Lee in the Mountains

Doing the Lord's Work by Saving the White Race

I Don’t Care About Black People

In light of both recent events and long-simmering racial issues in this country, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s time for me to state my sincere and forthright position on race relations, specifically those involving the black population. So here it is: I don’t care about black people.

In our age of Totalism, this needs some clarification. Totalism means that there is no middle–one must either love something with all of one’s heart and be willing to work tirelessly for its benefit, or (clearly) one must hate it and wish to see it destroyed with maximum force. By no means can there be any in-between. This paradigm is a tool of control–one common in history, but particularly loved by Puritans, which means that it is now primarily in the hands of the puritanical left. Few want to be seen as so heartless or vicious as to hate something–or, commonly, some group of people–enough to wish destruction upon it. And so, accepting the Totalist frame, most people feel compelled to insist that they do love it, and would bear any burden for its betterment. They dare not take the risk of being painted as a villain (which these days usually means someone who doesn’t believe in the sacred dogma of equality). But there are some of us who know better, and who reject the frame given us. And that is what I mean to do here.

I don’t care about black people, which means by definition that I don’t hate them. In order to hate something or someone, you must care about them deeply. Hate is a serious, long-term emotional investment, and one must actually care very much about the object of one’s hatred in order to make it. As is often said, hate is not the opposite of love; indifference is. And I have come to be very indifferent about the fortunes of blacks.

I don’t care about black people. Their problems are not my problem. Their enemies are not my enemy. Their concerns are not my concern. I feel no need to understand them or their ways, and I don’t care whether or not they understand me or my ways. I wish them well–in fact, I know not a single white person, no matter how outwardly racist, who does not wish that blacks were doing better than they are, if for no other reason than that we must all live with the effects of their failures. I hope that the issues that seem to ceaselessly dog their community all get solved somehow. I have no desire to do them and theirs injury, except as punishment for injury done by them against me and mine. But I don’t care about them–there is nothing more I want from them other than to simply leave me alone, and in exchange, I will gladly leave them alone as well.

Lest one think that this is all motivated by sheer meanness and lack of charity, there is another reason for my lack of enthusiasm for the cause of helping black people. The truth is that I don’t know how to help them, and I don’t know anyone else who does. For at least fifty years (more like a hundred and fifty, really) whites have been trying to find a way to solve the problems of black people. We must now be realistic and admit that all of these attempts have failed miserably. Fifty years into the War on Poverty, drive around a black ghetto (if you dare) and note what you see. It is indeed certain to look like there has been a war there, but it is equally certain to not look like any victory over poverty has been won. What you’ll find there is the result of whites having tried everything they could possibly think of to uplift blacks, and of it all having either not worked at all or having actually made things worse. As evidenced by the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Americans are notoriously slow to understand that their plan hasn’t worked and to accept defeat, but at some point, reality asserts itself in a way that is undeniable.

So here is the undeniable reality: when it comes to whites trying to solve the problems of black people, none of our plans have worked, and we’re pretty much out of ideas. I, certainly, have nothing new to add on the issue–believe me, if I did, I would. I have no secret, sadistic desire to see blacks suffer, and I, too, must live with the results of their failures. But like everybody else, I don’t have any more solutions to offer.

And I am not alone in my sense of resignation on this topic. Some are angrier than I am, and frequent, horrific reports of interracial crime–statistically almost all black on white–give them reason to be. Among many others, what has been termed “negro fatigue” has set in–an exasperated feeling of just being sick and tired of constantly hearing about blacks and their seemingly endless problems. Even on the left, which instinctively senses that the excuses and rationalizations for the failures of the black community (most especially its disproportionate rates of criminality) are wearing thin, the effects of this can be seen. One aspect of the establishment left’s recent push for gay rights is that they are quietly but visibly dumping blacks as their most favored oppressed minority in favor of gays. This is largely a simple matter of political practicality. When nice white ladies of the sort who often vote for Democrats turn on the TV and see large groups of feral blacks burning down Baltimore, it makes an impression. Doubtless so too have the nice white ladies’ own previous encounters with lower-class blacks. Say what you will about gays, but they are, as a group, not greatly given to torching senior centers or stealing purses. It makes their cause an easier sell.

