Category Archives: Sovereignty and Secession

Michael Cushman Has Engaged Me and CHT at Southern Nationalist Network

For those who don’t follow these matters, there has been an ongoing feud between what I am calling the “New Direction Caucus” in the League of the South and some of us who have been alarmed by some things about this New Direction. I have been planning to address the issue here, but haven’t had the time recently, but I now see that Michael Cushman, who is the clear leader of this New Direction Caucus, has engaged me by name at his website. This is a good thing. These issues need to be debated openly. I will work on a reply. For now I will let the Cushman’s article stand on its own. Please read the article, read my comments, and then read the entire comment section of the post where my comments were taken from to understand the argument.

I don’t want to go into a lot of details about what the debate is about, since I plan a separate post (several really) on the issue, but briefly at issue is whether the US was conceived as a deliberate Enlightenment egalitarian experiment from its inception. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think it is fair to say that Cushman believes it was. I say it wasn’t. (There is more to the problem with the New Direction Caucus than just this. There are a suite of interrelated issues and attitudes, but more on that later.)

I think my position stands on its own if you read the comment section. I don’t have any issue with the way Cushman characterizes my position. In fact, oddly, he doesn’t really attempt to counter my position. He doesn’t attempt to demonstrate that my history is faulty and his is accurate. He simply states his alternative. He seems to be primarily motivated by the fact that he believes that his conceptualization is more useful, not more accurate. He calls it a position of strength. But it’s not a position of strength if it’s wrong.

Please read the links and then give me your thoughts.

Is Red State America Seceding?

Leave it to Pat Buchanan to talk about trends the ruling elite wants us to pretend not to notice. But at some point, even they will have to wake up and smell the reality:

The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.

Scotland is moving toward a referendum on independence from England, three centuries after the Acts of Union. Catalonia pushes to be free of Madrid. Milanese and Venetians see themselves as a European people apart from Sicilians, Neapolitans and Romans.

Dutch-speaking Flanders wants to cut loose of French-speaking Wallonia in Belgium. Francophone Quebec, with immigrants from Asia and the Third World tilting the balance in favor of union, appears to have lost its historic moment to secede from Canada.

What are the forces pulling nations apart? Ethnicity, culture, history and language — but now also economics. And separatist and secessionist movements are cropping up here in the United States.

The billionaire globalist elites and hate-filled leftists want to dissolve society and transform mankind into a mass of detached, alienated individuals mindful of nothing but short-term economic interests. Alone and lost, people can then be regimented for maximum exploitation, both economically and politically. In other words, lurking behind all the flowery rhetoric about equality is the lust for money and power.

But stubborn human nature resists their plans. We’re social beings, and must have the connections to the cultures we came from. Look for more secessionist movements as a powerful counter to the doomed schemes of our self-proclaimed superiors.

And know hope.

What Would Lincoln Do?

This American Spectator review of Rich Lowry’s recent on Lincoln starts by saying:

Rich Lowry answers the question all Republicans should be asking: What would Lincoln do today?

Yeah Rich and the rest of the Lincoln syncophants, what would Lincoln do today? He would send troops to arrest his political opponents like Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center which advocates nullification, and Tom Woods who wrote a book about nullification, and the League of the South secessionists who will be protesting immigration in Tennessee next month, and all those Red State residents who signed secession petitions after Obama was re-elected, etc.

Check out the comments. I love how you can no longer write pro-Lincoln propaganda on conservative websites any longer without getting called out. Unless the “conservative” site tightly supresses dissent. We are making progress.

Word of the Day: Moby

The SPLC was recently caught planting an agent provocateur:

Damningly, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that there were muttered racial slurs throughout the demonstration.

Now, however, it’s been revealed that the only racial slurs that were muttered came from the author of the $PLC piece—a mole named Keegan Hankes. According to another demonstrator at the rally, Mr. Hankes expressed his fury about “spooks” and “n*****s” and his pleasure that Chief Smith had “taken care of them.” He also consistently brought up race in conversations, trying to bait other members.

What do ethnic/religious slurs accomplish? Nothing positive. Nationalism is a movement of love, not hate. The only slur a nationalist need ever use is Moby (Urban Dictionary):

An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.

The term is derived* from the name of the liberal musician Moby, who famously suggested in February of 2004 that left-wing activists engage in this type of subterfuge

Any who propose violence/vigilante action or use ethnic/religious slurs should be accused of being a Moby, or assumed under the influence of a Moby (e.g. a hate blogger working for the SPLC). If the SPLC needs a hate group to cite for funding drives, it should have to resort to entirely manufacturing its own.

*SSC blog claims Urban Dictionary is wrong, attributing Saul Alinsky as the true originator.

HT: Red wrote on the word Moby a few years ago (first I heard of it), and Rebellion Blog linked to VDARE article.

Conflict in Southern Nationalist Circles

Recently there has been quite a bit of controversy in Southern Nationalist circles, most of it arising from the planned immigration protest in Georgia later this month. The organizers of the protest have instituted a dress code that includes not wearing Confederate symbols and have indicated that they will be displaying the Southern Nationalism flag and not the Confederate Battle Flag. In addition to the flag issue, there is a generalized new ideas and new tactics for modern times vs. “living in the past” issue going on here. It is hard to characterize this dispute briefly, but the no overt Confederate symbols, the new flag and the new ideas issues are interrelated.

For example see this Facebook debate (which you probably won’t be able to see unless you’re friends with the Palmetto Patriot).

And see this post from Hunter Wallace entitled “Cryptkeepers of the Confederacy.” (The title illustrates the division here.)

