Tag: Michael Peroutka

Michael Peroutka: Civil Rights Laws Should Never Have Been Passed

Speaking on the Steve Deace Show Tuesday, Institute on the Constitution Director and League of the South Board member Michael Peroutka criticized the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which adds sexual orientation to existing civil rights protections. However, his criticism did not end there. He added at 30:22 into the first hour:

The civil government has no authority to tell any private employer what kind of employees to hire and fire, or what constitutes discrimination. And obviously, I do mean and I would include the so-called civil rights laws are not law, they never should’ve been passed, they’re not law now, they weren’t law then, they aren’t law now because there is no such thing as a civil right.

Despite Peroutka’s past efforts to wrap himself with the legacy of Martin Luther King, here Peroutka’s views of King’s work and discrimination more broadly come through.  Peroutka has gone so far as to claim that King did not seek civil rights. However, King clearly rejected Barry Goldwater’s view of the Civil Rights Act which is a position quite similar to the one Peroutka espoused on the Deace program. Peroutka’s views expressed on this radio show are consistent with an article on his website which justifies discrimination based on race, religion and/or nationality.
One might dismiss Peroutka as without much influence, however, to me, this would be shortsighted. Peroutka’s organization Institute on the Constitution continues to make inroads in the tea party and religious right. Furthermore, Steve Deace, while far to the right in relation to the rest of the nation, seems to be mainstream in Iowa. It is alarming and disappointing to hear a voice of the right wing of the GOP in IA lament the passage of civil rights laws which protect the civil rights of all Americans.
HT: Right Wing Watch.

League Of The South's President To Blacks: Go Along, Fight, Or Get Out

The League of the South often talks about an “Anglo-Celtic” (white) Southern secession from the nation but less frequently discusses what to do about the non-whites who now live there.  The League’s president recently gave us a clue about how that “problem” would be handled.
A Twitter user, Jimbo, used a racial slur to ask Hill how he would get blacks to go along with secession. Note Hill’s response:

Once again, Hill makes clear that the League of the South does not advocate for non-whites in the South (read the rest of the conversation). The League is not interested in a multi-racial South unless non-whites go along with the League’s belief that the South is a homeland for whites of European stock. Elsewhere, Hill has made it clear that, in the eyes of the League, Southerners are white people.
In light of Hill’s comments, I again ask League of the South board member Michael Peroutka if he supports his president and fellow board member’s rhetoric? Mr. Peroutka, are Southerners only of European descent? Do you still pledge the work of the Institute on the Constitution to the League’s vision of the South?

League of the South Rules of Engagement to Help White Southerners Survive

On the League of the South’s Facebook page, Michael Hill outlines 12 rules of engagement for white Southerners to use in the war for their survival.  You can read them all but I will highlight three here:

1. The mantra “Violence [or the serious threat thereof] never settles anything” is patently false. History shows that it indeed does settle many things. Please don’t forget this—your enemy hasn’t.

So what would Dr. Hill like his followers to do with that information?

7. Don’t engage the enemy on ground of his own choosing. Don’t accept his labels—“domestic terrorist,” “right-wing extremist,” “racist,” “anti-semite,” etc. These terms are meant to shame and marginalize you. Know you own mind and laugh them off. This is quite unsettling to the enemy. Once he sees that you don’t wish to be accepted into his “society,” then he loses a major weapon (ostracization) to use against you.

Actually, when one counsels that violence does settle things, one should not be surprised if someone else labels you a domestic terrorist, or extremist. The racist charge Hill obviously doesn’t care about since he advocates for special privilege for whites.
And then:

12. We are already at war—we just don’t know it. One instance: Immigration. This is not just a matter of policy. It’s a matter of our very survival as white men and women of European Christian stock on this land we call the South. It is a zero sum game—we win or they win. There is no middle ground for compromise.–Michael Hill 

Hill claims the land of other groups (those indigenous to the land – Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, etc.) and says non-whites must stay out.  He begins with a reference to violence and ends with a call to war.
Leaving no doubt as to the aim of their advocacy, the League posted a simplified FAQ on their Facebook page. Here is a taste:

Q. Who are the Southern People?
A. The descendants of European, Christian peoples who settled the Southern regions of North America
Q. What is a kith and kin nation?
A. A People bound together by blood and soil
Q. What do we mean by Anglo-Celtic?
A. The Peoples of the British Isles
Q. Is The League of the South a Christian organization?
A. We defend and promote Western Christian civilization.
Q. Is The League of the South a “racist” organization?
A. The term “racist” is an anti-White, anti-Southern slur. 