In addition, it seems obvious that the left is as out of ideas about how to help blacks as everyone else. The election of Barack Obama was supposed to make all of this better, but it plainly has not, and the only other idea that the left has been able to come up with is trying more of what has already spent half a century not working. There is no reason to believe that any of it will suddenly start working now, and the need to defend the absurd notion that it might is, even with the mainstream right being as feckless and cowardly as it is, a serious political liability. Best to simply move on to the next big thing without any further comment.

As for my own solutions to the state of race relations–which are bad, and getting worse–I have precious few. Voluntary separation based on freedom of association would seem a wise and humane way to handle things. But grown adults deciding for themselves who they want to be around is prohibited by federal law, and is harshly punished where discovered. Ethnonationalism, in which each race lives in its own territory, under its own system, and makes its own laws, which it is itself responsible for enforcing, also seems to be a decent and viable solution. But this will not happen without the breakup of the United States and/or a civil war, which, while inevitable, is not on the immediate horizon.

So it seems that neither I, nor anyone else, have any workable answers to offer. It is time then, I believe, to invoke the spirit of the Serenity Prayer, and to learn to accept that which I cannot change. Again, I wish blacks all the success in the world; I hope they can find a way to do better and that a solution to their problems makes itself apparent. But other than in a vague Christian sense of wanting the best for my fellow man, I can no longer bring myself to care about them.

Thus, to black people, my message is simply this: Good luck, but don’t call me for help.

P.S. There is a long list of other people who I similarly don’t care about, including but not limited to: homosexuals, transgenders, Jews, Latinos, and all manner of exotic peoples in faraway countries. I wish them well, I’ll never go out of my way to harm them without provocation, I hope they get right with the Lord, and I’ll be happy to say a prayer for their souls while I’m in church. But I’ve had my fill of hearing about their problems, and I’m done caring. Whatever plagues you, work it out yourselves. Leave me alone.


“A nation without borders is not a nation.”

I know, right?

In addition a nation without common culture and race is also not a nation.

Seems like common sense to me.

Ann Coulter on the monumental stakes of our decision:

“America is not the natural state of the world. Darfur is the natural state of the world. The British Empire spread Anglo-Saxon culture around the globe – Protestant morals, individualism, and the rule of law. Most British colonies rejected those values. Only the ones populated by actual British people – America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – managed to hold on to them and, as a result, prospered. The Empire’s most successful experiment was the United States. Anyone who hesitates for a moment to recognize that some groups have it over other groups in producing free and prosperous nations has been brainwashed beyond reclamation.” (p 57)

Nothing you love will survive without white people.

You aren’t just betraying your principles.

Dear Cuckservative,

You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word–cuckservative–lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.

Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today’s electorate.

Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don’t expect them to be “diverse.” Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.

Your great festival–CPAC–is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That’s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don’t share your dreams. You’ve heard the old joke: “What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.” Outreach doesn’t work. You can’t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can’t reach.

Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a “colorblind” America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he’ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn’t work, does it? That’s because only whites–and Asians, when it suits them–even think in terms of “colorblindness.” Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they’re the majority just think how hard they’ll squeeze your grandchildren.

You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?

Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.

And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.

Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.

We see that in America. Can you think of a majority non-white neighborhood you’d like to live in, or a majority non-white school you’d like your children to attend? No, you can’t. Why, then, don’t you fight with all your strength against the forces of immigration and integration that are turning ever-greater parts of your county into Third-World wastelands?

I know it would be frightening for you to step outside the ever narrower confines of what we are permitted to say about race. You would court the disapproval of every institution in America. You would pay a heavy price. Not since the last Red Scare has the price of speaking out been so high. In the 1950s, it was dangerous to spout Marxist foolishness. Today, the most dangerous ideas are the historical, biological, and moral truths that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and your grandparents took for granted.

