The Colorado Confederatarian

For those of ye who ain't hurd of it, or who might be a-wonderin' 'bout certain folk ol' Ben DeGrow mentions when he argues 'ginst the legitimacy of th' Southern secession. Folk such as Timothy Sandefur 'n Allen Guelzo. Or who might be a-wonderin' ohn ol' John Andrews' new web site and radio program, BackboneAmerica.net. Backbone America, 'n to a lesser degree Rocky Mountain Alliance, are outposts of Claremontian ideology. A few words on Claremont from th' primer linked above:

The Institute's political beliefs and editorial tactics have made it controversial within the political right as well as in general. Referencing the organization's view of the 16th President, philosophy professor Marcus Verhaegh calls Claremont "the prime font of Lincoln-worship in our times." Members of the Ludwig von Mises Institute - one of Claremont's most frequent sparring partners on the right - frequently dismisses their following as a cult. These alleged cultish characteristics were heavily satirized in 2001 by Derek Copold, who likened the Institute to a radical Islamic sect headed by the "Abratollah Jaffa" and poked fun at the Institute's Ken Masugi for his tendency to liken opposing viewpoints to nihilism http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b7be4954a12.htm

In recent years the Institute's writers have penned a series of critical book reviews aimed at discrediting popular conservative book titles that emerge from differing viewpoints on the political right. Included are Bork's The Tempting of America and Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln, and most recently Thomas Woods' Politically Incorrect Guide to History. The Institute's often adversarial role in the conservative movement has earned them a variety of nicknames, some derisive and others embraced willingly, including Super-Hawks, Jaffanese Americans, Claremonsters, Lincoln Conservatives, and Claremontistas.http://www.claremont.org/weblog/002346.html http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007148.html

Notice th' reference regardin' Claremont's rejection of strict constructionism. It's like librulism in this here regard, which only bolsters sumpin' I've sed before, which is-att neoconservatism really is a version of librulism, it's association with "conservatism" notwithstandin.'

T' th' Claremontistas (aka "Straussians" or "Jaffians"), the Constitution, as it is with the libruls-att are slightly to they left, is a "living document." They big ohn th' 14th Amendment 'n all the implercashuns-iss has fir fedrul centralization. They also reject "strict constructionism" when it comes to th' Declaration of Independence, seein' it not fo' wut it is, a treatise on secession and state sovereignty, but a manifesto for egalitarianism, fedrul centralization, 'n American imperialism (or "interventionism" or "democratic capitalist evangelism", 'r wutever you wanna call it). They aim to make the world America. An aim, as 'ey well know, weren't th' aim of America's Foundin' Fathers. They look to Lincoln, his illicit war t' preserve th' Union, and his incipient form-a state capitalism as th' reverlutionary model by which the world will slowly but surely be made America.

But then, wuddya expect from folk who reject strict constructionism?

Here's a pretty clever rendition of how th' Claremonsters 'n the rest of they neoconned kin might translate the Declaration of Independence today:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to impose its vision of freedom and democracy on all other peoples, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the supreme station of self-righteous scold and moral engineer to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a grudging respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the imposition.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all human beings are created with an equal desire in their hearts for freedom and democracy, and that they are therefore also endowed by their Creator with an equal entitlement to freedom and democracy; that, in order to secure this freedom and democracy, it is America's God-ordained mission to spread freedom and democracy to all men and women everywhere, regardless of whether they are currently able and willing to institute a government among themselves with its powers derived from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any country falls short of our notion of freedom and democracy, it is the right of the American people endlessly to lecture, chastise, blackmail, and cajole the leaders of that country, pushing them to institute new government, with its foundation laid on such principles and its powers organized in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect their freedom and democracy.

But when a long-established pattern of resistance to our counsels, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reject permanently the spread of freedom and democracy, it is our right, it is our duty, to take over such country, and to impose on it new guards for its future freedom and democracy. (Courtesy of Lawrence Auster.)

'N here is Copold's humorous article 'bout Abratollah Jaffa's fatwa 'ginst Joseph Sobran:

CLAREMONT, CA. Speaking for the Claremont Institute, the newly self-proclaimed "Abratollah" Harry V. Jaffa announced that he and his colleagues have issued a "fatwa" declaring Joseph Sobran an enemy of all that is good and right. This was done, declared the Abratollah Jaffa, because Sobran slandered the holy name of Abraham Lincoln and because he cast doubt upon the one true faith of the Union Indivisible. The fatwa ominously promises that the faithful adherent who successfully assassinates Sobran's character will win automatic admission into the Claremont Institute's version of paradise: the Heritage Foundation.

At a conference in Claremont, California, Jaffa acknowledged the extraordinary nature of this action, but claimed he and his colleagues had no other choice. Said Claremont's Abratollah: "There is no union but the Union, and Abraham Lincoln is Its prophet. Some things are not to be held to human standards; the life and sayings of Abraham Lincoln, peace be upon him, are two of these."

Jaffa then added, "However, we are merciful. Sobran has said some nice things about the Defender of the Union, and thus we are willing to extend once more the opportunity to Sobran to recant his blasphemous views and return to the true belief. It is not too late, even for him. Of course, this does not apply to the infidel heathens David Dieteman and Myles Kantor. They're screwed. May the fleas of a thousand environmentalists plague them to the end of their days. May their wives join NOW. May their children go on dates with Eminem and Hillary Clinton all at once. Enough. I must retire and commune with the Union."

The Abratollah then dismissed the press corps, laid out his prayer rug, oriented himself towards Washington, DC and began genuflecting.

