The War on White Heritage

Sam Francis, American Renaissance, July 2000

Confederate Battle Flag

After years of bitter controversy, the South Carolina legislature voted in May to take down the Confederate battle flag that has flown over the state capitol in Columbia since 1962 and to move it to “a place of honor” at the Confederate Soldiers Memorial located on the capitol grounds. The legislature’s vote on the flag is regarded as a defeat for the defenders of the flag, mainly a coalition of Southern traditionalist groups and Civil War buffs, and a victory for the opposing coalition that demanded the removal of the flag: the NAACP, Big Business, and an odd partnership of political liberals and conservatives.

Many white Americans, especially those outside the South, have shown little interest in the controversy and wonder why it even exists. They regard the issue as one of exclusively Southern, historical, or black interest and fail to see the larger implications of the controversy for themselves. The fact is, however, that the conflict over Confederate symbols is not only about those symbols or even about honoring the Confederacy, but also about issues of national and racial heritage with which all white Americans should be concerned regardless of what they think of the Civil War or where they live.

Southern traditionalists and Civil War buffs honor the Confederate flag and similar symbols for a variety of reasons, but those symbols are as much a part of general American history as the “Don’t Tread On Me” rattlesnake flag of the American Revolution or the Lone Star flag of the Republic of Texas. Until recently, few Americans saw any difference between honoring and displaying those historic banners of American legend and honoring and displaying the Confederate battle flag or the several other flags associated with the Confederacy.

Only with the advent of the “civil rights” era and of mandated racial equality have the Confederate flag and all other symbols associated with the Confederacy been singled out for attack, and of course the reason is that these flags and symbols are the emblems of a government and culture that was based on slavery and racial inequality. In an age in which the egalitarian imperative is absolute and “racism” is virtually a religious taboo, continuing to honor and display these symbols in public–especially by state and local governments–constitutes an outright act of resistance to the dominant egalitarian orthodoxies.

Moreover, the NAACP, which has been crusading against Confederate symbols for decades, is increasingly tipping its true hand, revealing that behind its overblown rhetoric about the flag (a 1991 NAACP resolution characterized the Confederate flag as “an odious blight upon the universe” and “the ugly symbol of idiotic white supremacy racism and denigration” [sic]) and the Confederacy lies another, far broader, and much more radical agenda. The NAACP and similar groups want the removal and erasure not only of Confederate symbolism but also of a wide range of symbols and icons from American history that have no association with the Confederacy or the ante-bellum South. The purpose of this attack is to emphasize that American civilization itself is “racist” and that virtually all the symbols, icons, heroes, songs, and institutions of the American past or at least its most important and defining ones have to be discarded or radically reconstructed to suit the new “anti-racist” dogmas the NAACP upholds.

In launching this broad attack on the historic symbolism of America, the NAACP is embarking on what is almost explicitly a revolutionary course, intended eventually to lead to the destruction of the traditional civilization of the United States and the establishment of a new, purportedly egalitarian, and essentially totalitarian order that replaces the real, historic traditions of the American past with the fabricated propaganda and “Afrocentric” racial mythology of which the NAACP approves.

In this new order, whites–whether Southern or not–would be denied any public affirmation of their cultural and historical identity, and the denial of their identity would more easily allow their cultural and political subjugation to the non-white majority that has been projected to emerge in the United States in the next half century. The end result of the attack on Confederate symbolism, in other words, is not merely the disappearance of the Confederate flag, “Dixie,” and other symbols and customs of interest mainly to Southerners and Civil War buffs but, in time, the eradication of all symbols from pre-1960s America that suggest a white-based or “Eurocentric” public identity. With their disappearance and the cultural and racial dispossession it represents would come the racial domination of white Americans by the non-white majority of the next century.

The crusade against Confederate symbolism is so far the most developed part of the anti-white attack on American civilization, and the NAACP and other black nationalist groups have emphasized such symbols because, given their historical association with slavery, they can more easily build a case against them and attract the support of white allies. Given the power of egalitarian propaganda, few mainstream leaders, either conservative or liberal, are willing to defend Confederate symbolism, and some of the most effective enemies of the flag have been Republicans, “conservatives,” or white Southerners themselves.

In the 1990s, the war on public Confederate symbolism escalated dramatically, with the NAACP demanding the removal of Confederate flags flown over state capitols in Alabama as well as South Carolina. In the former state, the governor removed the flag after a state judge ruled in 1993 that flying it violated state law. Also in 1993, the white liberal Democratic governor of Georgia, Zell Miller, sought to alter the design of his state’s official flag, which contains a Confederate battle flag, on the grounds that it would be an “embarrassment” to the state during the Olympic Games scheduled for 1996. The governor’s efforts were unsuccessful. In Mississippi, there are current demands to remove the Confederate battle flag in the corner of the state flag, and the governor has appointed a commission to consider doing so. There are also controversies about the state flags of Arkansas and Florida, which contain designs either symbolizing the Confederacy or resembling its flag.

