George Phillies’ statement to Massachusetts State Committee

I first received this several weeks ago. At that time George asked me to hold off on posting it. I note it has now been published at Last Free Voice.

Phillies Statement to the Massachusetts State Committee
(Edited from the May LPMass Minutes)

Last week I spent eight days in scenic Denver at our libertarian party national convention. As our state chair, as a voting delegate, I spoke up vigorously for our libertarian message of peace, liberty, and prosperity. I am deeply troubled to report on the outcome of that convention.

I shall preface the remark with the observation that I am a presidential elector for our state party, and having promised to perform those obligations, I intend to perform them by voting for our national candidate if I am in fact placed on the ballot and if we happen to carry Massachusetts. Mind you, the likelihood of the latter event taking place appears to be vanishingly small.

Let us recall where our state party is. We have very limited resources of people and money. Last year, we couldn’t use those resources both to recruit and support candidates for our state legislature and to support a Federal campaign. We don’t have enough money or people. We chose to commit those resources to place on the ballot our presidential candidate. After all, our libertarian party had had excellent opportunity to exploit the current political situation.

The situation has not developed as favorably as might have been hoped. The keynote speaker of the convention, and I personally protested, was Richard Viguerie. In 1976, Viguerie competed with Lester Maddox for the nomination of the American Independent Party started by George Wallace. Viguerie’s direct mail campaigns are well known to have supported such right-wing racists and bigots as Jesse Helms, Sun Young Moon, Oliver North, George Wallace, and Donald Wildmon. Viguerie advised Jerry Falwell on the formation of the Moral Majority. His presence as keynote speaker can only be viewed as a conscious decision by our national chair William Redpath to identify our party with right wing conservative bigotry. In Massachusetts, the first state to eliminate slavery, this espousal of white racism by our national party is not a positive selling point.

Earlier this election cycle, our party national committee used party resources to assist in the presidential campaign of the candidate of the George Bush party of conservative racism. Those resources were given to our national committee to advance the campaigns of libertarian candidates, not to advance the campaigns of Republican candidates. The decision of our Libertarian National Committee to use those resources that to support the Republican was a gross breach of the fiduciary responsibilities of our National Committee. Unfortunately, many of these people were reelected to office.

I regret to note that our presidential candidate, Bob Barr, not ten years ago attempted organize an army pogrom against the Wicca faith. To its credit, the army refused to cooperate. Having a presidential candidate who attempted to drive members of any faith out of the army will not be a positive selling point for our other candidates. Many of Barr’s other stands are equally problematic, and most Massachusetts residents have adequate political sophistication not to believe the election-day conversion of a political candidate from one stand to another.

The net result of all this, in my opinion, is that our national party has thrown away its political opportunity to expand our party. Our decision as a State Committee, however reasonable, to emphasize supporting a presidential campaign has proved a disaster for our party for which I must personally take responsibility. We now have neither a presidential candidate who is viable in Massachusetts nor the possibility of exploiting the ongoing collapse of the Massachusetts Bush Republican war party of bigots.

I am not unaware that I have previously accepted the nomination of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party to be its presidential candidate, a matter that was well known in advance, and so in other places I will be obliged to keep my other promises. I note that in the highly controversial and well-researched national convention that we just finished, none of my opponents viewed my prior commitment to our New Hampshire sister party to be worthy of comment or criticism, and therefore I do not feel that keeping both sets of promises at the same time is contradictory.

Having said that, I did participate in our Libertarian National Convention, and I remain personally obliged, until such time as my state committee or state party invokes my prior commitment to them and instructs me otherwise, to be supportive in Massachusetts of our presidential candidate.

The underlying difficulty, which we will need to resolve, is that our national party is in the grip of southern white bigots who gave us a candidate who addressed the Council Of Conservative Citizens, and who gave LNC resources to a Republican presidential candidate whose current position is that “don’t ask don’t tell” is all right with him. It remains my duty, a duty as heavy as a mountain, to support our presidential candidate. However, I do not believe it can be said to be in the best interests of the libertarians of Massachusetts to avoid some correction in circumstances relating to a national party whose national chair de facto just endorsed white racism by having a former George Wallace and Donald Wildmon fundraiser, a man who ran against Lester Maddox for national office nomination, as a keynote speaker.

26 thoughts on “George Phillies’ statement to Massachusetts State Committee

  1. Trent Hill

    Sounds likea revolt.

