion/former religion when we meet up with an "ex-Muslim"/"apostate," then what should be our approach to him? Is the answer not lying within the principles of separationism? Is it not to be skeptical of and distrust him to the point that we materially restrict his ability to harm us by his deceit, should he be operating under the principle of taqiyya or kitman -- the principle of deceiving his enemy in any way he can to accomplish his mission? Should we not thwart his mission before his mission ever gets underway?

CAIR offers its perspective on "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week"

CAIR, for anyone who doesn't know, is the acronym for the questionable Muslim lobby group "Council on American-Islamic Relations." In this CAIR article, College talk raises awareness of Islamophobia, the concerns raised by Lawrence Auster and some of the contributors involved in the VFR discussion I linked to in the preceding post are confirmed within the very title of the CAIR article.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week has served, on this campus at least, to raise awareness of the greater danger, "Islamophobia." The "awareness" has indeed shifted, as predicted at VFR, from so-called Islamo-Fascism to that of Islamophobia. In other words, in trying to raise the "awareness" of college students and faculty on college campuses across America to Muslim extremism, the organizers of this concerted event have inadvertently aided in the promotion and cause of Islam in this country. Muslims have, in predictable fashion, seized upon the opportunity handed to them on a silver "Islamo-Fascism" platter, to turn the event into a greater awareness of the dangers of Islamophobia.

How could an impressionable, liberal educated, undiscerning college kid come away from such a presentation so named with anything other than a confirmation of what he's most likely been led to believe all along anyhow?: That religious bigotry and extremism is as prevalent in Christianity, if not more so, as it ever was in Islam; that the problem is not Islam, but religious fanaticism?

And who are the religious fanatics which most threaten the rights of women and homosexuals (and Muslims) in this country. Certainly not Islamo-Fascists. No; they are people like myself and Lawrence Auster and countless other Christians and traditionalists who seek to raise the only kind of awareness relevant to the question of Islam in America - that it is an extreme religion by its very nature, and thus incompatible with Western culture, values, and society.

The real Islamo-Fascism Awareness

By the way, don't miss the ongoing discussion over at VFR on Islamo-Fascism Week, where, as I've intimated in the title to this post, the real and actual "Islamo-Fascism Awareness" is being hashed out. Namely, that the term Islamo-Fascism is a nutty liberal term to begin with, and the efforts of David Horowitz in raising this awareness on college campuses across the fruited plain is just as nutty and ill-conceived.

Here is pearl plucked from Lawrence Auster's initial entry:

Again, both the crazy left, and the somewhat less crazy Horowitz right, believe that Muslims are innocent victims, and must be rescued. The left wants to rescue them from America, Horowitz wants to rescue them from Islamo-fascism. But leftists and Horowitz agree that the principal object of our solicitude is Muslims. Horowitz is not seeking to protect us from Muslims, he's seeking to protect Muslims from Islamo-fascists. And that is insane.

I'm reminded here of Auster's excellent FrontPage article, The Key to Jihadist Ideology and Strategy, which is included on Auster's page On Islam in the left sidebar of this blog for your future reference.

Muslim chairwoman offended by Okla. State Lawmaker

Marjenah Seirafi-Pour, a Muslim and the chairman of Gov. Brad Henry's "Ethnic American Advisory Council" is denouncing State Representative Rex Duncan's assessment of Islam that it is an extreme ideology.

Apparently Miss Seirafi-Pour takes exception to Representative Duncan's statement that Islam is an ideology which encourages the murder of innocent women and children. She says it is not an ideology, but a religion. Ok, so it's a religion. And what is a religion? See here.

Representative Duncan was joined by sixteen other Oklahoma lawmakers in rejecting a gift from the council of a copy of the Quran.

I only have a couple of questions, to whomever they may concern:

1. Where's the evidence showing that Islam is a "very peaceful, very inclusive religion," as Seirafi-Pour insists?

2. What's a Muslim doing chairing this council, Governor Henry???

In a related story in the McAlester News Capital, Wednesday edition, it is reported that members of the council are going to offer to meet with the representatives who refused to take the gifts. The idea being, of course, to re-educate these representatives on the "peaceful," "inclusive" nature of the religion of Mohammed. In other words, to acculturate them to Islam.

I'll be contacting Representative Duncan's office this morning, recommending that he read and pass around to his compatriots some of the articles I've collected on the subject here at Webster's. (I have now done this.)

More later.

Some people just have to be controlled

And over at Mike's personal blog, he laments that the city of Chicago is such a permissive city that it allows homosexual encounters to occur in public places where decent people retreat to pursue decent interests such as bird watching.

Now I ask, what kind of a moral ingrate is it that either engages in or defends the practice of sexual interludes in public and in broad daylight? Moreover, what kind of a society is it that permits that kind of behavior in a public place, in broad daylight?

Such activities simply have no place in a civilized society. Which makes me question at times how civilized our society really is.

Amending the Constitution - the right way

(Update: The commenter calling himself "statusquobuster" has provided us with the url to the site of a group calling itself "Friends of the Article V Convention," or FOAVC. I've embedded the hyperlink to the site, as you can see, within the group's name itself. Y'all be sure and check it out, there's some interesting information I certainly wasn't aware of gathered at the site.)

My good friend, Mike Tams, has a nice post up over at the AFB concerning the Article V provisions for amending the U.S. Constitution, ummmm, constitutionally. Since this has been one of my favorite topics of discussion ever since I first discovered the distinctive provisions of Article V a few years ago, Mike's post really resonates with me...

As I said in my comments to the post, there are basically three methods of amending the constitution, only two of which are provided for in Article V. The other method - the liberal method - is illegitimate precisely because it is in the truest sense of the term "extra-constitutional." And by the way, my fellow AFBers know that when I hear the term "unconstitutional" bandied about, by liberals or conservatives, I usually just dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because first of all to many conservatives, anything "liberal" is considered unconstitutional, and vice versa. And second, since the people retain ultimate and final authority to themselves, it is they themselves who will ultimately determine what is or isn't "constitutional" either directly or indirectly.

Now, as a conservative and a traditionalist, I find it thoroughly non-traditionalist and non-conservative to alter the existing constitution by any means other than that provided for in the constitution itself. So when liberals use their preferred (extra-constitutional) method of amending the constitution -the federal courts- so effectively in establishing as dominant the destructive ideology of liberalism in America, I can think of but one proper, legitimate, and effective remedy: a constitutional amendment via the second provision of article V restricting the self-destructive influence of liberalism itself - a return to balanced constitutional government. Indeed, if this is not the purpose of having a written constitution, not to mention the second of the article V provisions itself, then I don't know what is.

And by the way, for anyone wondering what such an amendment would look like, or read like, I'll refer you to Lawrence Auster's skeletal amendment proposal from a couple of months back as I recall. This VFR article is permanently linked in the left sidebar of this blog under the heading Select VFR Articles.

Back to it at Webster's

My apologies to everyone for my recent unannounced absence. Time and circumstances didn't allow for a pre-departure announcement, nor for a firm return date. I'm back now, however, and I have several items I'll be attending to on the blog in the coming days. For one, the Lawrence Auster on Islam page will be revised and expanded to include several more articles under the heading of "Non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism." The addition of these articles to the page will require a proper introduction to them, of course. So there's yet another item I'll be working on, among other things. So I guess I better get started.

Oklahoma cotton farmers don't cotton to Oklahoma law

Oklahoma cotton farmer, Rann Williams, is quoted in a Daily Oklahoman story from Sunday, Oct. 21 as saying if his illegal Mexican employees are shipped back to Mexico, he may as well go with them:

"Without our Hispanic workers, our economy here would collapse,” said Williams, vice president of the Humphreys Co-op board of directors. "If they were all shipped back to Mexico, I might as well go with them. We would have no cotton crop.

Who wants to wager that if they are shipped back Williams'll figure something out? As they say, "necessity is the mother of invention." You'd think a successful business owner/Co-op VP would understand that basic truth.

The problem, Mr. Williams, is that you're not seeing the big picture, so consumed with self as you are. But the people of Oklahoma have spoken through their legislature, so I'd suggest you get used to it.

Doing Auster Justice

I got in a big hurry to get the Lawrence Auster on Islam page up and running, neglecting to attend to the aesthetic details. You're invited to go over and check the page out now as it has undergone vast improvements which do Mr. Auster's writings on Islam the kind of justice I think they deserve.