In addition to attacks on the flag, songs such as Virginia’s state anthem “Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny” and Maryland’s “Maryland, My Maryland” have also been attacked as “racist.” At the University of Mississippi, the Confederate flag and similar symbols, including the football team mascot, “Colonel Reb,” a caricature of a Confederate officer, have been banned by the university administration.

Virginia, and especially the state (and Confederate) capital of Richmond, has been the scene of some of the most bitter and far-reaching attacks on Confederate symbolism. The construction of a statue of black tennis player Arthur Ashe in 1995-96 on Richmond’s Monument Avenue–famous for statues honoring Confederate leaders–was intended to disrupt the symbolism of the monuments. In 1999, another controversy erupted in Richmond over a mural that displayed a picture of Robert E. Lee. Black city councilman Sa’ad El-Amin demanded that it be removed and threatened violence if it were not. “Either it comes down or we jam,” he said. The Lee portrait was later firebombed and defaced with anti-white invectives and racial epithets (“white devil, black baby killer, kill the white demons”). Earlier this year Mr. El-Amin and other blacks on the city council voted to remove the names of Confederate generals from two bridges in the city and rename them after local “civil rights” leaders. El-Amin also announced that “Monument Avenue is on my list of targets.”

The NAACP also embarked on a campaign to force the Virginia governor to cancel annual proclamations of April as “Confederate History Month” and threatened a boycott of the state if the custom were continued. “Anything less” than promising not to issue the proclamation again “is unacceptable,” Salim Khalfani, state director of the NAACP, proclaimed. On May 10, Republican Governor James Gilmore reached a “compromise” that consisted of a promise to “reconsider” Confederate History Month and to meet regularly with NAACP leaders if they did not proceed with plans for a boycott. It is probable that proclamations of “Confederate History Month” will be discontinued.

It has been in South Carolina, however, that the most protracted controversies over the Confederate flag have taken place. The state legislature in 1961 enacted a public law mandating that the Confederate battle flag be flown over the state capitol dome beneath the American flag and the state flag. Contrary to what the flag’s enemies have asserted, this was not so much defiance of the “civil rights” movement as the desire, encouraged by the U.S. Congress and President Eisenhower, to mark the centennial of the Civil War. The flag at that time was largely uncontroversial, and it remained so until the early 1990s.

In 1994, the NAACP announced it would boycott the state unless the flag were removed, but a populist campaign under the leadership of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) was able to prevent the flag’s removal, and in the gubernatorial campaign of that year, the Republican candidate David Beasley promised he would not seek to take down the flag. Soon after being elected, however, Gov. Beasley embarked on a campaign to do just that. Flag supporters and the CofCC went on to lead a movement to unseat the governor for his betrayal. Gov. Beasley was defeated in his re-election campaign in 1998; he has since acknowledged that his reversal of position on the flag was the main reason for his defeat.

In 1999 the NAACP returned to the fight, announcing yet another boycott. This time the boycott attracted the support of liberal organs like the New York Times and Washington Post. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Urban League, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the National Progressive Baptist Convention all canceled conventions in South Carolina. The state Chamber of Commerce told Republican lawmakers that “businesses were considering cutting off campaign contributions to lawmakers who support the flag,” and major foreign corporations that have built plants in the state–BMW and Michelin Tire–also demanded that the issue be “resolved quickly” (meaning that the legislators accede to black demands).

Flag defenders were by no means idle during the controversy, and in October, 1999, and January 2000, they staged mass demonstrations in Columbia. Nevertheless, the charges of “racism” lobbed at anyone who defended the flag, threats to the $14.5 billion-a-year tourism industry, and the general desire for acceptance by the cultural mainstream all led to a “compromise” measure that relocated the flag to the Confederate Soldiers Memorial. As Julian Bond, national president of the NAACP, remarked, “Money talks.”

But the removal of the flag in South Carolina can be expected only to unleash an even more frenetic crusade against Confederate symbols. As Dr. Neill Payne, executive director of the Southern Legal Resource Center, remarked just afterwards, the vote simply means that it is now “open season on all things Confederate.” Flag enemy Georgia state Rep. Tyrone Brooks explained, “It’s like the civil rights movement. Once we win in South Carolina, we move to Georgia. Once we win in Georgia, it’s on to Mississippi.” The vote in South Carolina only encourages the NAACP and its allies and creates further problems for the mainstream conservatives and businessmen whose principal concern is to avoid controversy.

Indeed, while the main reason for the retreat in South Carolina was fear of the boycott, the NAACP not only refused to call off the boycott after the vote but threatened to intensify it unless the flag were removed from the capitol grounds entirely. NAACP national executive director Kweisi Mfume complained that “to take it from the top of the dome where you had to strain to see it, and move it to a place where anyone coming down the main street will see it is an insult.” Even as the House voted to adopt the compromise measure, black demonstrators burned Confederate and Nazi flags at the Confederate Soldiers Memorial and then sprayed anti-white invectives on the monument itself.