    I hope it happens. I like George Phillies’ positions even less than Bob Barr’s—but at least I know I can trust him.

  2. paulie cannoli Post author

    LPNH chose Phillies. He will be on the ballot there. Barr may be as well, or not.

    Additionally, while Phillies is willing to cooperate with substitution, and has in fact sought legal help to do so, at this time the MA state government has reversed its previous statement, and has said it will not substitute Barr and Root for Phillies and Bennett. We finished getting the last of the signatures today.

    There may or may not be a similar issue in CT, where Phillies is also on the ballot.

    And, in addition, I heard there may be other states nominating other candidates – or no candidates – instead of Barr.

  3. Arthur Torrey

    All I know is that while I wish George were more radical, I can feel comfortable casting a vote for him in the general (If I’m able to – and the courts don’t replace him with Barr). In the very unlikely case that I’m called on to serve as a Presidential Elector, again, I could cast an electoral vote for George, I couldn’t cast one for Barr…

    ART
    LPMA Presidential Elector
    Speaking for myself

  4. Trent Hill

    “And, in addition, I heard there may be other states nominating other candidates – or no candidates – instead of Barr.”

    Im going to guess Arizona.

  5. paulie cannoli Post author

    An Arizona officer told me no.

    Not sure which states George was referring to.

  6. richardwinger

    Remember, George’s statement was written some time ago. There are no Libertarian state parties any longer threatening not to nominate Barr, outside of the 2 New England states that are refusing to allow substitution. The New Mexico, Arizona and Arkansas Parties have all sent in the paperwork for Barr.

  7. darren

    You wouldn’t know Mr. Phillies was supporting Barr from this missive. His repeated accusations of racism and white supremacy against Barr and the LNC make him sound like a crank. If he were really interested in growing the MA party rather than griping about his poor primary showing he would see the common ground and embrace Barr’s full-throated supported for civil liberties (anti-FISA, pro-Heller, etc.) and aggressively market to MA media a pro-civil liberties LP ticket from president to dogcatcher. With Obama’s recent support for FISA and embrace of keeping troops in Iraq based on “conditions on the ground”, there could be many disenchanted liberals willing to vote on principle in November since Obama will easily win the state. But it’s easier to whine and enable the MA and NH delegations to lodge a ballot protest that no one outside of forums like this will even know about. If you’re going to split your party over a keynote address you need to grow up.

  8. hardymacia

    I whole heartedly second Darren’s post.

    We are collecting the petitions in NH to put Barr on the ballot.

  9. Sean Scallon

    The Boston Tea Party (wow that’s was Massachucetts right?) awaits those libertarians who think the party has been taken over by the KKK as Mr. Philles demagougically does.

  10. Sean Scallon

    The Boston Tea Party (wow that’s was Massachusetts right?) awaits those libertarians who think the party has been taken over by the KKK as Mr. Philles demagougically does.

  11. RedPhillips

    Does Dr. Phillies think that if he screeches racist and bigot enough times it will help his case? It makes him sound like some white-guilt ridden liberal PC jihadist.

    I hope few thoughtful libertarians will take this seriously, as opposed to the knee-jerk PCtarians, of course.

    BTW, Dr. Phillies, nice display of anti-Southern bigotry. There are few more bigoted than the anti-bigotry bigots. But what would you expect from someone from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. Two can play at that game, right? 😉

  12. paulie cannoli Post author

    That reminds me.

    Red, any details to expand on your own views on race yet? (I haven’t checked back to the thread where we last discussed it to see if you added anything new there since the last time I posted on it).

  13. RedPhillips

    paulie, surely you see the harm in this sort of PC jihadism? It is the ultimate case of guilty until proven innocent. People must first inoculate themselves against a charge of racism by slavishly regurgitating PC right think. If they don’t, then their refusal to parrot neo-marxist ideology is proof of guilt. For that reason I generally refuse to play this game. I don’t have to prove I am not a “racist” whatever that means and no one else should either. Someone should actually have to bring forward some actual proof of an overt expression of race based hate or ill will before the charge can be made. Otherwise it is just PC slander. If anyone can produce ANYTHING I have ever written or said that expresses overt hate then I would sure like to see it.

    While I generally don’t play this game because I think it empowers the PC thought police, I will attempt to answer your question because you appear to be one of those PC bulldogs I sometimes deal with who just can’t let go, and so will continue to derail every subsequent thread with your attempts to play PC gotcha.