Keep in mind that the page is still not finished. We have more links to add, and the intro (if you want to call it that) in the left column of the page was hastily done in an effort to establish margins in the column. In short I just needed to put something up in that column to look at and make the proper adjustments to.

But y'all go over and check it out. I'll probably make the final adjustments late tonight or in the morning. Thanks to everyone for their assistance in putting this page together, you know who you are.

Islamic Scholars on Islam

Under the new On Islam section in the left sidebar of this blog, I have posted a link to a page we created from a collection of Lawrence Auster's writings on Islam. In one of the VFR entries listed on this page, Sayyid Qutb on the meaning and purpose of Jihad (under the heading VFR Articles on the page), Auster shares with us the thoughts of Sayyid Qutb, who Andrew Bostom believes may be "the most important Sunni Islamic scholar of the twentieth century."

Auster writes:

It’s also interesting how much stress Qutb lays on the idea that war is not waged to force people to become Muslims, but rather to bring them under Islamic rule and thereby to free them to choose Islam freely. He seems to be saying that people are only truly free to choose Islam if they are under an Islamic ruler.

In the below excerpt Qutb shows how the Koranic command not to initiate hostilities with non-Muslims only applied during an earlier stage in the development of Islam. Step by step he shows how the command to wage jihad keeps expanding until it becomes a mandate to wage war against all non-Muslims in the world.

"He seems to be saying that people are only truly free to choose Islam if they are under an Islamic ruler."

So, under a non-Islamic ruler, or rule, according to Qutb, Terry Morris is not truly free to freely choose Islam over Christianity. Only under an Islamic ruler or rule, can Terry Morris be set free to freely choose Islam. Islamic war against me and against my religion (a religion I could not have chosen freely) then is actually war in my behalf and for my freedom; for my freedom from the oppressive influence of Christianity, to choose freely the religion of Mohammed. Under Islamic rule I would naturally choose Islam over Christianity, the latter being such an oppressive and delusional influence on my mind that I simply cannot know the truth of Islam. Only under Islamic rule can my mind be freed and my heart released to understand this truth. And that means war.

So to be "free" to choose Islam, I must be "freed" from all influences not Islamic. Which as I said means war, the goal of which is Islamic conquest, the result of which is all things Islam. To Islamists this is "freedom."

The full VFR entry may be read here.

Fix the errors or fix THE ERROR?

In the recent VFR thread, Judge stops government from enforcing immigration law, the commenter Buddy writes:

"Did you know that the Social Security database was riddled with errors? A program that's been in existence for over 70 years. Seventy years, and they still haven't figured out how to keep the information free of an egregious number of errors. The same federal program that consumes 25 percent of the federal budget. The Feds can't even be bothered to keep the information straight. Unbelievable.

Although it is possible that these "civil rights and labor groups" (media code words for liberal organizations) are exaggerating the extent of the problem in their effort to kill enforcement of immigration laws. It's interesting that their focus is to stop enforcement based on errors in the SS database, rather than to fix the errors in the database."

May I suggest that we begin working toward fixing the underlying error that has ever and always shall plague the Social Security system and its database, namely entrusting the federal government with the responsibility of collecting and redistributing "social security" payments. It's not a problem with the database fundamentally. And we see here a very good example of how the federal social securty system has an inherent flaw making it a very useful tool for the flouting of our laws, and for the advancement of the liberal cause.

Sephardic Jews or Arab-American Muslims?

I wrote about this specific revelation back on September 28th, here. But now I've discovered that Paul Sperry, author of Infiltration, How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington, has also documented such revelations in a collection of articles over at FrontPage Magazine. In this particular article, Jews need not apply to Fight Terrorism, Mr. Sperry reveals a few of the coincidences involved with why Arab-American Muslims were chosen for sensitive FBI translator positions over Jewish applicants post 911:

A chronic shortage of Arabic-speaking translators had resulted in an accumulation of thousands of hours of untranslated audiotapes and written material stored in FBI lockers.

The FBI's New York field office, at least, knew such delays were no longer acceptable after the 9-11 attack. The bureau's translators were the key to preventing another homeland strike, but they had to convert Arabic chatter to English faster. That meant hiring a lot more translators as quickly as possible.

So in October 2001, while rescue workers were still pulling remains from Ground Zero, two agents from the FBI's offices located nearby reached out to local Arabic-speaking Jews to do just that. Agents Carol Motyka and Marsha Parrish met with an official at the Sephardic Bikur Holim, a Jewish social-services agency in Brooklyn.

At the meeting, Yola Haber, who heads the agency's employment division, says she agreed to help recruit Arabic-speaking Jews for the bureau. Most of them applied on-line for the translator jobs. All told, she says she referred some 90 applicants, possibly more, to the FBI. They included retired linguists who had experience working for Israeli radio in Arabic and for the Israeli army.

Remarkably, not one of them was hired.

"We sent them a lot of people, and nobody made it to the finish line," complained Sephardic Bikur Holim director Doug Balin. "Not one person was found eligible for these jobs, which is outrageous."

Instead, the FBI hired dozens of Arab-American Muslims as translators.

The double standard doesn't sit well with Jewish leaders, who note that Muslim translators hired by the Pentagon to assist in al-Qaida interrogations are under investigation for espionage. And there have been reports of loyalty issues involving Muslim translators at the FBI.

So, from the beginning, it was a question of loyalty on the part of the Sephardic Jews who applied for these positions at the FBI. So much so that not a single one of them was hired. Apparently the issue of loyalty with regard to the Muslim applicants ultimately hired never came up until disloyal Arab-American Muslim translators had already been in these positions long enough to have successfully conducted espionage operations against the United States.

Unbelievable.

Auster on Islam

There won't be any more posts today at Webster's. But there's plenty for you to read up on in the absence of new entries. Under the new "On Islam" section in the left sidebar I have posted a permanent link to a page we created from Lawrence Auster's writings on Islam. The page includes Auster's writings on the subject at FrontPage, NewsMax, and at VFR. The page itself will undergo further improvements, but for the time being it is sufficient to its purpose.

Y'all be good.

Introducing: "On Islam"

That's the title of Webster's newest section in the left sidebar directly beneath the section titled "Select VFR Articles." I have a lot of reading to do before I add any new links to that section. But if any of you have any suggestions for items you think belong there, please let me know. Thanks.

Hirsi Ali on the Islamic threat to the West

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch has pointed me in the direction of his October 15th entry on Hirsi Ali's contention that the trouble with is Islam is really the trouble with the West.

Hirsi Ali:

"The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.

Here again, John provides us with the necessary links in his entry. Thanks to John for the heads up.

Converting others to the Principles of Separationism

Over at VFR I ask this question: "Since we can't control what Muslims do or decide to do, but we can control what we do or decide to do, I wonder if there's a strategy available to us which would help us to win more converts to the principles of separationism? It seems like we're trying to get people to believe what they don't want to believe about Islam, namely that it is wholly incompatible with Western civilization. Is there a way to make them understand what they apparently don't want to understand about Islam?" And LA answers me.

In short, there are no short cuts. We're just going to have to work harder.

Breaking down the "religion of peace."

Over at the AFB, Mike Tams has put up this entry providing the appropriate links to the articles of which he speaks where we may find such statements as this:

"The Quran's commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet's career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a "religion of peace.""

And this:

"Because Muhammad is himself the measuring stick of morality, his actions are not judged according to an independent moral standard but rather establish what the standard for Muslims properly is." (emphasis mine)

And this:

"There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms -- an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. -- whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah."

And finally a couple of concluding paragraphs:

"It is paramount to note, however, that, even if no major terrorist attack ever occurs on Western soil again, Islam still poses a mortal danger to the West. A halt to terrorism would simply mean a change in Islam’s tactics -- perhaps indicating a longer-term approach that would allow Muslim immigration and higher birth rates to bring Islam closer to victory before the next round of violence. It cannot be overemphasized that Muslim terrorism is a symptom of Islam that may increase or decrease in intensity while Islam proper remains permanently hostile."