Muster up the courage. Speak these truths. They are your heritage. They are your destiny. They are in your bones. And when you speak these truths, you will join the people who see the only future for America in which the things you love are even conceivable. When you speak these truths you will join the camp of the saints.

And until you speak these truths you will feel the sting of the word “cuckservative.” You will feel its sting because you are not just betraying the heritage and promise of America. You are not just betraying your principles and dreams–even though you think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.


The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, Southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century – long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army?

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown – albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery – so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the “racist” was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people – even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence – policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy – and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully – just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant – after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag – the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deo Vindice,’ (God is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon, “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag.”

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.


The Moral Case For Discrimination


Defenders of legislation designed to protect the religious freedom rights of businesses argue that such laws do not amount to discrimination against gays. However, not only are such advocates actually barking up the wrong tree, they’re not even in the right forest.

Instead of helping to reinforce the enemy’s primary premise (the idea that discrimination of any kind is wrong) while boxing themselves into legalistic corners, desperate to comply with the enemy’s terms, those who would overthrow the tyranny of political correctness must go on the attack instead.

How? Upset the enemy’s apple cart completely. Get in their faces and defiantly inform them (and everyone else concerned) that discrimination is not only moral, right, and fair; it is a patriotic imperative, and everything our population has been taught about discrimination has been false.

What’s wrong with discrimination? Nothing. In fact, you have a duty to discriminate in favor of the good, and against the inferior.

The ancient Chinese classic, The Book of Changes, holds that discrimination — the setting of limits — is the very backbone of morality.

Sodomy is inferior to procreation. Sue me already.

A society which makes it illegal to favor the superior over the inferior is doomed, that much more so when it requires that the inferior be favored over the superior. Now the astonishment ensues, that anyone would dare even speak of such things as superior and inferior! Such hateful bigotry! Why, there’s no such thing! Everything and everyone is equal in every way!

The controversy over Christian caterers and gay weddings is only one facet of the overall, ongoing political maelstrom which necessitates clarity. I don’t much care what the courts have ruled on any of this; they’re just as likely to be wrong — and not just because they’ve been rather dishonest about it all.

Our distorted legal system says that the fundamental right of freedom of association is somehow trumped by the imagined (and non-existent, in truth) “right” not to be offended or discriminated against. If people’s right to freedom of association (and private property rights) were protected instead, private business owners could just hire or serve only who they see fit, for any reason or no reason at all. And the chips would fall where they may. After all, the business operator (not the judge, leftist talk show pundit, or lawmaker) is the one who has to spend most of his or her waking hours dealing with the employees and customers in question.

Conventional thinkers and jurists argue that businesses, having an alleged orientation and obligation toward “public accommodation,” are by that principle forbidden from denying service to patrons based on whatever status. But how honest is that characterization, anyway? There’s really no such thing as a business which “accommodates the public.” In reality, businesses accommodate only those with the means and willingness to pay for the goods or services they offer. That is, discrimination against those in the general public who can’t or won’t pay is already inherent (although even that concept seems less and less intact anymore!). Besides, money is not the only social currency. Good manners and all kinds of other preferences can and should be considered as to a business owner’s prerogatives.

When you chose to read this, you discriminated against all the other articles you could be reading during this time, or other things you could be doing. Is that somehow unfair to someone? Shouldn’t there be government arbiters of what people read, to make sure you don’t make “discriminatory” selections? How would that work, seeing as discrimination against someone’s writing would always be inevitable? You see where this leads. Yes, they are actually trying to put such programs in place.

If discrimination is supposedly so wrong and illegal, why does our immigration system (since 1965, that is) so heavily favor non-whites from the third world, to the relative exclusion of whites?

The point is that regardless of what the “do-gooders” say or attempt, discrimination of some kind is always going to take place, no matter what. The important thing is that it be the right kind. That’s where the real debate comes into play.

So what is the “right kind” of discrimination?

