Heritage Not Hate: An Effective Meme?

confederateflag-heritagenothate

The much used, though ill-effective, “Heritage Not Hate.”

 

In the storm that has encompassed the South during this Third Reconstruction, many have taken to defending the flags of the South in various ways. One popular phrase in the South immediately springs to mind: “Heritage Not Hate.” Our purpose is to analyse the effectiveness of this slogan.

The greatest problem with “Heritage Not Hate” is that it puts the person propounding it immediately on the defensive. The initiation of any potential debate begins against the person making the statement. For example, we may use the following hypothetical conversation.

Southerner:  “Heritage Not Hate.”

Non-Southerner: “What Heritage? Why is it not hateful?”

Right off the bat, the conversation is turned to attack the very thing being defended. The set-up is very vulnerable, almost begging for an assault. The defender will be spending all their time trying to explain why he is not hateful (or a racist) and why and what heritage is and means to him. This is not an effective slogan at all.

Secondly, the persons attacking the flag already hate the South’s heritage. Not only do they hate the South’s heritage, but they hate the product of the South- us, modern-day Southerners whose very existence prevents the “United States” from becoming the secular, Puritanical “City-on-a-Hill.” They don’t care if our flag’s not hate; it’s opposed to their modern-day bohemianism and thus they hate it. The slogan is effective only amongst other Southern nationals, and thus is “preaching to the choir” and not appropriate for many demonstrations, especially when we are prosecuting against something or someone, like Robert “Scallywag” Bentley.

Thirdly, we need to make it known that the underlying issue is about peoples and not merely flags. The flag of Dixie (the CBF) represents people, and any attack on that flag is an attack on the people it represents (as Mr Steven Ingram said in Florida). Could a Russian tolerate someone attacking his flag? Could an Englishman separate his kin and kith from St George’s Cross? Flags are the embodiments of people.

So what is a Southerner to do? What means could he or she use to more effectively propound the Southern identity? Many alternatives come to mind.

“Stop Cultural Genocide” – This is the most popular of the new memes. Many have used this to great effect, putting forward the attack on the flag as an attack on the people. Even while opponents denounce its validity, they contradict themselves.

“Save the Southern People” – Or an alternative, “Save the South,” once again appeals to an identity exclusive to the South that the flag represents. Opponents would be forced to admit that they hate the South and her people in any assault on the meme.

“Feds Out of Dixie” – A more political meme, this should be used at rallies to make known Southern disagreement with Federal policies and the continuing Federal conquest against the South. It is best used with other memes which focus on Southern identity. By itself, however, it would certainly appeal to many Tenthers and conservatives and open into discussion about secession and its relation to people.

“Yankee Go Home” – This appeals to the Southerner against Yankee transplants and  implicitly puts forth Southern identity (here being opposed to Yankee identity).

The above list is not exhaustive, but is merely meant to offer substitute for the failing slogan “Heritage Not Hate.” We look forward to working more on this issue in the future, especially as more demonstrations are organised across Alabama and Dixie.

Nota Bene: Much of the discussion of memes stems from the work of Mr Michael Cushman. St Andrew’s News is indebted to his work, even if his specific articles on the subject are no longer available.

 

Advertisements

Go Set a Watchman: A Novel for Southern Nationalists?

Go Set a Watchman: A Novel for Southern Nationalists?

GSAW

The new novel by Nelle Harper Lee, Go Set a Watchman, has garnished a lot of attention from the modern media. Pre-release reviews were a-shock at the new way in which Atticus Finch, an old-time Southern lawyer, is presented. Not surprisingly, they call him a “racist,” for his views on the state, race, and issues of citizenship. Set in the 1950s, Jean Louise Finch (Scout) returns to Maycomb on an annual trip, but discovers the world (or her perceptions of it) changed. Maycomb is locked in a battle, attempting to forestall a coming revolution. Throughout the story (which will surely be a classic), Jean Louise interacts with her kin, from whom she feels increasingly distant. Her father, Atticus, and her uncle, Dr “Jack” Finch, are two pivotal characters.

The book centres around the issue of race- how the South is being affected by the recent Supreme Court decision, and how this is being handled by various persons in the book. Jean Louise, with her progressive sensibilities and sheltered life, struggles to come to grips with Maycomb’s reaction.

Possibly the greatest, most level-headed person in the book is Dr “Jack” Finch. He’s of the old-school line of Southern agrarians (remarking that “some pervert invented machinery”) and offers a Southern nationalist view. Consider his words when talking with Jean Louise:

“Has it never occurred to you—have you never, some where along the line, received vibrations to the effect—that this territory was a separate nation? No matter what its political bonds, a nation with its own people, existing within a nation?”

Jean Louise attempts to defer the issue as a matter solely of history, the defeat of 1865 closing the issue. Again, Dr Finch gets the better of her:

“The remnants of that army (of the Confederacy) had children…They were never destroyed. They were ground into the dirt and up they popped.” (pg. 196)

Atticus, who comes across as that most laudable epitome of Southern stoicism, himself defends the South and her ways. Here are a variety of excerpts dealing with various subjects.