"It must be emphasized that all of the analysis provided here derives from the Islamic sources themselves and is not the product of critical Western scholarship. (Indeed, most modern Western scholarship of Islam is hardly “critical” in any meaningful sense.) It is Islam’s self-interpretation that necessitates and glorifies violence, not any foreign interpretation of it."

Go check out the article which concludes with a list of FAQs including the following:

a. What about the Crusades?

b. If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?

c. What about the violent passages of the Bible?

And etc...

VA and LA hash things out

Do not miss this discussion ongoing in the comments section of VA's fine entry on secession which I linked to the other day. The discussion has gotten very interesting with Auster and Vanishing American hashing things out between themselves.

Without political union (meaning the United States as it currently exists) can the American people maintain their distinctive existence and continue to act on the world stage? That's a question being broached in this discussion. It seems like the question comes down to this: Is it possible for the United States to reorganize itself in such a fashion so as to preserve its distinct nationhood while maintaining its ability to operate on the world stage? Or is the United States of America resigned to maintaining its current political organization in order to continue being a major player on that stage?

With regard to my own contribution to the discussion (which pales in comparison), I can only say that it was not my intent to argue for a "constitutional," or a "lawful" right to secede from the union. The idea of constitutionality/lawful right was raised in the original story where the terms unconstitutional and unlawful were used as I recall. In short I agree with Mr. Auster that secession/rebellion is a "natural" right, not a constitutional right. But I should have made that explicit.

End of intitial post.

Coming soon to a city or town near you

Recently Lawrence Auster wrote to me the following: "To think of people doing this in workplace restrooms or college dorm restrooms...is simply appalling." "No honest person can say that such customs are conformable with America and with any Western society."

Mr. Auster was of course speaking of Muslims and their foot washing customs. But his words apply just as well to the Folsom Street Degenerates.

I would say that no honest person can say that such things belong in the streets and public places of America. It's bad enough that people act like this in the privacy of their own homes. It's worse that our society tolerates this kind of behavior on open display in our public markets. But that's the price of leftist multicultist non-discriminationism.

And please, don't come in here trying to argue that "this is San Francisco and blah, blah, blah." Look, the nearest town to me with any population at all (about 20,000 people) recently held its first annual "gay pride" get-together at the city park. In the same town the Lowes store has a "Men's/unisex" bathroom, and etc. Fifteen years ago I was saying that this was going to happen if we didn't work up the courage and determination to stop it. And virtually everyone I engaged on the problem resisted it saying that rural America was isolated from that influence; from its influence on the public schools and so on and so forth.

What have you unbelievers to say now? Continuing on pace, what do you think your town will be tolerating fifteen years from today? Can you honestly look yourselves in the eye and say that your local homosexual contingent is going to be satified with holding "orderly" gay pride festivals in such relatively obscure places such as your local public parks? Bull! If that's what you believe about homosexuality; that there's any "moderation" inherent to the lifestyle, then I would have to say that you're willingly ignorant at best. They won't be satisfied until they're marching down your streets and neighborhoods putting on public display their deviant abjectly immoral behaviorisms. Open your eyes!

(Warnings are provided before you get to the actual images.)

End of initial post.

Auster asks "the biggie"

This is a continuation of Friday's blog post wherein I ask "Who would be your second choice for President?"

Lawrence Auster has replied in a comment to the entry asking a question of his own, which seems to me to get right to the heart of the matter of whether a traditionalist conservative can ultimately support a 'top tier' GOP candidate in the '08 election...

LA writes:

What if one of the top tier candidates came out with a decent immigration policy—not everything we want, but decent? I define that as opposing amnesty absolutely, stopping illegal immigration, and no increase in legal immigration, or maybe even a reduction in legal immigration. Would you consider supporting such a candidate, even if he was not on board with you on other issues you cared about?

LA continues:

If I saw a candidate who was not on board on the marriage amendment and other social conservative issues , but took a significant position on immigration, I would certainly consider supporting him.

TM replies:

On the question of whether I'd consider supporting a top tier candidate who took a decent position on immigration (by your definition), I'd have to answer that in the affirmative. In fact, such a candidate taking such a position on immigration, as long as he wasn't too far out there on other important issues would become very attractive to me. But I'd have to really weigh his position against his record as well as his character and integrity before I committed to supporting him.

Do you know of anyone who fits this bill, that you believe would stick to this policy once elected?

Vanishing American weighs in:

Terry, I think you've raised the question that occurs to me: would any of the top tier candidates be likely to actually honor a promise to control our borders, reject amnesty, etc.? ... I think all the top tier candidates have shown themselves willing to pander to Hispanics, or at the very least, to work both sides of the street as necessary to win votes.
Put simply, I don't trust them, based on their past records.

TM replies:

VA, your comments concerning the willingness of the top tier candidates to play both ends against the middle in order to win votes brings to mind Katie's Dad's recent blog entry where he shows decidedly that the GOP doesn't need the Hispanic vote, and in fact pandering to it is actually losing the GOP precious and vital support from its base, in spite of what Linda Chavez and the AMF says.

TM continues:

This seems like one of those "could I, would I, should I" questions. Could I support a top tier candidate taking up the Auster prescription for immigration policy? Would I support him? Should I support such a candidate? And it all boils down to the same answer with me; and this is where I agree with the Dobsonian principled approach...

As Dobson said in his answer to Sean Hannity's question concerning Rudy Giuliani's claim that he'll appoint constructionist judges as president, why didn't he do it when he had the opportunity to appoint conservative judges in New York? With regard to the other top tier candidates, Romney and Thompson, it's also a matter of character and integrity; a matter of what their political record indicates they'll do as opposed to what they say they'll do.

Some will certainly argue that if the candidate in question takes the Auster position on immigration, then at least we'll have something to hold him to irregardless of whether he intends to keep the promise or not. I think there's some merit to that argument, particularly as it relates to the candidate's first term in office should he be elected. But if any of you would argue strongly from that position in support of one of the top tier candidates, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

John Savage writes:

I'm pretty much with VA. If one of the candidates made a credible promise, I could imagine changing my position, but I just don't see that happening. In particular, I think I'd have to see a convincing statement from Tancredo about why he turned around and started believing in the nominee, since he currently thinks all the top-tier guys are phonies. For instance, Tancredo has criticized Romney's positions on immigration as a classic example of his "conversion on the road to Des Moines".

I'd also add that a decent position on immigration for me would have to include some sort of recognition that allowing Muslim immigration is tantamount to importing the jihad into America. I think the chances of us getting that from one of the top candidates is really low.

Who would be your second choice ... for President?

(Note: The discussion initiated by Mr. Auster's question on supporting a top tier candidate has been moved here.)

Just on a quick roundup of the relatively few blogs that I frequent, I note that all of them express a preference, or a pretty solid number one candidate for the presidency. While none of them, including this blog, seem to have a solid number two...

I'll start the roundup over at the AFB. Fellow AFBer Mike Tams seems to be leaning toward Mitt Romney as his second choice. He would probably prefer someone like Duncan Hunter to Romney, but Romney seems to appeal to Mike very much. I don't think Mike has totally committed himself to Romney as yet, but this seems to be the direction in which he is leaning.

Over at VFR, Lawrence Auster has repeatedly endorsed Tom Tancredo. In this recent VFR entry Auster mentions both Fred and Romney as preferable to Giuliani. But he doesn't tell us which of the two (Fred or Romney) he would prefer.

Meanwhile, VA has said many good things about Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. These two seem to be VA's top two candidates, but it's still a bit unclear in what order she would put them. I tend to think, from what I read at VA's, that she would place them in the order that I've placed them in the first sentence of this paragraph.

The Maritime Sentry strongly endorses the candidacy of Mike Huckabee. But I don't recall reading there an endorsement of a second choice or preference.

I'm not at all sure about Wise Man's Heart. I don't know whether Hermes has broached this topic or not. But I'll go check it out. (Hat tip to John Savage for reminding me of this post over at WMH, where Hermes expresses his like of Tancredo and Paul)

John Savage at Brave New World Watch is a strong supporter of Tom Tancredo. Don't miss his lengthy roundup of Tancredo related blog posts in his right sidebar. But like the rest of us, John has yet to name a second preference from the list of candidates.

And to complete the roundup, here at Webster's I've endorsed Tancredo on a number of occasions as my first choice. I've never said, however, who my second choice would be.