Contrary to the conventional thinking, even governments should actively discriminate. The Japanese are morally right to discriminate in favor of Japanese (why shouldn’t they?), and the ethnic majority in whatever country, wherever, should be free to assert itself and create laws favoring their prevalence — this is the very essence and purpose of having national identity in the first place, lest the abject chaos of unlimited diversity trump borders, language, and culture. The alternative is what we see here now in the U.S.: increasing dissolution, tension, conflict, and the anti-American tyranny of protected minority sacred cows. Phooey.

Speaking of cows, next we’ll be told that cows are unable to read and practice things like medicine only because of centuries of oppression by farmers (mostly white farmers of course), and that therefore the “achievement gap” is the result of the “disparate impact” of….oh, never mind.

Agenda-driven discrimination does not mean scuttling the rule of law, it means the rule of law is intact — just not the Orwellian, Marxist BS we have now. Those who prattle on about “equal protection under the law” have yet to answer regarding the inevitability of discrimination I’ve mentioned.

As it happens now, unfortunately, and mainly due to twisted interpretations of history and its implications, conservative white males have for generations accepted and helped perpetuate the premise that they are the ones to be targeted for discrimination by any and all entities, public and private, so that a de facto regime of black/brown/female/LGBT supremacy can reign over America. This is anything but equal protection, and it’s despite the fact that white males are the ones who sacrificed themselves in untold numbers to end slavery and tyranny in this hemisphere and elsewhere on the planet — still, we are the ones against whom the endless political pogroms are being waged, because it is imagined that we are guilty, when in fact the entire world was “guilty” of slavery, yet it was whites who did something about it!

In suicidal, politically correct Britain, at least they don’t pretend it’s not discrimination when they wage political and economic persecution against whites, and especially against Christian white males — they call their affirmative action/diversity programs “positive discrimination.” Isn’t that cute?

Efforts against shopkeepers being allowed to decide for themselves whom to serve and how to conduct their own business evidence a pretty dim view of the ability of individual citizens to exercise their own, sound moral judgment about human relations, and about business, for that matter. That control-freak impulse is at the very heart of the fascist Left’s fetish for government intrusion into people’s lives, and their growing bureaus of Thought Police. But nothing gives us any indication that such control-freaks are in reality better people, with better moral judgment, than any given store owner, any given citizen.

In fact, given the recent campaign of malicious terrorism we’ve seen waged against a completely innocent Christian pizza shop owner in Indiana, it’s pretty clear that those screaming the loudest against discrimination are actually the most hateful, dangerous bigots on the planet.

“I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over,”

Eric Holder’s parting shot and a comment in response

This @ Politico Website:

In an exit interview, the attorney general says his critics may be partly driven by race.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/eric-holder-civil-rights-interview-mike-allen-115575.html#ixzz3SzwZ20Lq

A comment in response was posted:

For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an
interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and
working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles
of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority
white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a
majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no
written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy
that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black
people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled
with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters
never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the
experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result
they wanted. They created the Freedman’s Bureau, passed civil rights laws,
tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race
preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into people’s lives in ways that would
have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to
enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the
protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black
schools and vice versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed
standards, and endless handwringing to close the “achievement gap.” To keep
white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements
on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to
“Celebrate Diversity!” and “Say No to Racism.” Nothing was off limits if it
might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. Du Bois called the Talented Tenth
would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would
knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of.
There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become
entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough.
For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical
mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability.
That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an
inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is
bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of
black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks
never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger
and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen
in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting
and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us
that this doesn’t mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder.
We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter
how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on
TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue it’s a problem of “culture,” as
if culture creates people’s behavior instead of the other way around. Others
blame “white privilege.”

But since 1965, when the elites opened America’s doors to the
Third World, immigrants from Asia and India–people who are not white, not rich,
and not “connected”–have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people
are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black “youths” are
committing half the country’s violent crime–crime, which includes viciously
punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has
nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of culture, or white
privilege, or racism. The fundamental problem is that white people and black
people are different. They differ intellectually and temperamentally. These
differences result in permanent social incompatibility.

