[Vision2020] A Response to Chasuk

[Aaron Rench]

Nick Gier wrote:

> Greetings:
>
> I'm happy to answer Chasuk's question about the neo-Confederates. The 
> several versions of my column define them in terms of the mission 
> statement of the League of the South (LOS), of which Wilson's buddy 
> Steve Wilkins was a founding director. I believe that Wilkins has cut 
> all ties to the LOS primarily because we have made it an issue in our 
> criticisms of Wilson. What is significant is that neither Wilkins nor 
> Wilson for that matter has rejected basic LOS principles. All that 
> Wilson has said is that he does not think that secession will work.
>
> The LOS has declared that 15 southern states should withdraw from the 
> union in order to protect the prerogatives of a white Anglo-Celtic 
> elite. They would establish a Calvinist theocracy in which there would 
> be voting rights only for propertied males. Wilson and George Grant 
> nodded in agreement in /My Town/ when Wilkins made this incredible claim.
>
> In Wilson’s /Credenda Agenda/ (vol. 3: nos. 9, 11), Greg Dickison, 
> member of Wilson’s Christ Church and a Moscow public defender, states 
> that "if we could have it our way,” then there would be capital 
> punishment for “kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, 
> homosexuality, and cursing one's parents.” Dickison also quotes 
> biblical passages (without qualification) that support slavery as 
> "ordained and regulated by God," death for apostasy (Deut. 13.6-9), 
> and cutting off a woman’s hand for touching a strange man's genitals 
> (Deut. 25.11,12). I take this as a preview of life in the New 
> Confederacy.
>
> I agree with you Chasuk that there are conditions under which 
> Americans should rebel and, if absolutely necessary, take the blood of 
> tyrants if our liberties are threatened, but I think you will agree 
> with me that these guys are not even close to proving to us that 
> things are that bad.
>
> So it is not just secession, but Calvinist theocracy and a rejection 
> of formal equality before the law that defines the neo-Confederates.
>
> Nick Gier
>
> "The god you worship is the god you deserve."
> ~~ Joseph Campbell
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/114 - Release Date: 9/28/2005
>  
>
Nick,

I do appreciate it when you give definitions, because they usually 
reveal contradictory thought processes. For example, I was happy when 
you defined neo-Confederate this afternoon. Earlier you had said, "I’ve 
also accepted Wilson’s own disavowal of racism..." In other words you 
agree that Wilson is not a racist. But then we turn to Sneaky Nick's 
definition of neo-Confederate, and lo and behold, racism has been 
repackaged as part of that definition. In Nick's words, " So it is not 
just secession, but Calvinist theocracy and a rejection of formal 
equality before the law that defines the neo-Confederates." According to 
your own words, Wilson fits this definition of neo-Confederate, which 
means that he is guilty of rejecting "formal equality before the law." 
It's a nice euphemism for racism. Or maybe it was just in slip in 
scholarship? Where are your peers, Nick? We need a review for this.

Cheers,
Aaron