I don't think I can nail down a second choice just yet. I need to do a lot more research and reflection on the remaining candidates. I think Ron Paul is interesting, but at this point I don't think I could name him a second choice. Giuliani isn't even on my radar as someone I could ever cast a sacred vote for. And Fred doesn't rate much higher with me at this point than Giuliani. I don't think Fred can make up any ground with me either, but we'll see.

Basically I'm left to decide between Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul as secondary choices to Tom Tancredo. And like I said, I'm just going to have to commit to doing a lot more research on all three of these candidates.

In any event, I can say this. If Giuliani were to get the Republican nomination (which seems to be the general consensus at this point) I could not vote for the man. I would be forced to vote third party, or to write in a candidate. This is a scenario where someone like Ron Paul might actually get my vote. But if I were forced to write in a candidate, Tancredo not being on the ballot, then I would write in the name Tom Tancredo, and let the chips fall where they may.

In case you missed it

Be sure to check out Wednesday's VFR entry, They're coming to take our country and we must stop them. Particularly Leonard K.'s comments, followed by LA's reply, both added to the entry sometime after its intial posting.

As Auster concludes in his reply to Leonard's thoughts:

Muslims topple the World Trade Center, then get the Empire State Building lit up in their honor. This epitomizes America’s response to 9/11.

Sad but true.

Question for my Readers

(Note: The expanded version of the original VFR entry sheds some light on this question.)

I was reading the recent VFR article on the noose incident earlier when I ran across this (increasingly) familiar statement:

"I am not saying that this kind of moral depravity exists among all blacks or a majority of blacks or a large minority of blacks."

I immediately recalled having read the same statement, or some version of it, several times in the very recent past at the same site. This got me wondering why these qualifying statements always (or seemingly always) attend these exact kinds of posts? I speculate that they are included in anticipation of charges of racism, or of reducing the numbers and kinds of negative responses one is liable to get when identifying racial peculiarities of this sort unattended by such qualifying statements.

Now, (a little qualification of my own here) I'm not implying it's wrong or useless or anything of the sort to continually attach these qualifications to these kinds of posts, but I am wondering how useful it truly is to attach them to virtually every racially sensitive entry. If the purpose is to control the negative feedback, as I speculate, I just wonder how well it works; does it actually reduce the number of unfavorable replies one can expect to get on such topics? If there's some other purpose to it, I'd like to know that as well.

Anyone have any ideas?

On the idea of Secession (Part 3)

(Note: Since this has become something of a series on this topic here at Webster's, I've slightly altered the original post titles to more reflect this. Here are the links to parts one and two of this series.)

Be sure not to miss Vanishing American's most recent excellent post on this topic where she reveals "The Chattanooga Declaration."

Below is posted a number of very interesting coincidences concerning the priciples imbued in this declaration...

Let's begin by doing a quick comparison between the seven principles of The Chattanooga Declaration and another set of seven principles recently posted at VFR under the Traditionalist Response to Liberalism thread.

The Chattanooga principles are as follows:

1. The deepest questions of human liberty and government facing our time go beyond right and left, and in fact have made the old right-left split meaningless and dead.

2. The privileges, monopolies, and powers that private corporations have won from government threaten everyone's health, prosperity, and liberty, and have already killed American self-government by the people.

3. The power of corporations endangers liberty as much as government power, especially when they are combined as in the American Empire.

4. Liberty can only survive if political power is returned from faraway and self-interested centers to local communities and States.

5. The American Empire is no longer a nation or a republic, but has become a tyrant aggressive abroad and despotic at home.

6. The States of the American union are and of right ought to be, free and self-governing.

7. Without secession, liberty and self-government can never be sustained, and diversity among human societies can never survive.

By Comparison, look at the following principles I submitted to VFR:

Here are seven leading principles of Traditional Conservatism:

1. The Principle of Individuality;

2. The Principle of Self-Government;

3. The Historical Character of Americans as our heritage;

4. The property of conscience (meaning a man has a property in his conscience);

5. The original form of our Government;

6. Local self-government;

7. The Principle of American Political Union.

Very quickly my initial thoughts are these...

I'm struck by not only the similarity between the two lists, but that the numbers of the principles themselves follow very closely the same order. For instance, number 2 on both lists speaks of self-government. No. 5 in the Chattanooga Declaration says that America is no longer a nation or a republic; by comparison Principle no. 5 in my list cites our original form of Government. No. 6 in both lists speaks of local self-government. And finally, number seven...

No. 7 in the Chatanooga list states that secession is necessary to preserve and sustain liberty and self-government; and diversity among human societies. I think that number 7 is where the biggest difference in the principles of the two lists resides, though the two no. 7s are still very similar.

In contrast to what the Chatanooga Secessionists concluded in their no. 7, number seven on my list, American political union, acknowledges secession as an option or a tool to preserving liberty and self-government, but not the preferable option. Preferable to Secession would be a return to the original form of our government, or, principle no. 5 in my list.

There are even other more subtle similarities between the two lists that I think are there. For instance, number three on both lists may be said to be speaking of the revival of historical Americanism which cannot abide a merger between government and corporations to tyrannize a people of character. By returning political power back to the local communities and States (Chattanooga principle no. 4), the principle of Conscience as property (principle no. 4 in my list) may best be secured.

As for my list, it isn't my list at all. I just discovered it, or was introduced to it due to an unusual set of circumstances, oh, around 15 or 16 years ago. It didn't take me long to embrace the principles embodied in that list though. In fact, the list as you read it here and as posted over at VFR is an alteration on the original list that I was introduced to. I may share more on that later.

(I'll be adding more to this post later.)

Non-discrimination IS Discrimination

Why are liberal multicultist non-discriminationists irrational? Because just as with all liberal doctrines, non-discriminationism is self-defeating, and therefore illogical. And anyone who clings to illogical self-defeating policies and arguments favoring those policies may rightly be denominated irrational.

How is the idea of non-discrimination self-defeating you ask? Any idea forced to support itself with arguments that defeat it is by definition "self-defeating." The idea of non-discrimination actually implies discrimination, because it cannot tolerate discrimination of any sort. Thus it must discriminate against any form of discrimination, which is the only form of discrimination it can tolerate, while claiming not to tolerate any form of discrimination.

Have I managed to thoroughly confuse you yet? ;)

Assimilation or Acculturation?

One thing that I think we need to do is to make people aware that there is a huge difference between the two. In fact, these are opposite, and opposing concepts.

John Savage has put up an excellent post this morning which is the primary inspiration for this post...

In reading John's post, two things were brought to mind, as I said in my comments to the entry:

1. Linda Chavez's statements in the recent FrontPage symposium on immigration and assimilation. And,

2. One of Lawrence Auster's recent entries over at VFR where in his concluding sentence to the initial entry, Auster reveals what a friend of his said to him while discussing the matter of the Muslim immigrants in our country. From memory, Auster's friend said that the Muslims were/are acculturating Americans to their customs in preparation for their ultimate takeover of America.

And here is where the rubber meets the road with regard to the difference between assimilation and acculturation. Assimilation means that the immigrants reject the culture of their homeland and adopt the culture of their new home. Acculturation means the very opposite; the host country and culture adapts itself to the cultural characteristics of the migrants. This is what multiculturalism does. It can't not destroy Western and American culture.

What Chavez and her ilk are talking about when they say that immigrants assimilate naturally, is not assimilation at all. It is, to the contrary, acculturation of Western and American culture to alien cultures. What Chavez fails to recognize (for whatever reason) is that American culture has already been turned on its head due to multiculturalism's demand that we acculturate, rather than that the aliens assimilate.

End of initial post.

The extent to which homosexuals will go to push their agenda knows no bounds;

The extent to which liberalism will go to push its non-discrimination policies knows no bounds. And that's the reason both have to be stopped.

Case in point? Two same-sex divorce cases filed in States which do not recognize same-sex marriages; Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. You may read the story here.

When there are no limits to what a group will do to achieve its objectives, and there are no limits to what an ideology will do to help it achieve its objectives, and there's no opposing force strong enough to resist either in the advancement of their pursuits, then the society which made the rise of them both to positions of normality and prominance possible must collapse on itself if it doesn't impose restrictions on these destructive practices.

End of initial post.