Our rulers don’t seem to understand just how tired their white
subjects are with this experiment. They don’t understand that white people
aren’t out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are
exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and
the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and
the reflexive animosity.

The elites explain everything with “racism,” and refuse to believe that white
frustration could soon reach the boiling point.

The Endgame

The Lesson Of CHARLIE HEBDO: France, and the West, Must Chose Identity or Extinction

Protesters hold signs saying “Je Suis Charlie”–French for “I Am Charlie”–in solidarity with the victims. But the whole of France is Charlie Hebdo, and solidarity against immigration is illegal in France.

The Islamic terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is as devastating as it was predictable. Twelve people are dead at the hands of “French” Muslims (Police hunt three Frenchmen after 12 killed in Paris attack, By John Irish and Antony Paone, euronews,com January 8, 2015) But while the politicians posture and the Main Stream Media tries to shift the blame away from Islam, a larger struggle is taking root. Europeans are not going to be allowed to ignore the National Question. They are going to have to choose whether to embrace their Identity and confront Islam or submit. Opting out is no longer an option.

Charlie Hebdo is best known internationally as a provocative journal that occasionally published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Only a short time before the attack Charlie Hebdo tweeted out a joke about the Islamic State with “Caliph” al-Baghdadi wishing everyone a Happy New Year.

However, the publication is hardly conservative and directed just as much fire at Judaism and Christianity. Just last month, the magazine published a vulgar image portraying the birth of Christ that could serve as an entry in its own right in VDARE.com’s War on Christmas Competition [What is Charlie Hebdo? The cartoons that Made the French Paper Infamous, by Max Read, Gawker, January 7, 2015]. The cartoon still serves as the magazine’s avatar on Twitter.

Several of the cartoonists who were killed were reportedly called out by name as the gunmen entered the magazine’s offices. One of the names was Editor Stephane Charbonnier, who was “reportedly a supporter of the French Communist Party and his cartoons often featured Maurice et Patapon, an anti-capitalist cat and dog” [Called for by name: Dead Cartoonists Identified, Sky News, January 7, 2015]. In fact, the magazine’s latest cover of the magazine featured a vicious caricature of Michel Houellebecq, mocking the author for his newly released book prophesying the Islamic conquest of France.

But equal opportunity willingness to offend didn’t save Charbonnier or anyone else. Nor did the police protection that Charlie Hebdo enjoyed seem to even inconvenience the highly-disciplined attackers: the unarmed officers were forced to retreat [Unarmed French police literally retreated in the face of Islamist attackers, by Noah Rothman, HotAir, January 7, 2015]. The terrorists’ execution-style killing of a wounded French policeman begging for his life provided the defining image for the day. It should shame any self-satisfied protesters from ever using the despicable slogan “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”

Yet even as leftist cartoonists and satirists were butchered in their offices, the MSM hastened to change the subject to the real danger—the anti-immigration policies of the French National Front.

Tony Barber at the Financial Times took the opportunity of the attacks to caution that “some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims.” The danger, of course, is the “siren songs of the far right” represented by “Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front.” [The gunmen in Paris attacked more than a Muslim-baiting magazine, January 7, 2015]

Richard Seymour veered into the territory of self-caricature by telling people that anyone who values the anti-Islamic caricatures of Charle Hebdo needs to be “reading Edward Said’s Orientalism, as well as some basic introductory texts on Islamophobia, and then come back to the conversation.” The fact that he wrote this in a U.S. journal entitled Jacobin gives his words a special poignancy.

Progressives, writes Seymour,

[S]houldn’t line up with the inevitable statist backlash against Muslims, or the ideological charge to defend a fetishized, racialized “secularism,” or concede to the blackmail which forces us into solidarity with a racist institution.