The premise of the compromise was an acknowledgment that while the Confederacy is an important and legitimate part of the South Carolina heritage, it is not (as flying the Confederate flag over the capitol might be taken to imply) the whole or the dominant part of it. Yet the NAACP’s demand that any honoring of the flag be abolished refuses to concede that the Confederacy has any legitimate place in South Carolina or American history at all. The rejection of the Southern and American past was implicit in signs carried by black anti-flag demonstrators last winter that read, “Your Heritage Is Our Slavery.” In rejecting the heritage of the South as merely one of their own enslavement and exploitation, blacks are in effect affirming that they are not part of the culture and nation that are the present-day product of that heritage. What they presumably want celebrated and honored is not the real heritage of the South, in which blacks played a major if subordinate role and from which blacks have derived much of their own cultural identity, but the total extirpation of those parts of the Southern past they find “offensive” (i.e., anything that does not glorify blacks) and the rewriting of the past to magnify and glorify the achievements of their own race.

The black demand for the total extirpation or rewriting of the past is not confined to the South and the Confederacy, however, but also extends to symbols associated with other ethnic groups. Earlier this year the Boston Housing Authority asked residents of public housing to remove displays of shamrocks–which it likened to swastikas or Confederate flags–because this symbol traditionally associated with the Irish was “unwelcome” now that black residents vastly outnumber those of Irish heritage.

But the non-white demand for the erasure of white ethnic and cultural symbols also includes the major symbols of the entire American nation and its past. Indeed, Randall Robinson, a black activist who played an important role in lobbying for sanctions against South Africa to end apartheid, writes that America “must dramatically reconfigure its symbolized picture of itself, to itself. Its national parks, museums, monuments, statues, artworks must be recast in a way to include . . . African-Americans.” It does not seem to matter to Mr. Robinson that the historical events many of these cultural monuments commemorate might not have included blacks; the past must be recreated to include them.

Black rejection of not only the Confederate but the American heritage is clear in the removal of the name of George Washington from a public school in New Orleans. On Oct. 27, 1997 the Orleans Parish School Board, with a 5-2 black majority, voted to change the name of George Washington Elementary to Dr. Charles Richard Drew Elementary (Drew was a black surgeon who made advances in preserving blood plasma); the school itself is 91 percent black. “Why should African-Americans want their kids to pay respect or pay homage to someone who enslaved their ancestors?” asked New Orleans “civil rights” leader Carl Gal-mon. “To African-Americans, George Washington has about as much meaning as David Duke.”

The same school board also has stripped the names of Confederate Generals P.G.T. Beauregard and Robert E. Lee from schools, under a policy adopted in 1992 that prohibits naming schools after “former slave owners or others who did not respect equal opportunity for all.” Southern slave owners and Confederate generals are, of course, mainly of Southern and local interest, but George Washington is probably the most significant national symbol in the American pantheon. The New Orleans school board decision, the New York Times commented at the time, “underscores the maxim that history is written by those with the power.” In this case, those who have the power are blacks who insist on celebrating their own race and discarding the national heroes of whites.

But Washington is by no means the only American icon to be rejected for his “racism.” In 1996, white former Marxist historian Conor Cruise O’Brien published an article in The Atlantic Monthly arguing that Thomas Jefferson should no longer be included in the national pantheon because of his “racism.” Again, Jefferson, second only to Washington perhaps, is one of the major heroes of the national saga. Rejecting Washington and Jefferson as well as the Confederacy and all slave owners (including many who signed the Declaration and the Constitution and all but two of the first seven presidents of the United States) by itself would effectively alter American history and the American national identity so radically as to be unrecognizable. That is precisely what the Afro-racists plan to do.

The editor of Ebony magazine Lerone Bennett, Jr. is the author of a recent book denouncing Abraham Lincoln for his “racism.” As described in Time magazine (May 15), Mr. Bennett says “Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning ‘darky’ jokes,” and he also discusses Lincoln’s remarks about blacks in the debates with Stephen Douglas and on other occasions, as well as his plan to remove blacks from the United States to colonies in Central America. While Bennett’s facts about Lincoln are substantially correct, his book is intended as an attack on and debunking of a major president regarded by many Americans as an iconic figure especially associated with the abolition of slavery and the triumph of egalitarianism.

In February, the New Jersey Senate debated a bill that would have required students in public schools to memorize part of the Declaration, but the bill’s sponsor withdrew it after angry attacks by black lawmakers. As the Associated Press reported, “They objected to the clause that says, ‘All men are created equal’ because when the Declaration was written, that basic democratic principle did not apply to black people.” As black state Sen. Wayne Bryant said, “It is clear that African Americans were not included in that phrase. It’s another way of being exclusionary and insensitive . . . You have nerve to ask my grandchildren to recite [the Declaration]. How dare you? You are now on notice that this is offensive to my community.” He claimed that the bill would involve “reliving slavery.”

The assault on the historic American identity is not mounted only by blacks. Indians and Hispanics in the western part of the United States engage in much the same erasure of white, European symbols and the construction of symbols that glamorize their own cultures. In 1994, the city of San Jose, California, rejected a proposal to construct a public statue of Col. Thomas Fallon, the American soldier who captured the city for the United States in the Mexican-American War, and voted instead to build a statue of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl.