Linda Chavez has it all figured out

Check out this FrontPage article where Chavez debates with other distinguished panel guests on immigration and assimilation. Doubtless you'll want to read the entire article, but I'll wet your appetite with a statement from Chavez which reduces to brass tacs what her core beliefs are on the question of immigrant assimilation.

Chavez writes:

"I support large-scale immigration and assimilation because both are good for the country. The latter happens more or less naturally, despite the best efforts of the ethnic lobbies; and the former leads to a higher standard of living for all Americans by feeding new workers into America’s job-creating machine. I’d like to see more efforts on the part of government to encourage assimilation, but even the ill-conceived policies John and I deplore have not stopped the assimilation from proceeding apace. I don’t worry that we’ll be overwhelmed by people who want to re-create their homelands here. Even among immigrant groups that tried to do so—most prominently, German immigrants in the 19th Century—their efforts failed. American culture is simply too attractive and immigrants too eager to succeed for there to be much cause for concern."

Boy am I relieved! And here I thought there was something to be concerned about. When in actuality there is nothing to be concerned about at all. In fact, any concerns we express are revealed by Chavez as alarmist and reactionary. If we'd just put a little more thought to it, we'd realize, as Chavez has, that not only can all cultures assimilate in America, but that they always have and always will. I'm just wondering why Chavez wants to see more ("large scale" I presume) government encouragement of immigrant assimilation. It's going to happen anyway, right?, American culture being so attractive and whatnot. I guess the idea is to make it happen quicker? I'm so confused.

End of initial post.

Assimilation is dependent upon Discrimination?

In a comment to the most recent VFR entry, Larry G. thoroughly debunks the myth that assimilation is even possible in the absence of discrimination.

Here is part of what Auster says about Larry G.'s comments.

LA writes:

Larry G. has just come up with the most concise refutation of neoconservatism ever. A non-discriminatory country that admits culturally diverse immigrants and then assimilates them is a contradiction in terms.

Now, go over to VFR and read Larry G.'s comments which Auster is referring to above. And refute them if you dare.

End of initial post.

Enough of this "de-linking" talk already

(Note: I've added a few thoughts on John Savage's comments to VA's post in the read more section of this post.)

I reported yesterday about VA's recent findings that her blog has now been targeted as a "racist" site, and I mentioned that those of us who often agree with VA's positions, and link up to her as well may be on short-list of decidedly "racist" blogs due to our association with VA.

VA has commented here and at her own blog that she feels bad that some of us may be marked as guilty by association, and that if some of us decide to de-link her, or to disassociate ourselves with her and her blog, then she understands.

Well, I don't understand why she'd be understandable about bloggers like myself abandoning her and/or our traditionalist beliefs because of some nutty self-proclaimed racism watchdog bunch deciding she or I or John Savage or Auster, or whomever is/are racists. I for one am no "fair weather" traditionalist, and I'm certainly not easily intimidated, not even by accusations (or potential accusations) of racism. If I were, I would have never put this blog up to begin with.

No; I won't be "de-linking" from Vanishing American anytime soon irregardless of who calls her racist, or who calls me racist because I link up to her blog. And you can count on that. So, as the post title says, enough of this de-linking talk already!

End of initial post.

I just went over to VA's and read John Savage's comments to that thread where he makes an excellent point that I'll highlight below.

John writes:

Yes, VA, if we were all PC neocons they'd still hate us. Remember, the leftists think Bush is a racist misogynist Christianist theocrat. Some of them have even gotten the impression that he's "anti-immigrant", too.

As you've said before, the attempts by groups like the Minutemen to be PC hasn't gotten them anywhere. So what we must show above all is that we won't be intimidated. Keep up the great work! (emphasis mine)

My thoughts:

Exactly! That leftists still think Bush is a racist misogynist Christianist theocrat just goes to show how nutty and out of touch with reality they are. How could someone like myself ever be even remotely true to traditionalist conservatism without "fear" that some leftist blog or group or whatever wouldn't pin some or all of these labels on me at some point along the way, given their disconnect with reality? The answer is I couldn't. And since it's not acceptable for me to abandon traditionalist conservatism, I'll just stay right here in the kitchen.

Tell ya what, if I decide independently that any of you (whether I'm linked to you yet or not) are racists, then I might consider disassociating myself with you. And while I'm certainly not the most discerning individual out there, I don't believe I'm the least discerning either, by a long-shot even. In other words, I'll make that determination for myself; whether someone is a racist or not.

New book released

Speaking of unlikely alliances, here's one that I wouldn't have seen coming with a pair of binoculars at ten yards distance, or something like that. ;)

Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas putting partisan politics aside to come together and co-author a book on, well, putting partisan politics aside? Will wonders never cease!

Here's the link to the Article.

End of initial post.

Auster expresses shock that Dobson won't support Fred

I was a little surprised to hear him say it too when I watched the interview. I reported on this earlier today here. Auster has posted the link to the FNC Transcript of the interview in this VFR entry.

What the ___ is the "Architect of the U.S. Capitol???";

And what kind of power does this individual wield?

Well, as I've very recently come to learn, The A-of-the-US C, may prohibit such words as "Lord," and "God," from being entered on flag certificates because...he has determined that such words may "offend" some Americans.

The full AFA story is entered below...

Religious words such as God, Lord banned by Architect of the U.S. Capitol

Contact your congressman and senators today!

According to U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, our nation's legislators are now prohibited from using references to God in certificates of authenticity accompanying flags flown over the Capitol and bought by constituents. Such references include: "under God" in the pledge, "God bless you," or "in the year of our Lord, 2007." Never before has this official prohibition been leveled.
Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Musgrave was astonished when she flew a flag over the U.S. Capitol building as a tribute to a senior citizen, and the accompanying certificate she received was edited with all religious references removed.

The congresswoman was more astounded when, upon further investigation, she discovered the certificate was censored by order of The Architect of the Capitol, an unelected very low-level official who manages the flag office.

Responding to a request for a flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of a World War II veteran's 81st birthday, the congresswoman ordered the flag and a certificate to state: "This flag was flown for Mr. John Doe on the occasion of his 81st birthday, the eleventh day of July, in the year of our Lord, 2007. Thank you, Grandpa, for showing me what it is to be a true patriot -- to love God, family, and country. We love you!"

When the flag and certificate came back from the flag office, each reference to the Lord and God were removed. A group of lawmakers confronted architect Stephen Ayers seeking to find where he had the authority to restrict their freedom of speech and religious expression. Ayers refused to give the lawmakers a clear justification of his authority to delete the religious references. For more information: Capitol flag policy assailed (Washington Times).

Can one be a Traditionalist Conservative, while not being Christian?

Rick Darby of Reflecting Light asks this very intriguing question in a thread over at VA's, as well as asking for answers. And I presume he means he's seeking an answer from anyone willing to attempt to give him one. Well, I'm willing, so here goes...

Rick writes:

Can I be a traditionalist conservative while admiring the Vedantic tradition of India (the Upanishads, not all the superstitious rubbish that modern Hinduism has accreted) and Buddhism? Can I be a traditionalist conservative who doesn't believe in the literal truth of the New Testament, the physical resurrection of Jesus, or the doctrine that Jesus sacrificed himself to save mankind from its sins? A traditionalist conservative whose spiritual practice is meditation and trying to be a decent person?

TM answers:

While my familiarity with Buddhism is very lacking, and of the Vedantic tradition of India much more so, I think the larger question Rick is asking is whether he, or any other American, can be considered a traditionalist conservative while not believing in the Christian doctrine of Chirst's deity.

I think the answer to the question is an emphatic yes, as long as such an individual does not fail to recognize the great influence of Christianity on Western culture, and the establishment of the United States as one step in the progress of that Western culture. Many people, in denying the doctrines of Christianity also deny its positive and direct impact on Western civilization and this nation, or at least try to minimize it to the extent that they claim an equal influence from all religions on the foundation of America, which I think cannot be supported with any substantial amount of factual evidence.

So I think people who embrace teachings of religions other than Christianity while rejecting Christian teachings, so long as they don't try to discredit Christianity's dominant influence on the development of Western culture and tradition, but instead recognize and acknowledge it, can indeed be traditionalist conservatives, and effective apologists for it. From what I've read of Rick (which isn't much to this point, I shamefully admit), I haven't come away with the impression that he seeks to minimize the influence of Christianity on Western civilization.