The League’s slogan in their rejection of non-whites is “it’s wrong to replace us.” Apparently, the League doesn’t understand their native tongue. Replace can mean to put something in another place or to substitute one thing for another. Neither action is happening to Southern whites. They are still there and have not been moved. Most people get that. However, the League has this fantasy that Southern whites are secretly yearning to separate from everyone else. It is not going to happen and I have little fear of their political aspirations.
What bothers me is the influence of League in evangelical churches, via their kinist Christian reconstructionism, expressed recently by the Institute on the Constitution. IOTC’s founder and director and League of the South board member Michael Peroutka pledged the IOTC to work of the League of the South. As a board member, he is partly responsible for the message of the group and it seems clear to me what the message is.

Institute on the Constitution, God and Government, and Christian Reconstructionism

Yesterday, the Institute on the Constitution dropped a press release about their God and Government program. From the Christian Newswire release:

The “Institute on the Constitution” has launched “The God And Government Project” the purpose of which is to remind elected officials, and those who seek civil government offices, that government is from God and their first duty must be to obey God and His Word (Romans 13.)

The folks at IOTC want citizens to use open mic time before city council meetings to tell officials that they need to use the Bible as the basis for civil law. IOTC encourages followers to use IOTC-prepared scripts.  See an earlier post on the subject and this article for more on what IOTC encourages their followers to do.
The GaG (appropriate) program is consistent with IOTC’s Christian reconstructionist worldview. During his course on the Constitution, Peroutka twists history to make it appear that the founders deliberately created a biblical form of government in line with IOTC views. In a current commentary on his IOTC website, Michael Peroutka makes a case that civil government officials are obligated to govern in accord with his view of the Bible.

Since civil government is ordained by God in order to protect God-given rights, then the function of civil government is to obey God and to enforce God’s law – PERIOD.
It is not the role of civil government to house, feed, clothe, educate or give heath care to…ANYBODY! (Or to operate a Panda-cam at the National Zoo.)

According to Peroutka, government can only do what he thinks God says government can do.
The IOTC website enshrines Rousas Rushdoony, the father of Christian reconstructionism. IOTC’s Director of Communications, John Lofton, calls Rushdoony his “theological mentor” on more than one occasion.  Rushdoony’s articles on theocracy and dominionism, politics, taxation, and religion in law are available along with many others. Mark Rushdoony’s (son of Rousas) speech on Christian reconstructionism is cited approvingly as well.
According to Mark Rushdoony, Christian reconstructionism sees the church as Israel.

In 1987 Ross House Books (which is now part of Chalcedon) published a book on covenant theology by Charles D. Provan called The Church Is Israel Now.That title sums up the heart of covenant theology, that the Christian church is heir of the promises to and the responsibility of the Hebrew nation of old.

Thus the proper society is ruled by an Old Testament style regime where the Christian reconstructionist’s understanding of the Bible is the basis for civil law. This is exactly what IOTC’s God and Government program promotes as the message followers should tell elected officials.
Even after his death, Rushdoony’s views are controversial. IOTC does not back away from this. On the IOTC website, readers are directed to an interview given to Bill Moyers in 1988 by Rousas Rushdoony.  In this interview, Rushdoony affirms that civil government should be based on the Bible, including injuctions that would lead to the death penalty for 15 crimes, including adulterers, homosexuals, and truly incorrigible sons.  Roll the tape:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paL2s4HJScg[/youtube]
Listen to the entire segment to get the context. The section on the death penalty is as follows:

Moyers: You’ve written that the Bible calls for the death penalty, and I’m just running down a variety of things as you can see. You’ve written that the Bible calls for the death penalty of some 15 crimes: rape, sodomy, adultery.
Rushdoony: Adultery because in the Bible the basic institution is the family. There’s no law of treason against the state. The Bible doesn’t even imagine anything remotely like that. But the basic institution is the family. And so, several of the death penalties are associated with the family and its life.
Moyers: So adultery was considered a theft of the family.
Rushdoony: It was, yes, it was treason to the family.
Moyers: Homosexuality.
Rushdoony: Yes, it was treason to the family.
Moyers: Worthy of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: What?
Moyers: Worthy of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: Yes.
Moyers: Deserving of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: Yes, that’s what Paul says.
…
Moyers: But you would re-instate the death penalty for some of these or all of these Biblical crimes?
Rushdoony: I wouldn’t—
Moyers: But the reconstructive society–
Rushdoony: I’m saying that this is what God requires. I’m not saying that everything in the Bible, I like. Some of it rubs me the wrong way. But I’m simply saying, this is what God requires. This is what God says is justice. Therefore, I don’t feel I have a choice.
Moyers: And the agents of God would carry out the laws.
Rushdoony: The civil government would, on these things.
Moyers: So you would have a civil government, based upon–
Rushdoony: Oh yes. I’m not an anarchist. I’m close to being a libertarian. But–
Moyers: But the civil law would be based on the biblical law. And so you’d have a civil government carrying out a religious mandate.
Rushdoony: Oh yes.