In San Francisco in 1996, American Indians denounced the relocation to a place outside city hall of a statue honoring the Catholic missionaries who founded the city. The statue shows a reclining Indian with a Franciscan monk standing over him. The American Indian Movement Confederation opposed its relocation, saying that the statue “symbolizes the humiliation, degradation, genocide and sorrow inflicted upon this country’s indigenous people by a foreign invader, through religious persecution and ethnic prejudice.” As in South Carolina, whites compromised–by adding a plaque that read, “With their efforts over in 1834, the missionaries left behind about 56,000 converts–and 150,000 dead. Half the original Native American population had perished during this time from disease, armed attacks and mistreatment.” The statue, designed to commemorate the missionaries’ compassion for the Indians, had been transformed into a confession of genocide. At the demand of the Catholic Church, however, the words “and 150,000 dead” were omitted.

The black and other non-white attacks on historic symbols and icons, therefore, are by no means confined to those associated with the Confederacy but extend to symbols associated with anything non-whites find “offensive.” Given the standards by which the NAACP and similar racial extremists select their targets, there is no reason they should not demand the abolition of the American flag and the U.S. Constitution itself. The Constitution indirectly refers and gives protection to slavery several times, and the American flag flew over a nation in which slavery was a legal and important part of the economy and society far longer than the Confederate flag flew over the four-year Confederacy.

Indeed, the factual premises of the NAACP–that American history is inseparable from recognition of racial inequality and racial differences–are generally correct. As I wrote in American Renaissance in January 1999, throughout American history, “We–Americans in general and our public leaders in particular–repeatedly and continuously recognized the reality and importance of race and the propriety of the white race occupying the ‘superior position,’ and indeed it is difficult to think of any other white-majority nation in history in which recognition of the reality of race has been so deeply imbedded in its thinking and institutions as in the United States.” Given that history, there is virtually no figure, event, or institution of the American past that would not be “offensive” to non-whites today and the obliteration of which they could not as logically demand as they do that of Confederate symbols.

I also wrote, “You cannot have it both ways: either we define the American nation as the product of its past and learn to live with the reality of race and the reality of the racial particularism and racial nationalism that in part defines our national history, or you reject race as meaningful and important, as anything more than skin color and gross morphology, and demand that anyone, past or present, who believes or believed that race means anything more than that be demonized and excluded from any positive status in our history or the formation of our identity. If you reject race, then you reject America as it has really existed throughout its history, and whatever you mean by ‘America’ has to come from something other than its real past.”

It is, of course, the latter course, of rejecting the real past of the United States, that the NAACP and other non-white racial extremists have taken, and that rejection is what makes them extremists. It does not seem to occur to them that there are other “heritages” in the United States besides their own or other communities to which such symbols as Washington and Jefferson, the Declaration and the Confederacy, mean something other than the enslavement and exploitation of blacks.

The indifference and hostility of non-whites to symbols and icons of white heritage and identity expose the central fallacy of the “multiracialism” that our current political and cultural elites promote. Its premise is that different races and ethnic groups can all “get along” with each other, that they can live together in egalitarian harmony, and that, as President Clinton said in 1998, “we can strengthen the bonds of our national community as we grow more racially and ethnically diverse.”

But the reality is that the egalitarianism and universalism of the “civil rights” era have led to the rediscovery of race and the rebirth of racial consciousness among non-whites and hence to the animosity that non-whites feel toward whites and their heritage. It is racial consciousness, not egalitarianism and universalism, that fuels the non-white crusade against the American past, and obviously, if “multiracialism” means that some races with more consciousness, more solidarity, and more power can boycott and bludgeon out of existence the symbols of other races and the cultural legacies the symbols represent, then multiracialism promises nothing but either perpetual racial conflict or merely the same kind of racial supremacy that used to exist in the United States–though with a different supreme race whose rule would be perhaps considerably more draconian than that of whites. Of course, whites can always try to buy temporary peace and harmony by agreeing to every demand of non-white radicalism and abandoning the symbols of their own heritage. That, of course, is exactly what whites today are doing, though every concession merely leads to further demands from non-whites.

It may be that the coalition of Southern traditionalists and Civil War buffs who have been the main defenders of the Confederate flag has committed a tactical error by trying to define the flag as purely a Southern symbol. By doing so, they may have encouraged white Americans outside the South and white Southerners who are indifferent to the Confederacy to believe that the controversy does not have implications for them. Indeed, some of the more zealous attacks on “Yankees” by Southern traditionalists may only have alienated non-Southern whites, and by dwelling on the “Southern-ness” of the flag and its meaning in the Civil War, its defenders may have unnecessarily alienated potential allies.

What the racial assault on the Confederacy and other non-Confederate symbols really shows, however, is not only the dangerous flaws of multiracialism and the inexorable logic of the racial revolution of this century but also that today regional differences among whites–like many other cultural and political differences–are no longer very relevant. It shows that Southerners and “Yankees” today face common enemies and common threats to their rights, interests, identity, and heritage as whites, and that the forces that have declared war on them and their heritage define themselves as well as their foes not in political, regional, or cultural terms but in terms of race. Whites who have been indifferent to the fate of the Confederate flag and similar symbols in the recent controversies should not be surprised, therefore, when historical symbols important to their own identity come under assault from anti-white radicals in the future.