    Your innuendo was that I said the Founders views on race were politically incorrect as opposed to actually incorrect. Well pardon me for not sufficiently satisfying your morbid curiosity about my views on race preemptively. My point was that modern day purist egalitarians who point to the Founders and the DoI in particular to support their views are either historically ignorant or intentionally deceptive. All honest people must admit that the Founders were not purist egalitarians in the modern sense. Just ask the slaves, the Indians, the women who couldn’t vote, the non-property owners who couldn’t vote, the German immigrants that Franklin famously groused about, etc. This is not really a debatable point. Some people (modern “conservatives” and most leftists) might find it an inconvenient point because it messes up their tidy little narrative, but it is still a fact. The primary people who dare to tell the truth about this are radical leftists (“America was founded on the backs of the slaves” types) and paleocons like me. Otherwise we get liars like Jaffa who say America was founded on equality and time has just “perfected” that, especially ol’ Lincoln “perfecting” it by the sword. Of course, this is all blatant, transparent balderdash.

    So were the Founder’s views on race incorrect? What specifically are you asking me to comment on? Do you want me to deny that I think that race is a real biological entity and that the races differ? Is that what is required to pass your PC purity test? Or would it be sufficient for me to deny that I think race was a legitimate basis for enslavement which of course I do? But you didn’t really need me to deny the later because I dare say you have never met anyone who thinks race based slavery should be reinstituted.

  14. paulie cannoli Post author

    Red,

    I have no PC purity test.

    I’m asking for views. You can answer the question in as much or as little detail as you wish, or not at all.

    I have no agenda beyond understanding the actual viewpoint of someone I am talking to, although I find it curious that you are projecting an agenda on me simply for asking to clarify your views.

    You stated that the racial views of the founders were “politically” incorrect, which leads to the presumption that you believe they were factually correct, and that it is taboo to say so.
    If that’s not what you meant, why the word “politically”?

    As you readily admit, all or almost all of the founders were extremely racist. To what degree, if any, you disagree with those views is up to you to answer, or not, any time you wish.

    I am not derailing every thread. In fact I gave you quite some time before I brought it up again, since you said you wished to compose your thoughts.

    I only asked again here since you brought up the issue of bigotry.

    radical leftists (“America was founded on the backs of the slaves” types)

    You deny this historical fact? I guess I’m a radical leftist for thinking that slave labor had anything to do with building America. It depends on what you mean by radical leftist, since I am for ending government taxation and regulation, and 100% pro gun owners rights, among other views most Americans consider right wing.

    I dare say you have never met anyone who thinks race based slavery should be reinstituted.

    I dare say you are wrong. I’ve met many people who have.

    No, I don’t think opposing reinstating racially based slavery means that you are not a racist.

    But, if you are, why not say it? There are plenty of open racists out there. No one is forcing them to hide their opinions.

    If you aren’t, of course, you are free to say so as well. Or just keep folks guessing. Entirely up to you.

  15. RedPhillips

    “I dare say you are wrong. I’ve met many people who have. ”

    You have met many (?) people who want to reinstitute slavery? I find that very hard to believe.

    America had slaves, but it is was not “founded on the backs of slaves.” That is a leftist, white-guilt ridden formulation.

    What exactly is a “racist?” If words meant anything it would indicate race based hate or ill will of some sort as I indicated above. Properly defined, I am most certainly not a racist. I don’t hate anyone, and I don’t think hate is compatible with Christianity.

    But you know, and I know, that racism no longer means just hate. It means any opposition to a certain political agenda, denial of the biological reality of race and racial differences, etc.

    People opposed to immigration are racists. James Watson and his ever so cautious liberal defender William Saletan is a racist. Confederate flag flyers are racists. Lincoln opponents are racists. Etc. It is all just absurd.

    I assume you are against the War. Surely you have run across people who throw around the label anti-Semite when someone questions our policies in the Middle East, suggests that the Israeli lobby has disproportionate influence, or uses the word neocon. Surely you object to that nonsense. Likewise rabid war supporters throw around the terms un-American and unpatriotic anytime someone questions the War. Surely you object to that also. But these examples are exactly in the same spirit as the use of the word racist. It isn’t intended to convey any useful information because it has been rendered meaningless. It is simply a word used to stop thought. I am not sure why a free-thinker like you would want to contribute to this atmosphere. Perhaps you should think about that, and so should Dr. Phillies.