[On Charlie Hebdo, January 7, 2015]

And William Saletan at Slate mourns:

France’s far-right National Front was already on the rise. This attack could help it take over the country. Maybe…the dystopia on the French horizon… [is] a state run by the anti-immigrant right.

[Disgracing Islam, January 7, 2015]

Therefore, even as the bodies are not yet cold, the MSM lectures us that terrorism and murders in the streets must always be regarded with cool objectivity and rationality. At the same time, the possible democratic election of a political party that may limit immigration is met with wild denunciations and nightmarish prophecies of “dystopia.”

Patriots shouldn’t expect murderous attacks on journalists and cartoonists to awaken the MSM to the threat of Islamic terrorism. After all, it’s Europeans who are the existential enemy. Instead, there will be a redoubling of efforts to demand that Europeans abolish their sovereignty and identity.

Thus, Yascha Mounk sneers at the German marches against Islam because,

[T]heir chants of “We are the People” betray how exclusionary their conception of nationhood really is. Appropriating the most famous slogan of the 1989 protests that helped to bring down the Berlin Wall for their own purposes, they are signaling that they will never consider Muslims as true Germans…

[I]n rallying to the defense of our values, we must, as ever, remember what those values actually are: a set of rules and institutions that allows everyone who subscribes to them to live together peacefully—whether they be a devout Muslim or a blasphemous cartoonist.

[Europe’s Brutal Truth, Slate, January 7, 2015]

This is nothing less than a call for Europeans to abolish their own countries as meaningful entities and embrace a “proposition nation” united by vague “rules” and “institutions.”

The problem is that the Europeans have already tried this. From the multicultural model of Scandinavia to the assimilationist policies of France (where even keeping statistics on race is banned), Third World immigration is failing all over Europe. France is an especially troubling test case because the Republic’s policies are as civic-national and color-blind as anything that could be dreamed up by a Beltway Right foundation.

And yet nonetheless, France finds itself embroiled in a kind of permanent low level insurgency in its own cities. In fact, there’s no evidence that Muslims want to live under liberal rules and institutions: polls show that Muslims in Europe radically disagree with the cultural norms that Europeans take for granted.

Therefore, even speaking about “living together peacefully” is misleading. Even if European governments could prevent the occasional terrorist attacks and “random” acts of violence from its newly imported underclass, sheer numbers will allow Muslims in Europe to impose a new political and cultural order on the Continent—regardless of the wishes of the indigenous inhabitants. Whether this is done through violence or through the ballot box is ultimately irrelevant.

And as the attack on Charlie Hebdo shows, even those citizens who define their way of life as satire, irony, and cynical detachment will not be exempted from the demand that they submit to the new order.

The choice confronting Europe is brutal in its simplicity—does it want to be Islamic or not? Simply remaining deracinated consumers will not be an option much longer.

The West cannot be defined simply by the rejection of Islam or as a collection of legal norms. It is a culture created by a specific people and it will be destroyed if that people is dispossessed. Europeans have the self-evident right to secure their homelands for themselves, without regard to the claims others make upon it.

In the end, Charlie Hebdo isn’t about whether the French have the right to practice satire. It’s about whether France has the right to stay French.


Black Crime Rate

We hear quite frequently how black crime and various other black pathologies are the result of such large single mother families. That back in the 50’s and before blacks had intact families almost on par with whites and if we had that today it would change our out of control black crime problem. Without a doubt single mom households are generally not a good thing but high crime rates and blacks go hand-in-hand…

from the April 21th 1958 edition of Time magazine:

THEY are afraid to say so in public, but many of the North’s big-city mayors groan in private that their biggest and most worrisome problem is the crime rate among Negroes. In 1,551 U.S. cities, according to the FBI tally for 1956, Negroes, making up 10% of the U.S. population, accounted for about 30% of all arrests, and 60% of the arrests for crimes involving violence or threat of bodily harm—murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. In one city after another, the figures—where they are not hidden or suppressed by politicians—reveal a shocking pattern. Items: New York (14% Negro). Of the…



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.