And it is as a race that whites must now learn to resist the war being waged on them. So far from being a symbol of a lost and forgotten cause relevant only to a dwindling band of Confederate loyalists, the Confederate flag and the battles swirling around it today should serve as reminders to all white men and women of a simple lesson: Unless they forsake the many obsolete quarrels and controversies that have long divided them and learn to stand, work, and fight together for their own survival as a people and a civilization, the war against them that their self-proclaimed racial enemies are waging will not permit them or their legacy as a people and civilization to survive at all.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • white man

    Perhaps I’m being too hypothetical – but must we support the nazi flag or emblem too, because there are whites out there who do support the nazi flag and not to support it would be divisive to the white community, and be an act of self hate?

  • Anonymous

    The Confederate flags bear no relationship whatsoever with the nazi flag. The Civil War was not fought to free the slave and the southerners did not fight for slavery. The social Marxists and collectivist fanatics, constantly promoting collectivist principles, have promoted these outright lies and psychological operations. Thomas De Lorenzo has thoroughly disproved all of these notions in his books, The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked, and others. He has also written many articles on the subject.

    It is truly appalling and horrifying that most people accept the premise that the so called Civil War, The War Between The States was fought over slavery. It is ridiculous!

  • Hirsch

    Might I recommend “Portals to Hell: Prisons of the Civil War” by Lonnie Speer? Some inconvenient chesnuts include:

    – The New York Times concealing the atrocities of Union Prisons, ie the use of “deadlines” prison borders beyond which Southern POWs would be shot, and to which Union Guards would entice starving prisoners by throwing bits of food, in order to give themselves an excuse to shoot prisoners

    -The deliberate starvation and deprivation of captured rebels by the Union, set against the CSA, crippled economy and all, doing its best to feed prisoners but failing due to lack of resources (CSA currency was eventually burnt by the millions to heat stoves)

    – Using boar hounds, alligators, thumb hanging, and even sharks to torment captured greybacks

    -Union guards routinely clearing their rifles at the end of shifts by firing into the barracks of Confederate POWs.

    Let me borrow a phrase from Al Gore and call it all an “inconvenient truth.”

    The South’s great crime was slavery, but somehow when the Egyptians, Macedonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Portugeuse and Africans did it, that was okay. If we banned the flag of every nation that participated in enslavement, you wouldn’t know who anyone was in the UN.

    It might be pyhrric, but someone should start a campaign for the descendants of CSA troops to receive reparations. It would be worth it to see the look on the faces of Sharpton, Jesse, and Jealous.

  • dd

    #2: Not only do the leftists advance the notion that the WBTS was fought over slavery but that they had the moral imperative of vanquishing evil white people who supported the institution. So they proclaim to have the moral high ground of an issue that we know to be vapor.

    I wish that Jeff Davis, or some other Southerner at the time, had eloquently articulated the reasons for Southern independence. It might have short circuited the leftists of today. I’m jealous of Lincoln for so skillfully defending the argument for Union.

  • Anonymous

    The next step is to attack the founders and the American flag itself as racist. Simply put, the USA was a racist country, and that country has been left behing. Since 1965 it has become the DSA (Diversity States of America), and all the symbols must be changed: the flag, the money, the seal, the songs. The flag will be something like the gay flag. The new $1 bill will feature MLK. The seal will feature equality, tolerance and diversity, not war and peace. The national song will be “We Shall Overcome.”

  • olewhitelady

    Randall Robinson, to whom the article alludes concerning the historical inclusion of blacks where there were none, has, for the most part, abandoned the U.S. to live in the West Indies. Granted, his wife is from the island where they now mostly reside, but if he really feels so strongly about places like Haiti and countries of Africa, the two could move there and fight for the folks on their turf.

    I’m glad that Ebony pointed out the racial opinions of Abraham Lincoln, since so many blacks express admiration for him. The majority of whites, both past and present, naturally share similar views, though now one must be careful about public expression of them.

    Most blacks realize that if whites aren’t running things, the whole society will turn into one big Detroit. Of course, the vast majority don’t have the public forum that race-baiters do. The latter, both black and white, make their living off this activity, whether they’re commentators, politicians, or whatever. They care very little, in reality, for the plight of common blacks or whether Confederate flags are flying.

    The U.S. is a country where people can move within or leave it entirely. Blacks are free to disassociate from whites. They can keep working relationships professional and refrain from having white friends and sex partners. They can promulgate their own culture within their black spheres, without any interference from whites. On the other hand, if they want to conform to white standards, they’re free to move about in the white world.

  • Jack in Chicago

    White man wrote at 7:38 PM on December 23:

    “Perhaps I’m being too hypothetical – but must we support the nazi flag or emblem too, because there are whites out there who do support the nazi flag and not to support it would be divisive to the white community, and be an act of self hate?”