I'm also thinking in terms here of Kristor L.'s Apologetic comments to that VFR thread where he says that Christianity has historically not been afraid to acknowledge certain doctrines of other religions.

Webster's (among others) on the short list of "racist" blogs?

Vanishing American has a post up concerning her recent discovery that she is now linked to a certain anti-racist do-gooder site which she refuses to provide a link to, and rightly so in my opinion.

As I said in my comment to her post, I guess Webster's, the AFB, BNWW, and so on and so forth, are now all on the short list of being included among the "racist" blogs that this site seeks to expose, since we all link to VA's with pride. I guess it just goes along with the territory. But as VA notes, it's liable to backfire on them.

Might this be a case of truthophobia, or, conservativeophobia?

End of initial post.

Update on Sean Hannity interview with Dr. James Dobson

(Note: I've posted more on this under the read more section of this post.)

Something Dr. Dobson said in answer to Hannity near the end of the interview struck me...

Dr. Dobson, in Lawrence Auster fashion, said that if Giuliani wins the presidency, the pro-life, pro-family movement is dead. Whereas, under a Hillary presidency it is alive because there will be a strong resistance to Hillary's anti-family policies.

I'll try to put the transcript up later, if I can locate it.

End of initial post.

Regarding Fred Thompson's presidency, as I said, Dobson refused to agree with Hannity. Hannity played a portion of his previous interview with Thompson where he raised the question of Dobson's stated disagreement with the candidacy of Thompson, after which Dobson replied. Thompson's answer to Hannity in the previous interview revealed a deeply held animus toward Dobson. But Dobson would not relent. He was standing on principle.

FNC does have posted a video of the interview for anyone who cares to watch it.

Also, I do want to note that I didn't agree with everything Dr. Dobson was saying. For instance, he asserted that non-support of the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment) by Thompson, Giuliani, et al., preferring that the States decide the question for themselves, would destroy the institution of marriage in this country. I think Dobson fails to recognize that as many as 17 or 18 (by my last count, which has been a while now) individual States have already crafted their own Marriage amendments protecting the basic traditional concept of marriage as between one man and one woman. So, to the contrary of what Dobson asserts, I believe a stronger protection of the institution of marriage emanates from the States rather than the federal government, which can't even agree to protect our borders, much less pass a Federal Marriage Amendment.

I'll do a search later on State Marriage Amendments which have already passed. But if anyone has any information on this in the interim, please do not hesitate to post it.

Okay, I did a quick search and this is what I came up with. Sorry about the nature of this particular site, but it's the only one I could get to come up for me. I'll keep trying.

Attention GOP,

Stop emulating the jackass party!

CitizenLink is reporting that a New York Times poll suggests that nearly 60% of White Evangelical Republicans agree with Dr. James Dobson on values voting.

"Eighty-six percent said presidential candidates should be judged on both their political record and their personal life," according to the CitizenLink article.

Dobson is to appear on the Fox News Program, Hannity and Colmes, later this evening to discuss this topic, by the way.

End of initial post.rest of post here

On the idea of Secession (Part 2)

(Update: I've added a few initial thoughts on the comments I've received so far.)

This is an important, as well as a very interesting topic. I'm going to post the excellent comments that I got to the original entry under the read more section of this entry in hopes that this will prevent their being missed (Please post additional comments pertinent to this question here)...

VA writes:

Terry, you've written a very well-thought out entry on this topic.
I appreciate your point of view.
I think many of those who are involved in the secessionist movement are not necessarily driven by pure animus towards DC, but an alarm at what is being done in and to our country. For many reasons it looks as though our elected officials have cut themselves off from the will of the people, which as you know, is supposed to be the basis for our government. I think many people, seeing a government which is utterly unresponsive to our will, think that such a government is no longer legitimate.

"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law." - Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808

"The mother principle [is] that 'governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.'" - Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

The fact that our government seems to be attempting to overturn the people by repopulating our country with a new majority is extremely serious. I can't imagine that our forefathers would accept such a thing; their grievances against King George were not as serious as today's grievances.
Having Confederate ancestors, I don't see secession as a great evil per se, though it's not something to be taken lightly by any means. Still I think there has to be the option of peacefully leaving the Union if it no longer is what it was designed to be, and if it no longer embodies the will of the people.
Peaceful separations have happened in history.

Fellow AFBer, Mike Tams writes:

Good post. I'd say that my thoughts on the matter aren't far different from yours. A voluntary union should imply a perpetual right to dissolve it - for legitimate reasons, and then it's not a matter to be taken lightly. Dissolving the Union would hold, in my opinion, grave consequences both here and abroad.

And lest Mark Alexander think we're on the same page here, I must reiterate that dissolving that bond would only be just for just reasons; and then, I would imagine that such a dissolution would be followed by another, different, union. History may have been written much differently had our union been less effective.

Populist writes:

While I'm not familiar with the calls for secession (who or why), I find the very notion a farse. In addition to representatives that will govern with the will of the people, I believe that the states need to rely less on the "central government" (to borrow a term from Mr. Morris)to govern. To me, because of party politics, the state governments have become to intertwined with the "central government." These so called representatives are more interested in who controls the house/senate and White House (not to mention re-election), than what is best for these United States. We, the governed, need to wake up from our seemingly endless slumber and take back our government! We have allowed a minority of power brokers, from both parties, to determine the direction of our country and it doesn't take a genious to see that they are running it right in to the ground.

(I will add any further comments on this idea under this title, as well as my own replies to the comments later on.)

**********

Here are my initial thoughts on what my commenters have said so far:

First, I didn't mean to imply that these secessionist groups are necessarily driven by pure animus toward the central government, only that this is the impression I get from what I've read of them so far. My impression could be totally wrong, to be sure, and VA is right to point this out.

Also, I don't necessarily believe that these secessionist movements are bad, or that they'll ultimately result in dire consequences for the United States, though this does concern me, as it does all of my commenters.

Indeed, I think a good argument can be made that the mere threat of secession might alarm folks enough to say to themselves "hey!, we've got a serious threat here of breaking up the union of these States, which could potentially result in putting the disparate parts, and therefore the whole North American Continent, in a very precarious and vulnerable situation. We better try to devise a better plan here; a plan to strengthen, not to dissolve the union."

And this is one reason that I think it is dangerous for us to ever look on secession as illegal, unconstitutional, or whatever. If we consider it to be so, then we deprive ourselves, this nation, of one method of detecting a problem and correcting itself. I.e., the threat of the break up of the union.

I've written many times in the past, but for the benefit of Populist let me reiterate, that the American Civil War resulted in some very problematic alterations to our form of government. Essentially we went from a Federal Representative Republic where there was a built-in balance between the national and the federal aspects, to a centralized form of government where the moderating influence of federalism was essentially removed via incorporation which the fourteenth amendment provided an avenue for the federal courts to assert and enforce, though this was not the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment. Things have steadily degenerated ever since.

Nonetheless, this is what has happened, and I think it's perfectly understandable that many Americans do not (yet) realize how far we've strayed from the original legitimate, self-correcting design of this government. I mean, this is all we've known for how many decades? We cannot allow it to continue though. And if it takes the threat of the breakup of the union to get people to realize there's a huge problem here that needs to be resolved, then I'm all for it. We just need to be able to help them understand the true nature of the problem, and the proper way of going about fixing it. If this can be done without breaking up the union (and I'm persuaded that it can and must), but rather in actually strengthening it, then I can hardly see how dissolving the union of these States to be the preferable alternative. Though an alternative it must remain.

Update on the Traditionalist response to Liberalism

(Note: This post has been expanded, and I've moved much of the contents to the read more section.)

Mr. Auster has finally begun to post some of the comments of his readers on this topic. I for one will be very interested in reading the thoughts and reflections of this outstanding readership on this important question.

So far I've read over the entries quickly, and have submitted a reply (not yet posted Update: this is now posted under the VFR entry.) to Alan Roebuck's assertion concerning liberal virtue.

Alan writes:

Here is the way all liberals initially react to the above fundamental truth: "I don't have to believe in God in order to be good, or do any of the other virtuous things you mentioned." But this response entirely misses the point.