Expounding upon Lincoln's importance, Claremont Senior Fellow Charles Kessler later explained to reporters that "In the beginning was the Union, and Lincoln was with the Union, and Lincoln was the Union. In Him was centrality, and the centrality was our guarantee of plushy government appointments. This was all foretold. Lo, there was a man sent from the Union, whose name was James Madison. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the centrality, that all might believe through him. He was not the centrality, but came to bear witness to that centrality."

Of Lincoln, Kessler further elaborated, "And Lincoln became president and dwelt amongst the Washingtonians, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory. Oh, glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of Lincoln. Our truth is marching on."

Trying a different approach, Ken Masugi, the Claremont Institute's Director of the Center for Local Government, stated in koan-like fashion, "Do not confuse Lincoln for the Rousseau. Always ask, what is the 'self' in the South's notion of 'self-determination'? Self can only exist in relation to a union, the Union. Without the Union, there is no self. It is nihilism Sobran flirts with when he questions the sanctity of Lincoln. The willfulness of this columnist reveals that it is the Karl Marx of the workers' revolution who is his patron saint. And this is why the Joseph in Joseph Sobran quite rightly stands for Joseph Stalin, not the St. Joseph that his parents thought of when they christened him."

In support of the Abratollah's fatwa, Empower America's Seth Liebsohn added, "As President, Lincoln sought to preserve the Union, and he knew that the Union was the cause of manumission. He knew it because the founders knew it. And they knew it because I say they did. I support Claremont, because as a pro-life advocate, I cannot stand by while another pro-life advocate attacks the greatest defender of the life-giving Union. To say that Lincoln fighting the Civil War excludes him from being pro-life is to miss forests for some 600,000 thousand measly trees."

When asked about Claremont's fatwa, Sobran shrugged and said as he began to sort through some ticking packages bearing labels reading: NARAL, GLAAD, AIPAC and the Secret Society of Seriously Scandalized Stratfordians, "Tell them to take a number."

As I sed in an entry below, the "scholarship" of Claremont's is ideologically-driven, akin t' th' unobjective spew-att comes outta th' Marxist academy. Copold tells us th' same thang, except with humor.

Claremont: Let th' buyer bewar'.

Afternoon 7/9 Update - I just noted somethin'. While the current Backbone America page mentions Mr. Andrews' connections with the Claremont Institute, it don't say that the web site itseff is connected. However, I found this on an old version of the web site:

Welcome to BackboneAmerica.net: A Project of the Claremont Institute

Backbone America is a national citizens alliance that champions the principles of the American founding. Backbone America is led by John Andrews, based in Colorado, and sponsored by the Claremont Institute. Our vision foresees the 21st-century conservative movement reborn in the spirit of 1776. Our work applies the truths of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to contemporary issues in the states. Our name evokes the high Rockies as a summons to individual honor and constitutional rigor in these times.

So, 'twould appear-att Backbone America ain't simply the Claremonsters' "progeny", but its own "project." If so, wonder why they don't menshun it in th' newer version of th' web page. Either Claremont told 'em, fir some reason, t' cease and desist, or the folk at Backbone America felt it necessary not to call it Claremont's "project." Thangs-att make ye go "hmmmmmmmm."

Of course, the "21st-century conservative movement reborn in the spirit of 1776", is sumthin' commonly called "neoconservatism," a usurpin', pseudoconservative movement mo' concerned 'bout the 21st century than it is th' wisdom set forth in th' 18th. Wutever the "spirit of 1776" means t' th' Claremont neocons, it don't mean wut it did t' th' *folk ackshually responsible for wut happened* in 1776. Seems like th' "spirit of 1776," to th' Clarmontistas, is a warshed-out ol' ghost indeed, a cherry-picked "spirit of 1776" that suits only the Straussian 'n Jaffian ideology-att led to Claremont's foundin'. It's a "spirit of 1776" lookin' mo' like the Yankee dominated "spirit of 1865" 'n subsequent decades. It's a "spirit of 1776" lookin' like The Federalist Party on Steroids, 'n not like the spirit of th' rather anti-Federalist sorta fellow who penned th' Declaration.

And the "truths of the Declaration if Independence" Backbone America cites? Well, 'em are "truths" that have been eisogeted by these our New Jacobins. As the League of the South's Mike Tuggle puts it:

Note that "men" and "people" are used interchangeably. If I were to attempt a one-sentence summary of the Declaration, I'd say, "Every people has the right to self-determination, and we just exercised that right." That's why this document was named the "Declaration of Independence" and not the "Universal Declaration of Human Equality." None of the Founders believed in literal equality, nor in democracy, which they knew always leads to chaos.

So "one nation, under God, indivisible" is clearly an anti-American, anti-Founder statement, which was concocted, by the way, by a utopian socialist who detested what the Founders created. The Declaration's often-overlooked conclusion spells out that each former colony was now an independent country:

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

Notice that Jefferson used the pronouns "they" and "them" to describe the 13 new nations, as opposed to referring to one, united nation -- which did not exist until Lincoln's centralizing counter-revolution. Lincoln erased the idea that governments exist to serve the people; from now on, the imperial standard that the people exist to serve the government would be enforced once again -- and if it required the sacrifice of 600,000 people to preserve the existing power structure, then so be it.

Of course, the true meaning of the Declaration, like the meaning of "conservative," is just another of the inheritances our handlers have stolen from us.

'N att's precisely why I say, "Let th' buyer bewar'" when he comes accross pseudoconservative outfits like the Claremont Institute and its tentacles such as Backbone America.

S. Jones