    Jack responds:

    That’s a decision you and all of us have to make, but all should understand that we Whites will be smeared and attacked as “Nazis” if we say or do anything in defense of any Whites in the world, even opposing Islamist extremist terrorists attacks against Americans, or White gays. The BNP’s soft, anti NAZI, pro Israel policies haven’t gotten them understanding PR/good press from the Antis – the BNP and all of us are still NAZIS, get used to it.

    Remember the best defense is a good “offense”.

    If people are screaming “You’re a NAZI” – find something equally insulting to scream back at them and when push gets to shove, be ready, willing and able to get physical.

    Let’s all get physical for the new year.

  • Anonymous

    I lived in Columbia during the last part of the flag controversy, and in fact, got to actually watch the flag come down from the Statehouse for the last time, as my then-girlfriend lived close to the Statehouse. While it may seem like a tempest in a teapot to folks who weren’t there, his flip-flop controversy cost the incumbent Republican governor (David Beasley) his job. It was big news and it polarized the state until the actual flag-lowering happened…and then everybody pretty much quit caring and moved on with things.

    The flag had been up on the Statehouse since the 1960s, flying under the US and state flags, under a proclamation signed by then-governor Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (a fact rarely reported by Democrat-friendly media). The agreement that Beasley and the legislature eventually came to was that the flag, a Confederate naval jack, would come down from the statehouse and at the same time, a slightly different flag–a square Army of Northern Virginia battle flag, the flag actually flown over South Carolina regiments that fought in the ANV under Robert E. Lee–would be raised on a pole behind the Confederate Soldiers’ Memorial, which is on the edge of the Statehouse grounds at Gervais and Main Streets in Columbia. Furthermore, an “African-American Monument” would be constructed elsewhere on the two-square-block Statehouse grounds. This was originally agreed to by the NAACP.

    As soon as the proposal was finalized, the NAACP, as such organizations do when they sense weakness, immediately reversed course and said that the compromise wasn’t enough–that the flag needed to be completely removed from the Statehouse grounds, period, full stop. Some of the more radical voices wanted the Confederate memorial torn down as well despite having been in the same spot since the 1880s. To their credit, most of the General Assembly (both parties and both races) ignored the NAACP and the compromise went through.

    The flag has been flying behind the memorial for 10+ years despite having been subject to repeated attempts at vandalism from black troublemakers. The NAACP “boycott” of South Carolina is still allegedly in effect, though the only people it’s ever hurt have been black tour operators in the Lowcountry who give black-history tours of the Gullah and Geechee cultures down on the Sea Islands.

    Personally, I think the compromise was correct. It’s in the correct place now, behind a monument to the thousands of South Carolinians who fought and died in the Confederate cause. South Carolina also proved that the best way to deal with race pimps like the NAACP is simply to stand your ground. When the NAACP flip-flopped, the state government simply ignored them and executed the previously-agreed compromise, and the NAACP was left looking like the fools they are.

  • ex CA liberal

    So many whites are assaulted, raped, and murdered every day by other races. Now they want to erase our culture and history. To add insult to injury, we PAY for this. Our ever increasing taxes support a violent, racist underclass that wants to destroy us. My message to our enemies is: You can only push a group so far. We will not stand idly by and bow down to our own genocide. Rage has grown past a point of no return. You will see a revolt in your lifetimes that will dwarf all others. We will take our countries back.

    I know I sound like a radical, however, is it radical to want to stop interracial rape?

  • white man

    “It is truly appalling and horrifying that most people accept the premise that the so called Civil War, The War Between The States was fought over slavery”.

    Just the same. . . I pick the side my ancestors fought on also, the northern side. I’m not out trying to eliminate the confederate flag but I prefer old glory, and frankly, have no desire to feel a kinship with those supporting the old confederacy (though I do a feel a bit of kinship with them perhaps, with all this ‘racism’ everywhere). Frankly, with a little push, I could be on the side of those wanting to ban it forever, etc.

  • Anonymous

    7 — Jack in Chicago wrote at 11:43 AM on December 24:

    White man wrote at 7:38 PM on December 23:

    “Perhaps I’m being too hypothetical – but must we support the nazi flag or emblem too, because there are whites out there who do support the nazi flag and not to support it would be divisive to the white community, and be an act of self hate?”

    Jack responds:

    That’s a decision you and all of us have to make, but all should understand that we Whites will be smeared and attacked as “Nazis” if we say or do anything in defense of any Whites in the world, even opposing Islamist extremist terrorists attacks against Americans, or White gays. The BNP’s soft, anti NAZI, pro Israel policies haven’t gotten them understanding PR/good press from the Antis – the BNP and all of us are still NAZIS, get used to it.”

    >Perhaps the most important aspect of this narrative is to be certain that “they” do not actually make us into Nazis. Remember that Nazism turned on its own people and saw them murdered and ruined. I find echos of that today whenever I post a probing idea on an extant Neo-Nazi website. It seems they will tolerate NO questioning. They have allowed the critics to define them rather than pick a good strategy for PR. The BNP moderated itself and at least presents a quandary to the critic by being both nationalist AND anti-Nazi.