  16. paulie cannoli Post author

    You have met many (?) people who want to reinstitute slavery? I find that very hard to believe.

    Believe it.

    FYI, these were mostly not intellectuals.

  17. paulie cannoli Post author

    America had slaves, but it is was not “founded on the backs of slaves.” That is a leftist, white-guilt ridden formulation.

    Feel free to expound on the difference, or not. Besides the characterizations, you have done nothing to dispute the fact.

  18. paulie cannoli Post author

    What exactly is a “racist?”

    rac·ism Audio Help /ˈreɪsɪzÉ™m/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun
    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
    [Origin: 1865–70; < F racisme. See race2, -ism] —Related forms racist, noun, adjective Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This rac·ism Audio Help (rā'sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. rac'ist adj. & n. (Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This racist 1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This racist adjective 1. based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion noun 1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others ------- I see you saw fit to only use one of these definitions, involving hate. You did not address whether you adhere to "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement..." Or "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability" or support "a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination." The US founders did. Were they incorrect in this, or merely "politically incorrect?"

  19. paulie cannoli Post author

    The US founders held 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

    They believed it justified
    2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

    Do you agree or disagree?

  20. paulie cannoli Post author

    I assume you are against the War.

    Yes.


    Surely you have run across people who throw around the label anti-Semite when someone questions our policies in the Middle East, suggests that the Israeli lobby has disproportionate influence, or uses the word neocon. Surely you object to that nonsense.

    Yes, although it is indeed true that some Jew-haters have used the antiwar movement as cover to spread their views.


    Likewise rabid war supporters throw around the terms un-American and unpatriotic anytime someone questions the War. Surely you object to that also.

    Yes. Although I cop to being unpatriotic.


    But these examples are exactly in the same spirit as the use of the word racist. It isn’t intended to convey any useful information because it has been rendered meaningless.

    I disagree. There are in fact people who are racist, anti-semitic against Jews (and some who are anti-semitic against Arabs and Muslim middle easterners), etc.

    Just because some people tar with too wide a brush does not mean the concepts they are tarring with lose all validity.

    I would not say you are an anti-semite merely because you oppose the war; if every other word you utter is about Zionists, Zionist media, Zionist bankers, etc., you surely are.

    David Duke is a racist. The KKK and the Aryan Nations are racist. Stormfront is racist.

    The founders were racist.

    This is a reality, even if you choose to couch it in niceties such as “not egalitarian.”

    If you agree that their views on race were factually correct, you are a racist.

    Since you haven’t said so, I don’t know whether you are or are not, but the use of the term “politically incorrect” to characterize their views indicates you are likely to be.

  21. RedPhillips

    “The founders were racist.”

    Whatever paulie. You are a PC preener. You are not a serious person. If it makes you feel better to declare people who lived 200 plus years ago racists, a word and concept that didn’t even exist back then, then you are hopelessly myopic and a mindless PC grandstander.

    People have to be judged according to their times. This is not moral relativism, it is moral realism. EVERYONE was a “racist” 200 + years ago. Name me one exception. If you lived back then it is 100% certain that you would have been too, and some snot nosed modern would be condemning you for it. This is why I have no use for it when people on my side of the WBTS debate call Lincoln a racist. Lincoln was what almost every other American, North and South, was in 1861.

    Are all the Englishmen in the Middles Ages living under a Monarch to be condemned because they were not democrats? That kind of thinking is foolish absurdity, and the mark of an ideologue.

    It is true that there are real anti-Semites, (and I agree that some of the most virulent are anti-Arab anti-Semites) but surely you object to the “first use” of the charge as a rhetorical devise to stop debate. You do know that Ron Paul was called an anti-Semite because he used the other n word … neocon. Recently he used the term “new right” and in response some smarta** PC wag said by that he means “Jew Right.” I hope you realize that your PC grandstanding contributes to this debate stifling atmosphere.

    I agree that there are real anti-Semites and real race-based haters although much fewer than the race hustling and anti-Semitism hustling demagogues would have us believe. But I believe that anti-anti-Semitism and anti-racism is a much bigger problem these days than is anti-Semitism or racism. That is why I call them out. Because they are used to stifle debate, vilify benign and purely natural inclinations, and are hypocritically applied only to whites.