Of course, you can be virtuous if there is no God. You can do any doggone thing you want. But if there is no God, then there is no good reason why you should. [LA replies: I've never heard this argument before. That's powerful. I'm not absolutely sure it's correct, though.]

My contention with Alan's assertion:

In short, I believe this is incorrect. While I believe with Alan that if there is no God, then there is no good reason why one should be virtuous, I do not believe it possible for one to be virtuous if God does not exist. To separate virtue from God's necessary existence is tantamount to claiming the non-existence of both.

So, not only is there no good reason to be virtuous in the absence of God's existence, there's no reason at all, good, bad, or indifferent, because in actuality we do not and cannot exist, which is illogical.

End of initial post.

I've often argued (in one way or the other) that one of the best and strongest arguments in favor of conservatism is the illogic inherent to liberalism. It's also important to not lose sight of the distinction between liberalism and liberals. Liberals are people who are persuaded to believe the doctrine of liberalism. While liberalism is an irrational belief system, those holding to its tenets are not unreasoning beings. It's just that they reason wrongly, or that they reason exceptionally imperfectly, due to any number of factors which can be difficult to delineate. If we can show them the illogic inherent to the liberal belief system (which I acknowledge to be easier said than done), then I think this is one very good way of converting them, or, of having them begin to question their own convictions, which I speculate would result in their conversion.

So, part of the traditionalist response to liberalism would seem to be the logical vs. the illogical basis of the respective belief systems.

Articulating a Traditionalist Conservative Vision

(Note: See also Vanishing American's entry on this topic.)

If I haven't managed to convince you yet of the exceptionalism of VFR among Traditionalist blogs (regular VFR readers excluded here), then this VFR entry should suffice to seal the deal.

Embedded within this article is the link to the original entry, which I highly recommend you read in its entirety. But more importantly, pay particularly close attention to how the original question turns to what is required of Traditionalism, and of Traditionalists under the current, liberal dominated circumstances.

If Mr. Auster is looking for a third, he's got one.

End of initial post. rest of post here

On the idea of Secession (Part 1)

I've been promising to link up to the AFB post on this topic for several days now. I wanted to do a full post on the topic myself, but I just haven't been able to wrap my brain around the subject enough in this context to put together what I would consider a quality entry.

However, I went over to Vanishing American's last night and discovered that VA had done a post on the topic as well...

While I still can't seem to get my mind wrapped around the idea in this context (Southerners and Leftists uniting to disunite), I will say this about VA's questions concerning the "legality" of Secession under the Constitution:

To my mind (and I invite anyone to correct me here) the very idea of "voluntary union" implies a perpetual right to secession. Once it becomes perpetually impossible or illegal or "unconstitutional" to secede from the union, there's nothing "voluntary" about it. I hold that this federal union was originally formed through voluntary political association. I hold as well that no State in this union has any inherent right to voluntarily become a perpetual slave to this union; that to do so is to deprive one's progeny of their very freedom. This, in short, is the Biblical Christian view of God, man, and government.

One thing that distinguishes America in the history of nations, and of nation-making, is this very concept of voluntary political union. And one way in which the founding fathers secured this idea is through federalism, which, incidentally, is a perfectly untenable political organization without an acknowledgment of the basic right of secession, or, voluntary disassociation. In other words, where there exists no right to voluntarily secede from the union of these states, there is no longer any federalism to balance the excesses of nationalism. This is the very reason that we now wrongly refer to the central government as the "federal government," which it most certainly is not.

I personally do not think it wise for these political opposites to unite under the banner of secession. I get the impression from what I read of them that they're so blinded by their animus toward the central government that they can't, nor do they even wish to see their way to a better solution. And I personally think there is one.

It's easy to say "let's dissolve the union," particularly when you don't put much reflection to what that would mean at length. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the map and immediately determine that the United States appears as though it was ordered by Providence to be one united country. That the founders were wise enough to see this, and to make us "several as to ourselves, one as to all others," should give us pause when we start thinking in terms of breaking up the union of these states into so many sovereignties under no united government.

Are Americans, which have historically been an "enlightened" people, destined to commit the same political errors that stain the annals of human history? Are we to revert to our base natures and to break ourselves up into three, four, or more warring factions on a single continent with no centralizing and uniting influence exerted over us; an influence which we can cheerfully submit ourselves to for the common good of this nation and this people?

I think Americans have historically been better than this. Yes; we had a secessionist movement once before which resulted in the war between the states, the fourteenth amendment, and incorporation, and so on and so forth. But it seems to me that the age-old question "can men be governed by reflection and choice, or must we rely on conquest and force for our political constitutions?," should be an ever-present reminder that a wrong election on our parts might finally settle the question firmly in favor of the latter.

A Very Nice Comment

The commenter Populist (I hope that doesn't come across as being too impersonal, to call him "commenter") has left a very nice comment to my entry "On the assimilability factor," which I thought deserved a post to itself...

Populist writes:

In response to my own comment, about labels and humanity, I would like to attempt to be a little more specific as to what I meant. For the record, I have no problem calling a spade a spade and I have no trouble whatsoever espousing the truth. However, I do believe that we have to be careful as to our use and frequency of labeling individuals. To be sure, being a Christian or liberal etc... is part and parcel of what/who you are. However, it is but one part (in my opinion) of that equation. My political or religious beliefs do not say everything about who I am. In as much, I do not want to be referred to by someone as the "liberal" or "Christian" etc.. I say that, not because I am ashamed of my beliefs, but because I am a father, a son, a brother, a man and a Longhorn fan and I want all of my parts to be seen (I do not consider myself a liberal by the way.. that is only an example). Labels are really what you make of them, however, all too often it seems that they are used as a means of degrading someone.

Enough about my hang-up with labels already!

Thank you, for taking the time to bring this wealth of information to one location. I for one, am to lazy to seek out all that can be found on Webster's. Anyone can throw down a few comments, but the articles that you provide, as well as your own observations, really require one to think before responding and that is a good thing.

TM replies:

First, I want to thank Populist for his recognition of the work we've done here at Webster's. A great deal of effort has indeed gone into gathering this information to this location. Of sifting through it, and of organizing it, and so on and so forth. One always appreciates that kind of recognition because stuff like that generally goes relatively unnoticed. And by the way, I doubt you're too lazy. I would venture a guess that it's more like a combination of factors such as, you didn't know where to look, and a lack of that oh-so-precious commodity, time.

Second, where Populist says that the articles I provide and my own observations require one to think before responding, I can only say that I certainly hope that is the case more often than not. This is most certainly what I'm striving to achieve here. Populist is indeed on the mark where he asserts that when one is required to think before responding, this is a good thing. And it goes both ways.

Third, I've written many times that "Worldview is everything," and I'm certainly no less convinced of that now than I ever was. Populist points out that a person's liberalism or conservatism, as it may be, is only a part of who he is. While I don't necessarily disagree with this, I will say that one's ideological underpinnings, that which defines his liberalism/conservatism, governs virtually everything he/she does in whatever capacity he finds himself; the way he approaches every part of his being, whether it be his marriage, his duties as a father, his civic duties, his job ... everything.

I myself am somewhat hesitant to attach the "liberal" label to people because it has come to have such negative connotations. Extreme liberalism (leftism) is synonymous with the term unAmericanism, in my view. The problem with liberalism, as I think Auster has pointed out, is that as with the religion of Mohammed where there is no "moderate" Islam, so there is no "moderate" liberalism. And this is what we have to come to realize about the danger inherent to allowing liberalism to continue to dominate American politics.

My fellow AFBers and I have discussed the ways in which to isolate liberalism, and to relegate it to small spheres of operation wherein it can be exposed for what it is and does, and where the proper kinds and levels of corrective actions can be effectually taken against its influence. We call this, "Balanced Government."

But I want to point out to Populist that liberalism is such a dominating force in America at this time in history that none of us, including myself, my fellow AFBers, not even Auster himself have managed to completely escape its clutches. In other words, we all have liberal tendencies which were already developed before we came along, and passed down to us when we made our entry into this world. But a few thinkers such as Mr. Auster have come to realize this about themselves, and are attempting to take the proper corrective steps to ridding themselves/ourselves of the disease.

If liberalism is such a destructive ideology as those of us in the Traditionalist Conservative camp claim it to be, then we have no choice but to expose it. And since liberlism is nothing without human beings to carry its destructiveness into effect, then we have to expose it in individuals, particularly extreme manifestations thereof.