    I lived in Slovenia for a couple years. I have mentioned this on previous posts occasionally. Slovenians are perhaps the perfect example of what a national socialist people should be like. They have a fierce feeling of their Slovenian identification, a great love of their own language and culture (even though it is greatly informed by Austrian/Bavarian culture), even to the extent of being ridiculous to the outsider. They willing support their socialist state, with social medicine (which I worked with and found superior in every way to the market driven forms we have), a good social net, etc. They have a low crime rate and even little girls were never afraid to walk up to me and talk, any time of day, anywhere (it happened). They told me that they didn’t mind the taxes because Slovenian people are like a family and will take care of one another.

    That last sentence is a KEY element to what makes a people, a nation. Diversity does kill trust and security, but it also kills the feeling of commonality and the willingness to help strangers. That requires lots of pressure from religious groups and corrupt governments, and they have other interests than you and the continuity of your ethnic/racial line.

    Some things to think about.

  • Sandy

    I was just thinking. People in Illinois and Virginia probably have a more keener sense of the Civil War than other people. Lincoln is Illinois’ son and Virginia was home to the Confederacy. The people in these states are probably more proud, and rightly so, in their loyalties. I’m from Illinois and therefore a rabid Lincoln man. I bet same holds true for people in Virginia about the Confederacy. We two peoples have to hold down the fort. No? The weight on our shoulders can be much at times.

  • Anonymous

    In my comment #2, I recommended the books and articles of Thomas De Lorenzo on the so-called Civil War, The War Between The States. Unfortunately, many people, even those claiming to be dissidents or independent thinkers, have been thoroughly brainwashed and propagandized. You are proceeding from false assumptions. I choose my own ideology, not those of my ancestors. I do not know how to make it any clearer:

    *The southern states had an absolute right to secede! It was accepted and openly discussed many times prior to the war that any states had the right to secede! Some New England states had almost seceded previously and nobody even questioned their right to do so, everybody knew that they had that right. De Lorenzo provides much evidence of this in his free online articles and his books.

    *The war was absolutely not fought to end slavery or for any noble motives whatsoever and the north was perpetrating a great evil!

    *The flags in question are state flags but they represent pride in Dixie, they are not in competition with the U.S. flag any more than the Colorado or Washington state flags or any others are in competition with “Old Glory.” Some people here are actually manipulating this issue into something that it is not! Even the confederate flag itself is not an affront and has nothing to do with race whatsoever!

    In short, some people refuse to give up on the social Marxist propaganda that they have been fed. Far from being conservatives or advocates of the welfare of their own people, such people are extreme leftists socialist. Such people are suffering from cognitive dissonance and from burying their heads in the sand. Wake up and read some alternative points of view! The Fabian Marxists have produced these false premises.

  • BannerRWB

    The issue of the Confederate Flag and our ill conceived civil conflict.

    1 – White Man: “but must we support the nazi flag or emblem too”?

    – I would not call it support so much as being a recognition of a path that a nation of White people took due to circumstances they did not desire and were unable to control. We should, I think, always have the depth of thought to allow for learning about history in general and our common history in particular. To erase the Confederate Flag (or Nazi flag for that matter) from memory will serve, I beleive, to make us weaker as an ethnic group. If we forget part of our past or denigrate those who chose a path that we fail to understand, then I think we would be worse off than making an effort at understanding and reconciliation, even if it means holding a, hopefully low-level, begrudgement which may never be consoled.

    2 – Anon: “The Confederate flags bear no relationship whatsoever with the nazi flag.”

    – I agree, but any such relationship isn’t the issue. Those who purvey such a point of view do not care if they are speaking the truth. Their goal is the denigration and destruction of America in specific and the White world in general. Their desire is to use whatever symbolism and methods they can acquire to accomplish their end goal. Again, the truth doesn’t matter. The louder you scream your point of view, the louder they will scream their point of view. You care, and they don’t. You get ever more frustrated, and they just laugh at you. Even if you win this one battle after 150 years, they will select any number of other arguments and continue on.

    3 – Hirsch: “Some inconvenient chesnuts include:”

    – Yes, the war and the treatment of prisoners on both sides was often criminal. Please feel free to recount some of the reportings on the Confederate treatment of Union POW’s as well.

    5 – Anon: “The next step is to attack the founders and the American flag itself as racist.”

    – I believe you are correct, and this is already underway. I have mentioned here before, that I believe America in its contiguous form is already lost. It’s just that it takes a long time for great nations to destroy themselves. Now that we have opened the flood gates to world immigration, those of us (not me) with wealth, power and influence seem to be racing to get all that they can while they can, our nation be damned. As our government pushes a few illegals out, they shove millions, such as Somali Islamists, in.

    7 – Jack in Chicago: “the BNP and all of us are still NAZIS, get used to it.”

    – I agree with this statement. Not that we are Nazis, but that most non-Whites look upon all White people as being inherently evil racists. They do this of course, even as they both enjoy the blessings of and denigrate all things, which come from the White world.

    10 – White Man: “Frankly, with a little push, I could be on the side of those wanting to ban it forever, etc.”