On the SCOTUS: “You mean because the Court said it we must take it? No ,ma’am. I don’t see it that way. If you think that I, for one citizen am going to take it lying down, you’re quite wrong.” (pg. 241)

On race: “Have you ever considered that you can’t have a set of backward people living among people advanced in one kind of civilization and have a social Arcadia?”

On citizenship: “You realize that the vast majority of our Negro population is backward, don’t you? You realize that the vast majority of them here in the South are unable to share fully in the responsibility of citizenship, and why?…But you want them to have all its privileges? (pg. 242)

On Jefferson and citizenship: “A man couldn’t vote simply because he was a man, in Jefferson’s eyes. He had to be a responsible man. A vote was, to Jefferson, a precious privilege…” (pg. 244)

On government: “Yes, I’ll accept being called a snob when it comes to government. I’d like very much to be left alone to manage my own affairs…I’d like my state to be left alone to keep house without advice from the NAACP. (pg. 245)

On race relations: “[C]an you blame the South for resenting being told what to do about its own people who have no idea of its daily problems?” (pg. 247)

The themes or GSAW are certainly more mature, and caution is advised if the book is to be read by younger audiences. The book is almost Southern Gothic in style, with death, dismay, and the somewhat grotesque being presented in a matter-of-fact way. The writing style is easily palatable, but copious amounts of literary references in the book are enough to keep one busy well after the story has ended.

Perhaps this reviewer was just stunned to see the issues of the South laid out for the modern reader by so well a known writer as Nelle Harper Lee, but the book will certainly help spark discussion on the very same issues which continue to afflict the South today. While not perfect, it is certainly a novel that any Southerner could enjoy. And, with its condemnation of the SCOTUS and emphasis on Southern identity, it could come at no better a time.

Mobile Council Sides with U.S. Imperialism?

Imperialism may be defined as one nation extending its power and culture over another’s to the point where the subjugated has little control over its own history or ways, these being supplanted by the conqueror’s narrative. While many good, moral empires have existed (including, but not limited to, the Austrian,  Portuguese, and Spanish Empires), the present-day “United” States would hardly fit into that category. Instead, this Empire sees fit to destroy the history and identity of the very people it claims to represent. Many times it finds useful puppets (like Bentley the Scallywag) to further this end. The Mobile City Council is such a puppet:

 The Mobile City Council voted Tuesday to remove the Confederate flag and other banners from the official seal of city government following complaints that the Old South symbol depicted racism and intolerance.

The 6-0 vote, from which one member abstained, means only the U.S. flag will remain on the seal of the port city. A version of the Confederate national flag and four other historic flags will be taken off.

As the above article relates, only the United States flag will remain on the City of Semme’s seal. This is very telling, showing that these traitors have little interest in preserving Alabama’s Little Rome from the scourges of U.S. Imperialism. The message: we are not Southerners, but “Americans.” While the self-described “progressive” council seeks to be seen as inclusive, it becomes intolerant of the very thing that made it great.

MobileCouncil

It is important not to become discouraged by the actions of high-handed individuals like these. While they seek to eradicate us from existence, we should realise that this decision resulted from a vote of seven persons in a city of 200,000 souls- hardly representative.

To drop a quick reminder of who employs whom, you may reach the Mobile City Council at the following number:  Phone: (251) 208-7441

 

Feds Rule Against Marriage

 

 Federals Marching Boldly Forward

Federals Marching Boldly Forward

Our black-robed handlers have now decreed that Sodomite “marriage” is a right that is to be enforced in the states. As LifeSiteNews reports,

In a 5-4 ruling handed down this morning in Obergefell v. Hodges, the justices ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to offer marriage licenses to homosexual couples. That overturns a ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Ohio, which held that the univerally recognized right to marry applies only as marriage has historically been understood: the union of one man and one woman.

Looking at the decay around us, especially at the cultural genocide being inflicted on our people, it comes as no surprise as to the court’s decision. The steps to ensure this egalitarian ecstasy had been laid long before our own time. In fact, one could trace the move (as the article above relates) back to the anti-Southern 14th Amendment, which provided the legal foothold necessary for advancing such a decadent decision. How will the states react? It is clear, just as Roe v. Wade has shown, that the Federal government never backs down from policies they implement- Republican or Democrat making little difference. There are two steps left as recourse. Firstly, the states must nullify these overreaches, and then they must declare independence as a means of safeguarding the Sacred Institutions and the culture at large.

The Federals have waged war on every aspect of Alabamian life, from our Sacraments to our symbols. Now is the time to act; there is no room for complacency.

Pax Christi

St. Andrews News

PC Police Attack Pettus Bridge

Edmund_Pettus_Bridge

The PC Police are on the march. The target this year for their outrage is the Edmund Pettus Bridge, named for Southern hero General Edmund Pettus, of Selma. A black woman named Brandi Hater, er, Hatter, has started a petition to change the name of General Edmund Pettus Bridge to something more reflective of the “equality” that the 1960s revolutionaries earned it. The Hater complains,

Unfortunately, the bridge is STILL named after a man who served as Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan, was a Confederate General, and was later elected as a United States Senator.

