We Saw Cliven Bundy’s Paleoconservatism from Miles Away

nevada-ranch-wannabeNobody should feign surprise that Cliven Bundy is a raging racist and dreams of slave plantations, just as nobody should be surprised that a white man who owes one million dollars in back taxes would claim that black people in low-income housing are the real moochers. I referenced in my article about him yesterday that his anti-federal government, States’ Rights tirades were merely disguised anti-black people tirades. So there’s no surprise that he is an abject racist. What is surprising is how loud and bold he became about it – and how soon. But if you give a loud, ignorant white man a big enough microphone for a long enough time, he’s gonna say some shitty stuff. Anybody that Fox News, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, and Rand Paul supports so unapologetically should be held suspect from the get-go. There should be no doubt that these paleoconservatives know and appreciate their own – and they sniffed out Bundy’s Paleoconservatism from the first whiff of federal defiance.

If they could, they would seek to have every person of color singing field songs while providing free labor, every white woman providing babies, and every LGBTQ person disappeared.

According to the New York Times (Trigger Warnings for racism and slavery apologism):

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro.” Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Of course Bundy feels qualified to speak about Black families because he studied race theory, post-colonialism, African diaspora history, African American history passed some poor families a couple times and he saw some hanging around on their porches. I’m guessing black people can’t hang out in Paleoconservativestan?

I’ve been to Oklahoma several times and saw white people hanging around on their porches and I often never wondered if they’d be better served by picking cotton sixteen hours a day, getting whipped for slight provocations, being hunted down for refusing to take any more, and being forcibly removed from their families. Bundy complains about black people not having family lives even though families are with each other. Didn’t he just say that he saw them hanging out? Oh, and I didn’t know they sent their own to jail. I thought that might have to do with a racist criminal justice system.

Fook this sh*t. I don’t know how to pick cotton and I doubt Bundy would ever want to.

Given Bundy’s Paleoconservatism and extreme racism, is it surprising that his supporters would suggest using female family members as body shields in case federal agents went cracking down? That these militia men are actually cowards who get their shine-ons from thinking of bullets and bombs piercing human flesh is no surprise, and that they think so lowly of women that they would offer them as human sacrifices for their ego wars with the federal government is no shocker. But for them to say it out loud, to propose coercing female family members to lay down their lives – that’s some chutzpah there, and not the good kind. This is violence against women, but it should come as no surprise. Racism, misogyny, and homophobia are interconnected.

Let’s take another of Bundy’s supporters, Rand Paul. Randie, of course, became famous for arguing with Rachel Maddow about why the Civil Rights Act was such a bad thing. And he’s the son of Ron Paul, of the infamous White Supremacy/anti-gay Ron Paul Letters. Rand, as we’ve documented time and time again, is highly misogynist, somewhat racist and ableist. And, I know, total shocker, he like Bundy is a Southern Apologist. But unlike Bundy, he knows he needs to not go Full Racist. As long as he makes it seem like he’s not for slavery, just blaming the Civil War on the North. As long as he appears to reach out to black students while telling them they should come back to the Party of Lincoln. As if black college students going to historically black universities are not aware of their own history.

Clive Bundy’s Paleoconservatism and racism should come as no surprise, as we said earlier, because that’s what views like States’ Rights are – racism. States’ Rights is a claim to relive the unquestioned supremacy of the White Male in the household and workplace. So pining for the good ol’ days of slavery and Jim Crow are fundamental aspects of States’ Rights ideology. If they are not very careful, the States’ Rights supporter – the PaleoConservative/PaleoConfederate – will boldly proclaim their desire to return things back to the way it was. Like Duck Commander Phil Robertson, who wondered loudly why Black workers are being denied the glory days of Jim Crow when they were happily singing work songs and who’s only apparent use for women apparently is for their sexual organs, and who loudly proclaims disgust at the idea of human beings who practice sex in non-vanilla ways.

What these men believe should not amaze. The fact that they’re saying it out loud should be pause for concern. Because for some reason, they believe that the world belongs to them and that we owe them. There are millions of others being emboldened right now to also share their violent anti-black, anti-brown, anti-woman, anti-trans, anti-homosexual, anti-human thoughts with us, in word or deed or (like Rand Paul) policy. Fighting this will not be easy – these hatreds are an integral part of our history and our present. These paleoconservatives will not just die out, for there are new ones waiting every generation. Get rid of Ron Paul and we still got Rand Paul and whatever kid he’s inspiring right now.

How do we progressives change the game so they’re no longer controlling the narrative?


When he’s not riding both his city’s public transit system and evil mayor, Jasdye teaches at a community college and writes about the intersection of equality and faith - with an occasional focus on Chicago - at the Left Cheek blog and on the Left Cheek: the Blog Facebook page. Check out more from Jasdye in his archives as well!


Facebook comments

  • strayaway

    “Rand Paul supports (Bundy) so unapologetically”

    That statement is incorrect. Rand Paul sidestepped Bundy’s legal problems and criticized the BLM’s management and the federal government’s Gestapo like approach, so accepted here, including a swat team, dogs, violence against women, armored vehicles, killing cattle, and needless destruction of property. When Senator Reid called his opposition “domestic terrorists” Paul replied, “I think we need to tone down the rhetoric a little bit. I think all of us hope or should hope that we get a peaceful outcome to this.” When Bundy started saying stupid things about Negroes, Paul immediately stated, “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.” Bundy said some stupid things but its Reid and the left that are sounding like the KKK talking up a night ride.

    • Sandy Greer

      Seems like you like Rand Paul. And I agree with you, to some extent (votes for ex-cons, drug laws) So I have a question:

      Would ‘toning down the rhetoric’ apply to either:

      1) Gestapo like approaches
      2) Lefties sounding like the KKK talking up a night ride

      Just wondering… 😉

      No need for me to get into the ‘violence against women’ – as I’ve already covered that in my OP.

      • strayaway

        Sure, federal law requires that federal agencies have local police make arrests so getting rid of all the federal police state stuff would definitely tone down the ambiance and be (bonus!) legal. Federal bureaucracies like the LMB and DOE shouldn’t even have swat teams. Those suggesting rounding up people they disagree with for FEMA camps for sedition could turn it down a notch too.

      • Sandy Greer

        Deflection, much? 😉

        Only reason I asked was you quoted Rand Paul about ‘toning down the rhetoric’. So I thought maybe you approved what he said.

        We don’t control anybody but ourselves. What we believe – we need to practice what we preach. Even if we’re the only ones preaching – OR practicing.

        I reckon it’s the one way we command Respect – even from Opponents – is to practice what we preach.

        Just saying.

      • strayaway

        I approve of what Rand said but actions speak louder than words. I think both sides ought to put away their guns and start following the law. If Bundy did something wrong, have the police arrest him with a warrant the next time he shows up in town. No warrant? Then leave him alone.

      • Sandy Greer

        So, you approve what RP said – but think ‘both sides ought to put away their guns’.

        Does this mean YOU won’t put away your own ‘guns’ (rhetoric) if the other side doesn’t?

        I ask because I KNOW you don’t believe in trading insult for insult. I’ve seen it, and I know that about you.

        IF we wait for the ‘other’ guy (only act bilaterally, whether in throwing down our ‘guns’, or anything else) – we let the other guy control what we do. We are reactive, rather than proactive.

        How can we make a difference in this world if we always wait for the ‘other’ guy?

        ^^^This is larger than ‘rhetoric’ – as you can see.

      • strayaway

        What do you mean? I never expressed any desire for violence, hurting ranchers, or government officials; only that the law be observed by both sides. That wasn’t me that was talking about sending people with different viewpoints to FEMA camps for sedition. I didn’t wish ill on anyone. However, as a citizen, I get to say what I think about what my government and its paid employees are doing right or wrong and and how to do things better. I want the government to start obeying its own law. If you can somehow otherwise make a silk purse out of a the government’s actions; go for it.

      • Sandy Greer

        Yes, you ‘get to’ say whatever you like – about anything. Free country. But you can’t use FEMA ‘sedition’ camps as justification for ‘Gestapo like approaches’ and ‘Lefties sounding like KKK on night raids’:

        Because yours was the first OP here.

        What do I mean? I’m not talking about Bundy, and Nevada. Or even a govt.

        I’m talking about LIVING what we believe. If we believe, like Rand Paul, in ‘toning down the rhetoric’ – that is what we do – irrespective of what anybody else does. We do that – not for the others out there – but for ourselves, to hold fast our own beliefs.

        ^^^This applies to whatever we believe. It’s Empowering, to go first. To ‘lead’ – rather than follow.

        SOMEBODY has to go first – whether it be ‘toning down the rhetoric’ or ‘putting away guns’ – or any other thing: Somebody always goes first.

        I like it to be me. 😉

      • strayaway

        The reference to FEMA camps was a response to John Clark mentioning them above. I wish that Germans would have turned up the rhetoric on their government when it started rounding up guns and blaming Jews for their nation’s ills. With 50-80,000 annual swat raids, thousands of armored police vehicles, and the federal government reading our posts and keeping track of our phone calls, what are we beginning to look like? Yesterday, the BLM pulled over an unarmed black guy who was then shot and killed along a Nevada highway. As far as I know, he didn’t even own cattle. What’s going on here? Oh yeah, Cliven Bundy said some stupid racist things.

      • Sandy Greer

        >The reference to FEMA camps was a response
        to John Clark mentioning them above.

        Yes; I know. But you used John Clark’s post to justify what YOU said in your OP:

        1) Gestapo like approaches
        2) Lefties like KKK on a night ride

        When the Truth is – John Clark hadn’t posted yet. YOURS was the first OP. What you said in your OP didn’t have anything to do with him; he wasn’t even here yet. Had he never come at all – your OP (and
        rhetoric) would still be there.

        Your OP quoted Rand Paul: “we need to tone down the rhetoric”

        ^^^I asked if you believed what Rand Paul said – SHOULD we should tone down the rhetoric? You affirmed; you believe we should.

        So I ask again – Why not ‘tone down’ your own rhetoric? IF you believe, I mean. 😉

        As for the rest – your ‘police state’ – we’ve argued that twice before. Doesn’t matter what I say – you’re convinced you live in a Police State. I don’t kick dead horses, and I know better than to beat my head against the brick wall of your ‘police state’.

        Go argue that somewhere else. I’m not biting.

      • strayaway

        The truth is that I could only make a reference to John Clark’s comment about FEMA after he made it. The KKK reference was just how this appears to me. As we’ve discussed before, You claim I said we we live in a a police state and I correct you to point out that I use modifiers like “encroaching” police state or point out certain things characteristic of a police state like up to 80,000 swat raids a year, police with armored vehicles, and phone contact surveillance. Maybe to you their is no difference between heading in a direction and being there but to me there is. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be participating in public forums.

      • Sandy Greer

        You’re right: You said ‘encroaching’. I remember now. My mistake. I thought afterwards, you’d catch that, LOL 😉 You never disappoint.

        I understand perfectly why you keep going there. You’re trying to ‘warn’ us. If I thought so – I would too. So I don’t blame you. Honest.
        Curious you don’t see what I was getting at, with your OP. So let me rephrase:

        IF you believe we should ‘tone down the rhetoric’ – as you profess, and as Ron Paul believes:

        WHY not tone down your own?

        ^^^I don’t get that. You indicate in your OP you believe it, but then turn right around and say:

        1) Gestapo approaches
        2) Lefties like KKK

        ^^^Puzzling you don’t see your own ‘rhetoric’ opposed to the Ron Paul quote.

        It’s like pulling teeth – just to get you to see that dichotomy. I don’t have anything left over – no patience – to argue Police State.

        ^^^You said once, you like ‘succinct’. So there you go.

      • auntielib

        “only that the law be observed by both sides”
        Bingo. But when our Republic has a President who refuses to obey and enforce laws such as the DOMA or our immigration laws, it’s easy to see why The Little People feel they are entitled to pick and choose which laws they shall obey also.

      • Phil Keast

        Bundy is interfering with the lawful execution of a (many) court orders, which is a crime in and of itself. He is also resisting the execution of that court order by means of the threat of violence, and given that guns are involved, the very real threat of killing someone. These, also, are crimes. He has gathered a group of followers to support him in his (legally invalid) position, arguably forming a conspiracy to commit a crime (said interference with the execution of a valid court order), also a crime.

        The lists goes on, but basically, he has not only committed crimes in terms of his grazing of cattle on lands without payment of the appropriate grazing fees, he is currently committing crimes for which his arrest, without an arrest warrant is legally justified, since he is in the action of committing a crime, and it is perfectly legal to apprehend and take into custody an individual in the act of committing a crime without obtaining an arrest warrant. He would then be charged, to appear before a judge who will either throw out the charges (releasing him with an apology), or the judge would deem the charges valid and arraign him to face trial to defend against the charges and will set bail conditions (although given Bundy’s actions I would deem him at risk of refusing to attend his own trial and would not grant bail at all).

        Yeah, he may be a racist states-rights (for which read, his right to trample on everyone else’s rights) advocate, but he is not a fool. He knows the moment he steps into town, or even leaves the barricade without a gun drawn and ready to fire, he will be arrested.

        So if he didn’t have a group of like-minded gun-toting followers with him, he could and would be arrested. The federal, state, and county law enforcement agents decided that while they are within their rights to both enforce the court orders and arrest those preventing their enforcement, doing so would spark violence, most probably resulting in gunfire and unnecessary deaths.