    – I hope you change your mind. I have changed mine. I retain letters I wrote within the last five years where I get to the point of almost cursing the confederate flag. No longer do I hold those points of view. It has been 150 years since the conflict and I am in middle-age. For most of my life I felt a sense of self-righteousness and pride in my beliefs, but now I find the more I learn, the more senseless our conflict becomes. I hold both sides accountable, and frustration and bitterness remain.

    12 – Sandy: “I’m from Illinois and therefore a rabid Lincoln man.”

    – Ah, A fellow Statesman. Maybe we will meet someday and I can tell you of my ancestors who fought alongside the Lincoln clan in our early conflict with the Indians. I continue to hold respect for Lincoln, due mainly to the position he was in and for his efforts at doing the best he could in a truly horrible situation. But I hold less reverence and respect for him now than I did earlier in life. I do agree though, that I think those of us from Illinois and Virginia (I think South Carolina also), have a bit more of a burn regarding the (here it comes) CIVIL WAR.

    13 – Anon: “I do not know how to make it any clearer” – It doesn’t matter. In fact, your point of view is quite clear and well known. The real point is that your enemies and the enemies of the White world DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK OR BELIEVE.

    “on the so-called Civil War, The War Between The States.” – I’ve heard of this debate before, where those from the South call it The War Between the States and those from the North call it The Civil War. In fact, I think someone from the North actually used the Northern term here on this thread. I hereby extend the hand of friendship and compromise to my fellow White brethren from the South. I suggest a new title be taught to all of our White children. Let’s henceforth call it, “The Civil War Between the States”, or maybe, “The Un-Civil War Between the States” would be more appropriate. I for one am open to any suggestions to end this issue at least for now. If we could postpone the White-on-White bickering until after we secure a future for our White children, I would glady take up the debate at a later time.

    “Wake up and read some alternative points of view!” – People already have. Again, the point is that they know your point of view, but that it doesn’t conform with their point of view so they will never concede anything to you. They do not care for you or what you believe in. They think you are insane, and they have indeed won the war of ideology. The issue of the Confederate flag or the reasons we fought The Civil War Between The States is now only a side issue that is used to hide their ultimate goal, which is the wholesale destruction of the White world. While we argue who was right about issues between White people from 150 years ago, our nation is being overtaken by anti-White, anit-American, anti-Western people who care nothing about whether a White person is from the North or the South.

    As always, responses are welcome, even if anyone dispisingly disagrees with any of my comments.

  • BAW

    My ancestors came from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Italy around 1900 and settled in Pennsylvania. Although I have no dog in this fight, I will say this: Don’t let what happened to the heritage of Columbus happen to Confederate heritage (oh no, it already did!)

    And to the part about the shamrocks in Boston: one of my mother-in-law’s ancestors was Irish. He left after the potato famine in 1847. The ship he was on was supposed to land in Boston, but a huge hurricane along the East Coast forced the ship to land in New Orleans. He was hired by a plantation owner to clear a mucky, snake and alligator-infested swamp, because slaves were too valuable to risk getting bitten or sucked under in the quicksand (which is what happened to him). After all, a slave could cost as much as $30K in today’s money, but a starving Irishman cost only $1 a day, and it wasn’t like they were hard to find.

  • Auntie Em

    It’s common sense to me that when the boat is sinking you don’t squabble over the best way to bail water.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah. Illinois had Lincoln, Grant and to some extent Sherman. Virginia had Lee, Davis and had the Confederate capital, Richmond. The people in these states are probably more gung ho about the Civil War than say some guy in Arkansas, Texas or Minnesota.

  • Anonymous

    17 — Anonymous wrote at 2:27 PM on December 26:

    Yeah. Illinois had Lincoln, Grant and to some extent Sherman. Virginia had Lee, Davis and had the Confederate capital, Richmond. The people in these states are probably more gung ho about the Civil War than say some guy in Arkansas, Texas or Minnesota.

    Wrong #17.

    I’m from PA/NJ and I’m as gung ho as they are.

  • Anonymous

    What’s funny, the comment beside Lincoln’s photo that reads “He’s no good, either”, I thought it was the point of view of the AmRen-community that Lincoln’s no good either, when in fact the view that Lincoln’s no good is coming from the pro-black movement.

  • Anonymous

    I am always amazed at the idiocy of the NAACP types who don’t seem to realize that there were black Soldiers in the Confederate Army, and that the Cherokee Indian Nation fought with the Confederacy, against the Union. Oooops, did I let that slip out?

  • Anonymous

    Michelle Antoinette’s food campaign is a lot more than a “health” program. Read what they were serving in L.A. school cafeterias before the school discontinued the program — thai noodles, black bean burritos, spicy curry — the idea was to do away with another American tradition — American food, in this case. Fortunately, the kids griped and got their burgers and fries back.

  • Aaron from Rhode Island

    To poster #21: Thai food, spiced curries & protein rich Beans sounds like a much tastier & healthier option than those disgusting, fattening & grossly unhealthy burgers & fries. The kids made a bad, correction, terrible decision in this case.