Sorry that your Longhorns lost ... not! ;)

Welcome to all the VFR readers

I learned that LA had put up an entry linking to my post on Kristor's exceptional apologetic comments yesterday while visiting sitemeter to see how my statistics were doing for the day, and noticing a sudden spike in the number of visits to Webster's. When I investigated the matter further I found that virtually all of the "spiked" visits were coming from the same entry page linked over at VFR...

Given the exceptional quality of VFR, which consists not only of Auster's reflections, but also those of his readers, my hope is that you VFR regulars have found something here at Webster's that you find intriguing, which in turn will encourage you to visit again. Just keep in mind that Webster's is still very new, and that I'm still trying to work out some of the bugs. In other words, Webster's isn't up to VFR standards yet, as you can see, but I'm slowly working to get it in that ballpark.

For instance, I like the way Auster incorporates his reader comments into his entries. I'd like to do that here at some point as well. Another thing is that Auster's "liberalism radar" is a lot more finely tuned than mine. He can detect very slight hints of liberalism it seems, whereas I might miss these not-so-evident indications of liberalism. Or, if I do happen to catch them, I'm not as skillful at exposing them.

Nonetheless, as I said, I'd like to extend a warm Webster's welcome to all you visitors still coming in from VFR. I hope you find something here that intrigues you, and that gives you a desire to return. And I hope some of you will choose to leave a comment. Indeed, it was just yesterday that I jokingly asked my fellow AFBer, Mike Tams, whether he thought we could somehow swipe a few of Auster's commenters while Auster wasn't looking. ;)

One final note: I've embedded a link in the "blog description" section in the left sidebar which will take you to the very first post ever put up here at Webster's. This explains what my thoughts were at the time in starting this new venture.

Welcome to all.

On the assimilability factor

Recently I've put up numerous entries which either directly or indirectly relate to assimilability of cultural disparate immigrants to this country. I recognize very well that this can be a very touchy subject for some; that it can even be a deal-breaker for certain individuals...

First, with respect to the latter group -- those who are offended by the expression of the notion that some folks simply cannot assimilate in America or to Western culture to the point that they find it intolerable and therefore will not return -- I can only say that I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is probably not the place for you anyhow.

The purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for the propagation and advancement of the ideas of balanced government. And if it happens to be that balanced government is inseparable from Western culture, and that Western culture is under attack from, and would be destroyed by liberalism, Islamism, and mass immigrationism, then it stands to reason that neither can a return to governmental balance be effected, nor could such a return, were it somehow effected, long be sustained under the existing dominant order.

It is therefore part and parcel of the purpose of this blog to expose the natural enemies of balanced government for what they are in reality and the dangers that they pose, not for what we would wish them to be, which is liberalism. I will say to you here and now that my design is for there to be no truthophobia here. And if there ever is, this blog will cease to be what it was intended to be from the outset, at which point it should cease to exist. I equate our survival as a nation and as a distinct culture with balanced constitutional government, just as I equate the survival of this blog with a rational and ever present fear of what untruth would bring it; just as I equate the happiness of my family with the spiritual sustenance needed to make that happiness full.

To the former group, I have to say that I have yet to see a good argument in favor of modern liberalism, mass immigrationism, or for the assimilability of Muslims. If you're uncomfortable with my announcing that Muslims are unassimilable in America, yet not offended by it to the extent that it becomes a deal-breaker for you; and if your offense to these claims is founded on something you might consider a reasonable position, I would certainly encourage you to articulate it in a comment here. As I said before, there's no phobia here concerning truth. Therefore, I'm open to all arguments in favor, or in refutation of my own.

I'll make you a deal. I won't be offended by your challenging me if you won't be offended by my challenging you, ok? Good.

One final note. The commenter, Populist, who has been commenting here frequently lately, has said that he prefers to look on people as humans rather than as ideologies. The implication being that it sort of deprives one of his/her humanity to associate him/her with a given ideological bent. I answered this in my reply to his comment. However, I would go further and assert that I don't mind at all, nor will I ever be offended by, nor will I ever consider it a privation on my humanity, for someone, anyone to associate me with the ideology of Traditionalist Conservatism. The shoe fits, and I wear it proudly!

Thanks to all for your interest in Webster's. And as always, I'll continue to strive to improve upon what we've done so far.

Select VFR Articles; it's there for your perusal

When my son and I returned home from the football game last night (our team lost 6-3), we got on the computer and went to Webster's. Something was mentioned by one of us about the quality of the commenters over at VFR. At which point I recalled probably the most outstanding VFR comment I've ever had the good fortune to read...

That's right, I'm speaking of Kristor L's Christian apologetic which I personally cannot get enough of, and which I put up a permanent link to some weeks ago under Select VFR Articles in the left sidebar.

Indeed, as my wife, my son and I were discussing this topic, I said to them, "ya want to see a prime example of the quality of the comments over at VFR?, let me read this to you," and I began reading aloud Kristor's statements. Though they (my wife and son) seemed somewhat uninterested at first, I didn't get much further than the first couple of sentences before I knew I had their full and undivided attention, and I kept it throughout the entire reading, er, rather, Kristor kept it throughout, all I did was read.

Now, I'm not sure that I can nail down a single statement in the post, or even a couple of them as my favorites. The entire article is so good and so powerful that it is best read and studied as a whole before you break it down to its elements. But one portion which struck me as I was reading last night, and which I put a lot of emphasis on (and by the way, Kristor's skill in writing comes through as the sentences leading up to a particular point lend themselves very well to emphasizing the point in a climactic sort of fashion) during my audible reading was this paragraph:

Kristor writes:

That I am Christian makes me, not more like some other Christian--Lawrence, say, or St. Francis or Mother Teresa--but more like my own better self. At the same time, the more Christian I become, the more I will express Christian virtues, as Lawrence, Francis, and Teresa also all variously do. So with cultures. The effect upon any culture of conversion to Christianity should be, not its destruction, but that it should begin to learn how best to express its truest, best essence. If Christianity is the religion of Truth, then conversion thereto should make Greece a better, truer Greece, Russia a better, truer Russia, China a better, truer China. The reaction of any culture to Christianity should be to evoke and appropriate to itself from the whole body of universal catholic Truth those aspects thereof most pertinent to its parochial predicaments. The whole Truth is necessarily adequate to any creaturely situation. Any creature orienting itself properly in respect to the Truth cannot but find itself ennobled and more perfectly individuated thereby. And to the degree that any culture is truly converted, this beneficial effect should permeate it, down to its most trivial mundane details. Ceteris paribus, any Christian nation should find that it becomes ever happier, healthier, more prosperous--not because it is seeking these values, but precisely because it has, properly, sought first the values to be found in the Living God, of which all other values are derivates. When the landlord's values come first, the vineyard prospers, and likewise the laborers. This, even though they may suffer tortures and die martyrs.

This is just one of the several outstanding paragraphs of Kristor's apologetic writing. It is indeed that I've pointed out myself many times (though not nearly as eloquently as Kristor), when someone points to the goodness of America for instance, that yes, America can be said to be "good" and even the "best nation on earth" if the standard by which we measure her goodness is the "inferior goodness" other nations. But as Kristor so rightly notes, our nation's "goodness" is not to be measured by the "badness of," or relative to other nations. If that's the standard of measure, then all we can accomplish is to fool ourselves into believing that America, as she is now, is the ultimate in national goodness. Rather, our standard of measure for America's goodness should be America's better self. And when we hold ourselves up against that standard, our relative lack of goodness is immediately revealed to the honest observer. Furthermore, God, being the essence of goodness, it is his goodness that we should seek to emulate, as individuals as well as in our collective capacity.

End of initial post.

Webster's Recommended Blog Posts

Recent Comments

Blogs, websites and links of Interest

Label Cloud

Blog Archive

The Star Spangled Banner

Select AFB Articles

Select VFR Articles

On Islam

About Me

Blog Description

Countdown

Subscribe via email

Site Statistics

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Friday, October 26, 2007

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Monday, October 22, 2007

Friday, October 19, 2007

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Monday, October 15, 2007

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Friday, October 12, 2007

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Monday, October 8, 2007

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Saturday, October 6, 2007