    I denounced the hate aspect of the definition because that is the part I am willing to give credence to. I specifically rejected what the term has come to mean and you obliged by providing modern definitions that illustrate the problem. Of course I reject the idea that any race “has the right to rule others,” for example, but who on earth believes that these days?

    But the definition requires people to maintain an egalitarian view that the races either do not differ (if they even exist) or if they do that those differences have no implications. But this is not a moral or philosophical question. This is am empirical question. The definition requires the a priori acceptance of a particular conclusion. Surely a thinking man such as yourself must object to such patent nonsense. To attach a value laden epithet to someone for not accepting a certain conclusion before the fact is clearly absurd and is intended to further an agenda. Is the fact that with utter certainty the fastest sprinters in the upcoming Olympics are going to be of West African decent purely a coincidence? If you think not then you are a racist by the definitions you provided. Anyone who thinks not which is anyone with a lick of sense is a racist by those definitions.

    Since in a previous post you implied that you are an evolutionist, then surely you must not be one of the race denying sophists that have become all the rage. (You know, the race does not exist as a real biological entity and is only a social construct crowd.) There is no one sillier than the race denying evolutionist. As if the rules that apply to other species suddenly quit applying to humans because if they did it would violate egalitarian dogma.

    I get the game paulie. This whole exercise is an attempt by you to bait out of me an impure thought so that you can then jump up and down like a little child pointing and barking “Racist, racist, racist. Na na na, he’s a racist.” I call it the PC pounce. And at anytime in the future when you disagree with me and want to “discredit” me then you can whip out the offending remark and do it all again. You know, what I referred to above as thought stopping and stifling debate. It sure is less intellectual work than actual debate, isn’t it?

    Well right back at you. I really do hope you reply by endorsing racial denial flat earth foolishness and claim that my refusal to do so makes me a racist. I beg you to prove your anti-racist bona fides by suggesting that the virtually certain outcome of the upcoming Olympic sprints have nothing to do with “inherent differences” in “ability” between the races. Then that would just mark you further as an unserious child, and I could be done with you.

    Go play in your sandbox little paulie, and let the adults have a serious conversation.

  22. G.E.

    The fact that Lincoln was a racist is extremely relavent, since the neocons present him as the Great Liberator, a 19th century Martin Luther King.

    There were non-racists 200 years ago, and there certainly were during the time of Lincoln.

  23. RedPhillips

    The fact that Lincoln held the same views as the vast majority of white people back then is certainly relevant. It destroys the morality play of virtuous North and evil South and proves that the Jaffaesque argument that Lincoln was waging war to usher in a purely egalitarian society is a fanciful lie. But to call him a racist is hindsight moralizing and plays into the hands of the anti-racist obsessives.

    There were 200 years ago or in 1861, I am sure, some people who felt that the government should treat everyone the same regardless of race. But they were not the majority North or South. Look at the Illinois codes that banned immigration of ex-slaves, for example. But views about racial disparity were ubiquitous. Even many of the abolitionists had very paternalistic attitudes towards the slaves.

  24. G.E.

    Red, I agree with you that the pervading values of a culture can be hard to overcome. But our society accepted not only the notion that individuals varied in human worth on the basis of skin color and continental ancestry, but also that these differences justified the imprisonment, forced labor, torture, murder, and rape without penalty of individuals with the wrong color skin and forced ancestry. That is WRONG no matter the cultural values, and it cannot be excused. It is truly evil in the darkest sense of the word.

    Of course, a good half or so of the leading founders knew it to be wrong and said so.

    In other cultures at other times, it has been acceptable to practice infanticide. In ours, it is acceptable to practice a certain form of infanticide or pre-infanticide known as abortion. Although it may be difficult to see the immorality of a practice or institution so ingrained in the fabric of one’s culture, there is a moral absolute, “though shalt not initiate force” that proscribes all of these injustices.

  25. RedPhillips

    I don’t disagree. Exposure of infants, for example, has in some places and times in the past been commonplace. It is forever and always wrong, but it has to be viewed through the lens of the times. (Early Christian writings suggest that one thing that distinguished Christians is that they didn’t expose their infants, BTW.) It generally arose in situations plagued by scarcity, not in places of abundance where children were generally welcomed. Our moral judgments of people who did so in the past should be tempered compared to the judgment we would have of someone who did that today. As I said, this is not moral relativism, it is moral realism. My issue is partially one of language. Calling people in the past names serves no purpose and helps only the name caller to feel morally superior. We should learn from the past, not strike a pose regarding it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *