Sunday, April 13, 2014

Outraged by the Confederate Flag? Too Damn Bad. The Flag STAYS.

You never hear anything about the Confederate flag in the media unless it is negative.  Someone is always "outraged" by the display of the Confederate flag.  The flag has become a Pavlov-like trigger to those prone to perpetual paroxysms of posturing paranoia, outrage, self-righteousness and ignorance.

Today it is a Confederate flag that some high school students displayed in Blue Springs, Missouri.  Earlier this year the California State Legislature considered passing a bill making it illegal to sell Confederate flags on state-owned property.  Some attorneys in California sought to remove the flag of Mississippi from a display of all state flags, because it contains the Confederate flag within it.  The flag is such a convenient tool for airheads to pose and posture over.  By their phony "outrage" they are really saying "Look at me!  I am so enlightened and sensitive!  What a moral hero I am!  Admire me!"

The asininity is endless.

Just let me say this:  we of Confederate heritage love the Confederate flag.  We do not wish to offend anyone, but could care less if they are offended, being that their "offense" is based on ignorance and a century and a half of slander against the Confederacy.  In fact, we are more offended than they are for being offended by the flag in the first place.  It's as if they object to a photo of our mother because they think our mother is ugly.  Those are fighting words.

Just for the record, I cannot say I am "offended" by the display of the modern American flag, but cannot help but think, when I see it flying over a Southern capitol, that it flies there not by choice, but by violent force.  So the Confederate flag is "controversial," but the American flag, which flew over the slave ships, over the genocide of the American Indian, over the burning of Atlanta to the ground, over the seizure of Hawaii, over the Japanese internment camps -- is not?  Ah, there is no hypocrisy like Yankee hypocrisy.

We are going to keep the Confederate flag, and if you don't like it, you can go straight to hell.  The flag stays.  We won't give it up, and we will not acquiesce to the "outrage" of the human equivalent of Pavlov's dogs.  Go salivate over something else.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Ignoramuses Freak Out Over a Child's Confederate Hat

A little black boy in North Carolina was given a Confederate kepi as a prize at his grade school.  As he stepped off the bus on his way home, his mom freaked out.  Omigod, a Confederate kepi!  Slavery!  Racism!  Some dumb-ass leftwing site (Freakout Nation) picked up the story and are now wallowing in self-righteousness.  They don't realize it, but they are also wallowing in ignorance.

The Northern Myth (that Northerners fought the Evil South to free the slaves) is a matter of religious faith for the ignorant, a paean to the mighty federal government, who has the right to compel any of the formerly sovereign states to do what it wants, to invade those states with armies, make war on the population therein, and kill and destroy until the will of the populace is obliterated.  This is a blueprint for internal tyrants to reduce Americans to utter despotism, and even those conservatives who buy into it are promoting the unbridled power of the centralized government.

And no, the so-called Civil War was not fought over slavery.  There is no moral justification for Lincoln's war of aggression.  (Read the article before hitting me with all the Damn-Yankee talking points.)

I commented over at Freakout Nation, and was quickly banned from further commenting.  Ignoramuses do not appreciate any light allowed into their desiccated brains.

And He's Wearing a Kepi
See Confederate Memorial Here
I told them that this kid is not the first black to wear a Confederate kepi.  Many blacks did, in service to the South.  This unfortunate fact upsets the great moral, self-legitimating myth, and must be suppressed.  The brainwashed like their history nice and neat, like a file cabinet with two drawers, one marked "Good" and the other "Bad."  Actual history is not so neat and tidy, not so easily understood.  And, frankly, I am sick and tired of having ignoramuses slander my Confederate ancestors.

Real Confederate Soldiers

Friday, December 20, 2013

"Erasing Southern History" -- An Essay by Fay Voshell at American Thinker

Fay Voshell has a fine defense against the latest cleansing of Southern history at American Thinker.  She writes:
The South's generals have long been a part of the proud history of the region. Robert E. Lee's and Stonewall Jackson's military strategies are considered some of the most brilliant in the history of warfare, and this is to say nothing of their exemplary characters. They are honored to this day for their bravery and brilliance. That is why their portraits are on the walls of the U.S. Army War College, which is dedicated to the training of future generals, some of whom may one day show that they, too, have absorbed a code of honor and chivalry.

But according to the Washington Times, revisionists are mulling over a decision to remove Lee's and Jackson's portraits from the walls of the War College, lest that august institution be sullied by the memory of generals who fought on the wrong side.
Read it all at this link.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Major Heritage Attack: Demands to Remove Lee and Jackson from the National Cathedral in Washington

Always on Watch, one of my favorite blogs, has a post on the latest attempt to eradicate Southern heroes from the public. It's called "Objectionable Windows." AOW writes:
The Washington National Cathedral's stained class windows incorporate many different themes and subjects. Upon the recent death of Nelson Mandela, objections have now arisen to two of the stained glass windows — two separate windows depicting General Stonewall Jackson and General Robert E. Lee, both of them officers in the Confederate Army.
Read it all here.

South Carolina: First to Secede, First to Nullify Obamacare (Maybe)

South Carolina is a beautiful state.  It was the first state to secede in December of 1860; it is now on its way to being the first state to secede from Obamacare.

Well actually, when I say "secede" from Obamacare, I am really describing nullification.  Any state has the right to opt out of any federal law that violates the Constitution, regardless of what the Supreme Court says (screw you John Roberts).  South Carolina may be the first state to nullify the so-called "Affordable Care Act" by exempting all of its citizens and businesses from participating in Obamacare.

South Carolina's House voted in favor of banning Obamacare from its state by a vote of 65-34, and the state  Republican-controlled Senate will vote on the bill (HB3101) in January.

Capitalism Institute reports:
The core of the “South Carolina Freedom of Heath Care Protection Act” (HB3101) outlaws any state employees, officers, or agencies from implementing Obamacare.

The federal government can try to subject South Carolinians to the horrors of theACA – but they would have no personnel or funds in the state to actually carry it out. Obamacare would be nothing more than a ghost.
Capitalism Institute also cites a Supreme Court case of Printz v. United States:
What the Supreme Court said … is that states are not merely political subdivisions of the federal government to carry out what the federal government does; they are sovereign entities. Congress can pass laws, but it cannot compel the states to utilize either their treasury or personnel to implement those federal laws.
Note that kiddies:  the states are sovereign entities, not merely subdivisions of the federal government.  The latter answers to the former, not the other way around.  May this spirit of states' rights expand and spread.  It is exactly what the Founders intended.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Educate Those Damn Yankees: Give to the Abbeville Institute

Below is a message from Donald Livingston of the Abbeville Institute.  We heartily recommend supporting this organization for all who care about the South.
Friends of the Abbeville Institute,

Distinguished historian Clyde Wilson has observed that when college students are confronted with the truth about the Southern tradition and its place in the American story, they often find it a transforming experience. Such education is the most important thing we can do in the culture war we are in.

Please support the Abbeville Institute with an end of the year tax deductible gift. Any amount will be greatly appreciated. There are a number of on-line ways to give. Press "Donations" on the website at Or you can send a check to Abbeville Institute, P.O.Box 10, McClellanville, S.C. 29458.

Merry Christmas,
Donald Livingston, President
Abbeville Institute
(843) 323 0690

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Are the Sides Forming For a New Civil War?

There is a website devoted to militias that say the sides are now forming for a new Civil War. Not sure I agree, but the article is interesting.  Read it here.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

The Fundamental Nonsensicality of the Gettysburg Address: An Irreverent View by H.L. Mencken

H.L. Mencken, the famous muckraker and journalist, discussed the Lincoln myth and the Gettysburg Address back in 1922, in an essay called “Five Men at Random,” Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76.  With thanks to Nathaniel Strickland.
The backwardness of the art of biography in These States is made shiningly visible by the fact that we have yet to see a first-rate life of either Lincoln or Whitman. Of Lincolniana, of course, there is no end, nor is there any end to the hospitality of those who collect it. Some time ago a publisher told me that there are four kinds of books that never, under any circumstances, lose money in the United States—first, detective stories; secondly, novels in which the heroine is forcibly debauched by the hero; thirdly, volumes on spiritualism, occultism and other such claptrap, and fourthly, books on Lincoln. But despite all the vast mass of Lincolniana and the constant discussion of old Abe in other ways, even so elemental a problem as that of his religious faith—surely an important matter in any competent biography—is yet but half solved. Here, for example, is the Rev. William E. Barton, grappling with it for more than four hundred large pages in “The Soul of Abraham Lincoln.” It is a lengthy inquiry—the rev. pastor, in truth, shows a good deal of the habitual garrulity of his order— but it is never tedious. On the contrary, it is curious and amusing, and I have read it with steady interest, including even the appendices. Unluckily, the author, like his predecessors, fails to finish the business before him. Was Lincoln a Christian? Did he believe in the Divinity of Christ? I am left in doubt. He was very polite about it, and very cautious, as befitted a politician in need of Christian votes, but how much genuine conviction was in that politeness? And if his occasional references to Christ were thus open to question, what of his rather vague avowals of belief in a personal God and in the immortality of the soul? Herndon and some of his other close friends always maintained that he was an atheist, but Dr. Barton argues that this atheism was simply disbelief in the idiotic Methodist and Baptist dogmas of his time—that nine Christian churches out of ten, if he were alive to-day, would admit him to their high privileges and prerogatives without anything worse than a few warning coughs. As for me, I still wonder.

The growth of the Lincoln legend is truly amazing. He becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality. Washington, of late years, has been perceptibly humanized; every schoolboy now knows that he used to swear a good deal, and was a sharp trader, and had a quick eye for a pretty ankle. But meanwhile the varnishers and veneerers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint, thus making him fit for adoration in the chautauquas and Y. M. C. A.’s. All the popular pictures of him show him in his robes of state, and wearing an expression fit for a man about to be hanged. There is, so far as I know, not a single portrait of him showing him smiling—and yet he must have cackled a good deal, first and last: who ever heard of a storyteller who didn’t? Worse, there is an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost. What could be more absurd? Lincoln, in point of fact, was a practical politician of long experience and high talents, and by no means cursed with inconvenient ideals. On the contrary, his career in the Illinois Legislature was that of a good organization man, and he was more than once denounced by reformers. Even his handling of the slavery question was that of a politician, not that of a fanatic. Nothing alarmed him more than the suspicion that he was an Abolitionist. Barton tells of an occasion when he actually fled town to avoid meeting the issue squarely. A genuine Abolitionist would have published the Emancipation Proclamation the day after the first battle of Bull Run. But Lincoln waited until the time was more favorable—until Lee had been hurled out of Pennsylvania, and, more important still, until the political currents were safely running his way. Always he was a wary fellow, both in his dealings with measures and in his dealings with men. He knew how to keep his mouth shut.

Nevertheless, it was his eloquence that probably brought him to his great estate. Like William Jennings Bryan, he was a dark horse made suddenly formidable by fortunate rhetoric. The Douglas debate launched him, and the Cooper Union speech got him the presidency. This talent for emotional utterance, this gift for making phrases that enchanted the plain people, was an accomplishment of late growth. His early speeches were mere empty fireworks—the childish rhodomontades of the era. But in middle life he purged his style of ornament and it became almost baldly simple— and it is for that simplicity that he is remembered to-day. The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.
Mencken was a perceptive, honest witness to modern foibles and fallacies. About Lincoln, who was not a Christian (and who despised Christianity), Mencken was spot on.

Today there is a "civil war" within the Republican Party, the do-nothing moderates vs the liberty loving Tea Party and conservatives. However, neither faction has ever analyzed the paradigms and myths that inspire them to so weakly resist the advance of statism. They hold as their ideal a man who was the antithesis of limited government, an anti-Christian statist and corporatist who makes Obama look like a rank amateur.

Abraham Lincoln was far more dictatorial, more antagonistic to the Constitution and the will of the people, than even Barack Obama. The former was a man who shut down hundreds of newspapers, imprisoned thousands of civilians in rank dungeons for years, without charges or trial, illegally suspended habeas corpus, blockaded and invaded sovereign states, made war on women and children, burned (through his approval of the actions of his generals) whole towns, universities and private farms to the ground. AND, he threw the entire state legislature of Maryland into prison to prevent them from seceding from the newly involuntary union.

Modern conservatives need to stop their reflexive support of the Lincoln Myth. There is nothing about Abraham Lincoln that any freedom-loving American could ever identify with or wish to emulate.  Abraham Lincoln was about unlimited power and naked force, and therefore not an example for modern conservatives to follow.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

King Richard III: Villain or Hero? Brits Still Arguing 528 Years Later

King Richard III,
As He Looks Today
I saw a fascinating account of King Richard III yesterday on the Smithsonian Channel.  Earlier this year British archaeologists deduced the location of Richard's grave and found his skeletal remains.  DNA and other evidence confirmed the skeleton's identity as that of King Richard III, killed in battle at Bosworth Field near Leicester, England on August 22, 1485.  The battle was the culmination of the "War of the Roses," an internecine fight among Englishmen as to who was entitled to the throne of England.  In short, it was a civil war.

King Richard III has long been painted as a villain by English authors and tradition.  Shakespeare wrote a play, "Richard III," where Richard III is depicted as an evil, ruthless murderer, with hunchback and withered arm.  "Now is the winter of our discontent," says the Shakespearean Richard, the line most famous from that play.  But was this depiction accurate?  British citizens disagree.  Supporters of Richard III have stated "history is written by the winners" (and how we know that to be true), with unsavory facts about Richard greatly exaggerated or fabricated.  These supporters point out that the negative imagery of King Richard was politically motivated, what we call "self-legitimizing myths," as a means of justifying the winners' war and clothing it in robes of righteousness.  Again, we Confederate descendants are all-too familiar with such tactics.  In order for the Yankees to be proven right, our ancestors must be proven wrong, unrighteous, and evil.

Now for some facts.

King Edward IV, Richard's brother, died in April 1483, and Edward V (Richard's nephew) was in line for the throne to succeed his father.  Here's where the plot thickens.

King Richard III, Facial Reconstruction From the Skull
Richard III was appointed "Lord Protector" of his nephews, both sons of Edward IV.  They were Edward V and his brother, also named Richard.  Richard III ensconced both nephews in the Tower of London, not as prisoners, but as wards.  Before Edward V could be crowned king, however, his mother's marriage to Edward IV was somehow declared invalid (sounds like dirty politics to me), making Edward V ineligible for the throne.  Instead, Richard III ascended the throne in 1483, after which the two nephews were never seen again.  Although it has never been proved that Richard III did them in, many believe that this is what happened.  Still, it should be noted, Richard III had a legitimate claim to the throne through both his parents.

Loyalists to Edward IV challenged Richard III's right to the throne, but were defeated in battle.  A second challenge was mounted by Henry Tudor, who raised an army and attacked Richard III.  I do not know why or if Tudor was entitled to the throne, but he won it nevertheless by brute force, defeating the forces of Richard III at Bosworth Field where King Richard III died courageously in battle.  Overwhelmed by a crowd of warriors attacking him on all sides, Richard was killed by an ax blow to the back of his head.

Richard's body was taken to Leicester where it was hastily buried under the altar of Grey Friars Church there.  Five centuries passed and the the church was replaced by a modern parking lot, where the remains were located by ground penetrating radar on February 4, 2013.   Radio carbon dating of the remains, as well as DNA comparison to known lineal descendants, confirmed that the remains were those of Richard III.  Plus, the skeleton had severe curvature of the spine (scoliosis), which Richard III was known to possess. Further, the skull bore battle marks that fit the eye-witness descriptions of his demise. A forensic reconstruction of King Richard's face was made (see above), and it greatly resembles paintings made of Richard in the years shortly after his death.

Now the Second War of the Roses has commenced, with Brits arguing as to where the remains will be reinterred, in Leicester Cathedral or in York Minster.  A court is to decide the dispute later this month.

Outsiders often accuse American Southerners of "refighting the civil war," which ended 148 years ago.  However, we are not the only ones who continue to argue over who did what to whom and why.  The British have been refighting the War of the Roses for 528 years.  As for King Richard III, I favor giving him the benefit of the doubt.  He was a great Englishman and warrior for his people and his cause.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

CNN Editorial Denounces the Confederate Flag as the Flag of Traitors

Some asshat named Dean Obeidallah (nice Muslim name there) has written a hate piece at CNN called "Confederate Flag Was the Flag of Traitors."  I had a great time baiting and bashing Yankees in the comments section, until the editors started holding up my comments ("awaiting moderation").

Skewering Yankees on the Sword of Truth is not difficult, in fact, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.  They are routinely ignorant of the facts of history, and Southerners are generally well armed with such facts.

I must admit I was deliberately incendiary in my comments.  If I can't convince Yankees that they are full of bovine excrement, then at least I can give them stomach acid.  The writer, Dean Obeidallah, is greatly angered because Confederate troops killed "110,000 Union troops."  Oh, so we were just supposed to stand there and let them kill us without any opposition?  Idiot.  I told him the number was greater than that, and quoted a verse from the song "Good Ole Rebel":

Three hundred thousand Yankees lie stiff in Southern dust.
We got three hundred thousand before they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever, and Southern steel and shot.
I wish it were three million instead of what we got.

Then I said, "I wish we could resurrect those dead Yankees and shoot them all again."  Ha ha!

No kiddies, what you learned in Third Grade about Abraham Lincoln and the Great Northern Myth is false history.  Free yourselves from ignorance, because truth is the weapon of freedom.

Hat tip to Carolyn Saunders of the Confederate Society of America for bringing this to my attention.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Jesse Jackass Jackson: "The Tea Party Is the Resurrection of the Confederacy." God, I Hope So.

Jackass Jesse Jackson
Lifelong race-baiter Jesse Jackson said in an interview with Politico on Tuesday:
“The tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.  It’s the Fort Sumter tea party.”
Jackson relied on popular but erroneous popular mythology to imply that the so-called "Civil War" was the morally glorious North fighting the horribly "racist" South for black freedom and equality, surely the biggest fairy tale in what passes for American history.  And, like the "racist" Confederacy, the Tea Party is also "racist," to use the most overworked cliche in the English language.  Various jackasses on the right who are deeply ignorant of American history lent credence to Jackass Jackson by writing tripe like this:
That’s right, Jackson thinks if you believe in the U.S. Constitution, you are a terrorist looking to over throw the government and kill black people and you want to bring back slavery and the old Confederacy.
The conservative writer who wrote that slanderous nonsense needs rebuttal far more than does Jackson, and he will get it here.

The historical truth is that the North hated blacks with a passion, opposed slavery in the territories because of this hatred, and made life a living hell for any blacks who wandered among them.  Numerous historical references point to the fact that Southern blacks, even those in slavery, were substantially better off and better treated than free blacks in the North.  (Do see "Everything You Were Taught About the Civil War Is Wrong -- Ask a Southerner" by Lochlainn Seabrook.)

As for "terrorists," Northerners were the terrorists, invading sovereign states to coerce them back into a union they no longer wanted, making war on women and children, burning private homes, farms, universities and even whole cities to the ground; shutting down hundreds of newspapers, arresting and imprisoning thousands without charges or trial.  Lincoln was an odious despot, and the Northern war effort a mission from Hell.

Is the Tea Party then the "resurrection of the Confederacy" as Jackass Jackson has alleged?  Since the real Confederacy was the antithesis of an uncontrollable and tyrannical federal government, one can only hope.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Fourteen States Prepare Military Defenses Against the Federal Government - Maybe; Secession Anyone?

A site called "Before It's News" is reporting that fourteen states have begun reestablishing autonomous "State Defense Forces," i.e. state-run militaries that take their orders, not from the United States, but from their respective state governors.  Reportedly, Obama is fearful of these State Defense Forces because he does not control them.  Also, the article reports, Obama has sent warning notices to these fourteen governors to halt such actions immediately or face arrest for "treason."

Allegedly, the two governors leading this State Defense Force initiative are Rick Perry of Texas and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.  Ken Larive of "Before It's News" reports:
The two Governors leading this move are: Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota; and Rick Perry, Governor of Texas. Both of these State Governors stated they have: “…deep fear the President is destroying their Nation.” Governor Pawlenty’s fear of Obama is that since Obama took office he has appeased America’s enemies and has shunned some of America’s strongest allies, especially Israel. Governor Perry has declared that Obama is punishing his State of Texas by dumping tens-of-thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants into the cities and small towns of Texas. Governor Perry further recently stated: “If Barack Obama’s Washington doesn’t stop being so oppressive, Texans might feel compelled to renounce their American citizenry and secede from the union.”
If there is any truth to this report, it would appear that we are moving in the direction of another Civil War.  However, I am taking this report with a large grain of salt -- but I do hope that it's true!

Read the article here.