The last part is the scary bit- U.S. Senator. Just those words send shivers down my spine. That other stuff- that he would risk life and limb in defense of his home in war and peace, and put his neck out on the line to ensure the political stability and dominance of Alabamians in Alabama – that sounds laudable, not embarrassing.

So far Hater’s petition has 130,000 signatures in support. The question is: what are true Alabamians going to do in response?

On MLK (Happy Robert E. Lee Day!)

lee

 

Some unfortunate people (Neo-Conservatives, Republicans, etc) have mistakenly decided to use this day to venerate the Secular Saint Martin Luther King, Jr., rather than the honourable (though admittedly not perfect) Robert E. Lee. They choose to deify a man and “baptise” him into their own movement while disparaging the historical hero of the South. But, like the Theistic evolution narrative, if you accept the basic tenant (in this case “MLK was a good man”), then you toss the ball to their court. Evidence abounds that he was a Communist sympathiser, if not a Communist himself. For the evidence presented, we show that MLK was no conservative. Here is a quote from the man on the defeat of Barry Goldwater:

The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression. The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path. (emphasis added)

On Marxism:

We must recognize that the problems of neither racial nor economic justice can be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.

Sadly, even our Churches (even Catholic Churches) seem intent on contributing to the myth of the great, late, MLK. If not for political reasons alone, but especially for religious reasons the man should be shunned. A key deficiency of most progressivists, King also denied key tenants of the Christian Faith. Here are his words on the development of  Christian doctrine, born not of the Supernatural by Divine Revelation, but by natural means out of the consciousness of the early Christians:

Doctrines and creeds do not spring forth uncaused like Athene sprang from the head of Zeus, but they grow out of the historical settings and the psychological moods of the individuals that set them forth. All ideas, however profound or however naive, are produced by conditions and experiences that grow from the producers’ environment.

Compare these to the words of Saint Pope Pius X, hammer of modernists and possibly the greatest Pontiff of the 20th Century, in his “Oath Against Modernism” (1910):

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. (emphasis added)

King continues with his heresy:

In this paper we shall discuss the experiences of early Christians which lead to three rather orthodox doctrines–the divine sonship of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection…But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable, yet we can never undermind the foundation on which they are based.

On the Virginity of Our Blessed Mother:

The second doctrine in our discussion posits the virgin birth. This doctrine gives the modern scientific mind much more trouble than the first, for it seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father. First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker.

On the bodily Resurrection of Our Lord and Saviour, the Christ:

From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know: What experiences of early Christians lead to the formulation of the doctrine?

In all three points, MLK espouses the position that the early Christians’ “inner experiences” and “environment” led to the deification of Christ, who was not born of a Virgin, was likely not fully God, and was not resurrected from the dead. He leaves a hollow shell that is not Christian. Did the fool really think he could cast aspersions on matters that the great minds before him had already thought upon, ideas that were born out of events and reality rather than inner consciousness?

Bl. Pius IX, the “Southerner’s Pope,” wrote the great “Syllabus of Errors,” that the following notions are condemned as anti-Christian:

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.

7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object.

So should we celebrate MLK Day? No way.

Federal Judge Rules Against Alabama… Again

Federal Judges have once again struck down Alabamian law. This time it was against the “Alabama Women’s Health and Safety Act,” which required abortionists to have admitting privileges (like all other doctors) to local hospitals in order to perform abortions. Federal District Judge Myron Thompson not only halted the law by a lift of his finger, but insulted protestors opposed to his decision, crying that they “threaten economic destruction” and “violence” (amazing how a man promoting the disgusting practice of abortion harps against Christian sidewalk counselors like they are terrorists).

myronthompson

Federal Judge Myron Thompson cares nothing for Alabama.

Judge Thompson is a liberal poster child with a history of aggressiveness against Alabama and her people. Thompson was the second African judge to be appointed to his district, gaining that position in 1980 by way of Federal President Jimmy Carter. He has been lauded by liberals for his “rulings” which “dramatically changed how Alabama treats its employees and most vulnerable citizens.” Yellowhammer News calls Thompson “a long-time AEA ally who’s widely considered one of the most liberal judges in the state.” Thompson is best known for his ruling against Chief Justice Roy Moore in the 2002 case Glassroth v. Moore, which resulted in the removal of a Ten Commandments display from the Alabama Judicial Building.

In his typically weak-kneed counter, Governor Bentley said he was “extremely disappointed by today’s ruling.” While invoking the Sanctity of life, Gov. Bentley actually compromised on the issue, maintaining that abortions should only be done as a last possible effort to save the life of the mother.” In effect, rather than telling off the forces of evil and invoking both God and country (Alabama), the Governor has allowed the abortionists to “keep one foot in the door.” With abortion, there is no middle ground. It is never the answer.

Only leaders unafraid to answer their foes with clear, concise, and unflinching resolve will carry the day. Nullification, not subjugation, is the answer.