      • strayaway

        So? A judge need only issue a warrant for violating two court orders. That’s for something that’s past tense not something he is in the act of doing. Why send out the troopers if no judge has even issued a warrant? In the absence of a court order, and with a show of force that must have cost much of more more than Bundy owes, there is the suggestion that the show of force was about something beyond collecting the rent. Last year there were between 50,000 and 80,000 swat team uses in the US. That is too many. Will Europeans think that those numbers are more consistent with “the land of the free’ or a fledgling police state? I’m still back on first base wondering why no judge has issued an arrest warrant.

      • Phil Keast

        So, if someone is robbing a bank they can’t be arrested without a warrant? The police can’t issue a speeding ticket? The police can arrest someone in the act of committing a crime. Interfering with the execution of a court order is a crime. They can arrest him.

        Why send out troopers? Perhaps because they were facing a barricaded group of gun-wielding supporters of Bundy? And if the response was because of more than collecting rent, that would because Bundy himself raised the ante by declaring that he did not recognize federal jurisdiction, making it an attempt to undermine the Constitution. Someone who places themselves above the law, disowns his own citizenship by declaring the laws and constitution of the government does not apply to him, and gathers an armed force to support him and resist against lawful actions of that government should expect the response he got. Unfortunately he didn’t get the response he was counting on because the troopers didn’t open fire without giving him the opportunity to surrender his unlawful position, and avoided a bloodbath be refusing to fire the first shot.

        Perhaps the reason so many SWAT team uses is that with the non-existent gun restrictions of the USA, the police must assume that in any situation there is a significant (almost guaranteed) chance that the situation will involve firearms. So long as guns are a factor in all police responses, calling in units specialized in situations involving firearms is common sense, not evidence of a police state. If that many responses occurred in situations where there was little chance of the involvement of firearms, that would be different, but that wouldn’t be the USA.

      • strayaway

        I mentioned that there were between 50,000 and 80,000 swat raids in the US last year but you seem un-phased and blame it on Americans having guns. To me, any American should be shocked at those numbers. I am reminded of the old movies in which a truck full of Gestapo unloads, they run up a stairwell, and arrest some hapless dissident or Jewish family. Probably most families in rural plains and mountain states have guns for practical purposes but there is no surge in gun crimes. Gun crimes, however, are highly correlated with neighborhoods of fatherless children encouraged by Democrats’ social polices. So, if you want to clean up gun crime, pursue policies that put fathers back in families instead of rounding up guns which, of course, all police states do.

        I see no purpose in mimicking other police states or creating more Wacos. I do, on the other hand, agree that Bundy should be arrested if a warrant is issued. So far, that hasn’t happened. This isn’t a case of stopping a bank robbery or mass murderer. Even piling up too many parking tickets can sometimes provoke a warrant. So, to me, the problem is at that level. What your are advocating, another possible Waco siege, is totally unnecessary. So let the law do its work. Don’t forget that federal law requires local police to make the arrest. It may take time before Bundy leaves his ranch and shows up in town. Until then, he is effectively under house arrest. Be patient, allow the law to do its prescribed work, and the storm trooper be won’t be necessary.

      • Phil Keast

        Here’s a few correlations for you.

        The USA has the highest per capita rate of crimes in which a firearm was present in the world.

        The USA has the highest per capita rate of crimes in which a firearm was discharged in the world.

        The USA has the highest per capita rate of firearm related deaths in the world.

        The USA has the highest per capita rate of gun ownership in the world.

        Seeing a pattern here? It is the lack of gun control that is the problem. Rather than shifting the blame to social policies, face the problem square on and admit the truth. Do something about your gun culture, then their will be no gun-related violence problem anywhere, poor and black, or rich and white (and I know you didn’t explicitly blame any specific ethnic group, but it was bloody clear that is what you meant.) So I don’t see a police state here, I see the wild west still in full action, with posses of armed deputies (SWAT teams) called in to deal with armed criminals who are threatening the safety of others.

        As for Bundy, one last time. If, for example, the Family Court (Courts) issues a court order that a child is (cattle are) to be taken by family services (removed from pasture they are grazing on) and the parents (rancher) do not hand over the child (the cattle), and sheriff’s (agents of the court) are prevented from taking the child (cattle) then it is obstruction of the execution of a court order and the parents (rancher) can be arrested on the spot, no warrant required. If the parents (rancher) establishes an armed siege, declaring that the child (cattle) will not be removed and he’ll shoot anyone that tries, then the SWAT team (state troopers) will be called in. Simple, clear cut, surrender now Bundy, because like any fool who takes up arms against the government, law enforcement officers, or the courts, you are nothing more than a common criminal with some half-baked racist, elitist rhetoric to justify your illegal and dangerous stance over paying grazing fees.