Given their reverence for Rushdoony and the link to this interview, I think it is a fair assumption that IOTC is in sympathy with these views. Since they won’t answer my requests for information, I will ask here publicly – IOTC leaders (Peroutka, Lofton), do you agree with Rushdoony here? Would you, in the government you are calling for, put people to death for adultery, homosexuality and the other crimes delineated by Rushdoony?
One thing I don’t need to ask about is the IOTC view of public schools. In the citation above, Peroutka says civil government has no role in education. Historically, reconstructionists have been strong supporters of Christian schools as alternatives to public education. One of the leading reconstructionists, and Rushdoony’s son-in-law Gary North, said this about the relationship between Christian schools and religious liberty (for a longer quote and commentary, see this article).

The major churches of any society are all maneuvering for power, so that their idea of lawful legislation will become predominant. They are all perfectly willing to use the ideal of religious liberty as a device to gain power, until the day comes that abortion is legalized (denying the right of life to infants) or prohibited (denying the “right of control over her own body,” after conception, to each woman). Everyone talks about religious liberty, but no one believes it.
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Murder, abortion, and pornography will be illegal. God’s law will be enforced. It will take time. A minority religion cannot do this. Theocracy must flow  from the hearts of a majority of citizens, just as compulsory education came only after most people had their children in schools of some sort. But religious anarchy, like “democratic freedom” in ancient Greece, is a temporary phenomenon; it lasts only as long as no single group gets sufficient power and accepted authority to abandon the principle. Religious anarchy, as a long-term legal framework for organizing a society, is as mythical as neutrality is. Both views assume that the institutions of civil government can create and enforce neutral law. They are cousins, and people believe in them only temporarily, until they make up their minds concerning which God they will serve.

While I doubt this will ever happen, it seems clear that the IOTC and like-minded reconstructionists will keep on trying to make it a reality. For IOTC supporters who love the First Amendment, you have a rude awakening coming. As Peroutka and Lofton proclaim, civil law should obey and enforce God’s law, and by that they mean their interpretation of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Someone’s religion must be obeyed according to Rushdoony, and the folks at IOTC want to make sure it is their religion. For now, they will use freedom of speech and religion at city council meetings to get their voices heard but if ever they get their way, one cannot count on these rights remaining. If you really believe in freedom of conscience and religious liberty, then you cannot fully embrace IOTC’s GaG program. While the folks at IOTC want freedom of religion to speak at public meetings, they very openly proclaim that they want civil government to obey their religious views to the exclusion of all others.
In contrast, I want the reconstructionists to be able to speak their mind, but I don’t want civil officials to use one religion as the basis for their governing. In contrast to Peroutka’s odd construction, using one religion as the basis for civil law is prohibited by the First Amendment. Gary North says no one really believes in religious liberty. He is wrong; the framers most certainly did.

League Of The South Fears Average Southern Whites Might Be Offended By Neo-Nazi Ties

In a post on the League of the South Facebook group (also on their public page), it was disclosed that recent League of the South award winner Matthew Heimbach has been banned from the upcoming League protest of “demographic displacement” in Murfreesboro, TN. Heimbach’s offense is that he consorts with neo-Nazis and plans to speak at a National Socialist meeting.
Explaining the action, League president Michael Hill said
LeagueAverageWhites
Three observations come to mind.
One, I can’t tell if this a pragmatic move for public relations, or if Hill really believes national socialism is incompatible with Southern nationalism. In any case, it seems clear that Hill sees problems with continued association with Heimbach. The League normally decries charges that involve guilt by association. Influential League member and organizer of the TN protest Brad Griffin (aka Hunter Wallace) chided those who get caught in the “associations game.” Now the League has found a reason to do the same thing.
Two, I wonder if Michael Hill will now stop appearing on neo-Nazi radio shows. Twice recently, once in August and then again in September, Hill appeared on the American Nationalist Network radio show. When you click through the American Nationalist Network link on blogtalk radio, you come to unashamed white supremacist, Hitler worship. For instance, check out this disgusting little gem of wisdom from der Fuhrer on the Facebook page of the organization Michael Hill dignified with an interview.
The ANN tweeted about Hill’s appearance back in August. No seig heiling but Hill was fine with being associated with the ANN.

Seems like Hill shouldn’t go to the TN rally either. Probably they should just cancel it.
My third observation involves Michael Hill’s statement that the League of the South seeks to rally average Southern whites. Can it be any clearer that skin color and region are the main issues of interest for the League? The target audience is marked by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. If League of the South board member Michael Peroutka is serious with his recent video invoking Martin Luther King, then shouldn’t he publicly condemn his own League of the South for targeting people based on skin color?