      • strayaway

        Phil, I doubt that you would be able to see an emerging police state if you were living in Germany in 1942. One more time: Issue a warrant and proceed from there within the law instead acting out of your convoluted excuses. Oh, and Phil, I never once tried to justify Bundy not paying grazing fees. Your combination of imagination, lies, and your unwillingness or inability to see the elephant in a room qualifies you as a dangerous person. Look up the name D’Andre Berghardt. He was the black man pepper sprayed along a Nevada highway by the BLM, yes the BLM, and then shot to death by the Nevada Highway Patrol this Valentine’s Day.

      • Phil Keast

        a) I have extensively studied pre-WW2 German (and European) history, and if you think the USA is in danger of becoming a police state, the you need to go back and study your history [for example, start in 1932 not 1942 for the rise of the Nazi party in Germany]. Why are you so paranoid about your government? You elected them. Your founding fathers established the Federal system and the electoral process that supports it. You have the capacity to vote the government out of office. You have more freedoms that many other countries. Yet its always the black helicopters and goon squads that you seem to see and fear.

        b) To hell with arrest warrants, sure go get one, but its irrelevant in the current situation. It is an armed siege initiated by Bundy. You don’t walk away from an armed siege in the hopes that the person who initiated the siege will just wander into the local bar and announce that he is ready to be arrested. Until he lays down his weapons and surrenders, he is a dangerous criminal, and is being treated as one.

        c) Look to your own elephant, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, but if those people don’t have guns then they can’t use those guns to kill people. There are plenty of functioning democracies in the world with restricted access to firearms that are not police states, and they all have less gun related violence per capita than the USA.

      • Pipercat

        Kinda sucks when someone takes the time to dissect your fallacies one by one, fricassee them then hand them back to you, all served up, in a fabulous presentation!

      • Sandy Greer

        Gotta admit: You were right about the ‘fallacy’ thing. 😉

  • John Clark

    The best way forward is always in unity. Listen to Rev Barber and Moral Mondays. Watch Sen Warren calmly take down the rigged system. These unreconstructed violent men are a tiny minority, but they are dangerous. It reminds me of the period before OK City when similar stand offs happened. The aftereffects of that bomb killed these movements quickly. I don’t want us to have to face another one to remove this poison from our society. So yes, maybe the worst do need to be rounded up and put into FEMA camps? Or at least, be put under federal investigation for sedition.

  • Sandy Greer

    I knew it! I posted (back when it all began) that I’d lay odds Bundy ranted about Welfare Queens on Food Stamps, while running cattle on lands he didn’t own, and didn’t want to pay for.

    But this – even I couldn’t imagine. Beyond the Pale.

    I’ve driven Native American Reservations, and seen their homes, and the way they live. And *I* wondered – why we didn’t do more to help. Not that they bring it on themselves – but how can we help.

    How do Progressives change the game?

    One ‘issue’: Women. Anyone who has ever attended a protest that turned violent knows there were women who CHOSE to be there. We are willing to fight for our Causes, same as any man. I can argue that women on front lines speak louder – are more effective – than saving us back, serving coffee, and tending wounds.

    I appreciate any man extends me Courtesies, and I always say Thank You. But please don’t condescend to patronize me by trying to ‘spare’ me the Ugliness of a Cause I may invest in. I know your intentions are good – but li’l ol’ me has more Strength than you might think. 😉

    • That is a good point. The issue I wanted to point out is how women were being used (or at least being talked about being used) as human shields, as martyrs. But this gets into murky water in regards to subservience and free will. I have an inkling that most women in these families do not have much of a voice, though, or perhaps even much of a will in regards to their own well-being. But, again, murky waters (at least for me).

      • Sandy Greer

        I understand. But I think we do women a disservice when we think they don’t have much voice, or will – because their choices are different from our own.

        Power Behind the Throne, and all that. 😉 I imagine any man who’s ever been married knows what I’m talking about, LOL Happy wife, happy life.

        I’d bet good money it was a woman’s suggestion. It’s something I would argue, in that situation. The men kicked it around – some for, some against. Sheriff Mack (?) took the hit by going public.

        There HAVE been cases where women (and men) were ‘indoctrinated’ into ways of life.

        But I can’t imagine any woman who can handle a shotgun takes much ‘guff’ from anybody – even a husband. And I think we need to get away from seeing Opponents as ‘others’ – so very different from ourselves.

  • auntielib

    Mr. Bundy is right on target. The Negro has “progressed” from being a cotton picker on a private plantation to being a welfare recipient on the government plantation.

    But according to the bigoted Progressives, it is somehow “racist” to point out that fact.