Below are my thoughts on the new Southern Nationalism flag that I posted on the Hunter Wallace thread. (I made one minor edit.) I’ll comment on the broader new paradigm vs. old paradigm issue when I have more time.

I have some issues with the general sentiment expressed here of moving on vs. focusing on the past, but I’ll leave those for another time. I don’t have a problem with new ideas and new tactics in general, although as a conservative I am probably inherently skeptical of them. But there are new ideas vs. old ideas, and there are good ideas vs. bad ideas. Every new idea is not necessarily a good idea. The Southern Nationalist flag may be a new idea, but, IMO, it is a bad idea, at least as proposed here. As I said in the Facebook thread, I don’t think it would be the best idea for everyone to show up with Confederate Battle Flags to the demonstration, because that would immediately become the focus and would characterize the demonstration in a certain way and distract from the immigration restriction message. (IMO we should take a clue from leftist protestors and have signs with a message such as “Build a Fence,” “Enforcement Only,” etc. with the League’s website displayed at the bottom.) But showing up with a bunch of Southern Nationalist flags is problematic in several ways. First of all, no one outside these circles knows what it is. So it will confuse people and raise questions. Here is how I can see this going:

Media, Bystander, Etc. – “What is that flag?”

Flag Waving Protestor – “It’s the Southern Nationalism flag.”

Media, Bystander Etc. – “Oh really? I’ve never seen that or heard of that before. What’s it’s origin?”

Flag Waving Protestor – “Some of us made it up recently.”

I’m sorry but this looks like amateur hour. It’s looks like play acting, and it invites ridicule. Flags are organic. They have an origin and a history. If you must have a Southern Nationalism flag then it needs to be introduced slowly and preferably designed and decided on by a committee or group of some sort. Maybe the Southern National Congress could design one. Then it would have a legitimate origin and history, but you can’t have a flag that supposedly represents something based on “because a few people said so.”

For the same reasons, I think displaying the Georgia Session Flag* is a good idea. When people ask you what it is you tell them and people automatically understand that it is a historical flag with a historical origin. Plus it differentiates you from a bunch of Tea Partiers or whoever protesting immigration and plants the issue of secession.

I usually save my ammunition for fighting the left and avoid these internecine disputes, but I really think this (the flag and the general sentiment) is wrongheaded, and decided to speak up.

* To clarify, the organizers of the protest have indicated that they want to display the new Southern Nationalism flag and the Georgia Secession flag, but not the Confederate Battle Flag.

League of the South to Protest Mayor who Sued Georgia Over Its Immigration Laws

What: Rally against Southern demographic displacement (and Mayor Paul Bridges who sued with the SPLC to overturn GA’s immigration law)
When: 24 August 2013
Where: Uvalda, Georgia
Who: Dr Hill, Hunter Wallace and yours truly (editor’s note: Michael Cushman) have already confirmed. YOU need to be there too!

More info will be forthcoming but plan to be there! We will protest the anti-Southern mayor, talk to the media about Southern demographic displacement, use our memes and then have a little fun socializing. Join us!

Jack Hunter Resigns from Rand Paul’s Staff

Well, it looks like the PC Thought Police have another scalp. I was just about to make a post on another development in the Jack Hunter saga (that post will follow). In that post I was going to predict that while Hunter might make it through this episode, he wouldn’t be on Rand’s staff by 2016. At that point I didn’t know he had resigned. So I guess he didn’t even make it through this episode.

More proof that the PC Beast can not be appeased so there is no sense in trying. The PC Beast must be resisted.

Hunter continues to backtrack even in his resignation. Not only is he resigning from Rand’s satff, he is also resigning from his Southern Avenger persona. I suspect he is trying to maintain his viability as a pundit.

Hunter told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he wanted to avoid being a distraction for Paul and to clear his own name, which he argues is now unfairly associated with racism.

A senior Paul aide confirmed Hunter’s departure.

“I’ve long been a conservative, and years ago, a much more politically incorrect (and campy) one,” Hunter said in an email. “But there’s a significant difference between being politically incorrect and racist. I’ve also become far more libertarian over the years, a philosophy that encourages a more tolerant worldview, through the lens of which I now look back on some of my older comments with embarrassment.”

Read more…

Rand Paul’s Sell-Out is Absolutely Undeniably Complete: Now Says Lincoln was “One of Our Greatests Presidents”

The Jack Hunter fiasco fall-out continues. Now it has completely finished off Rand Paul as well. Someone please give Rand a Testosterone injection.  He is clearly running low. For those who have argued that Rand Paul was just making rhetorical concessions as part of “playing the game” but was still stealthily one of us, I thought that argument lost credibility when

1) he babbled PC platitudes before a Howard University audience, or

2) spouted PC immigration boosterism before a Hispanic organization, or

3) offered Israel a security guarantee to placate the neocons (You see how well that worked out don’t you?)

but I could see that some still held out hope. Gentlemen, I’m sorry to inform you, but it’s time to give it up. It’s over. Rand Paul is done. (Here is the original HuffPo interview.)

“I’m not a fan of secession,” Paul told Fineman. “I think the things he said about John Wilkes Booth are absolutely stupid. I think Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents.”

I actually don’t doubt that Rand Paul still stealtily holds views very similar to his father’s. That is the impression he gave when he stumped for his father in 2008, before he ran for Senate, but what good do those stealth views do for us? Does anyone think that Rand is going to stealthily get himself elected to the White House and then on day one declare “Ha! I fooled you!” and start vetoing all unconstitutional spending (almost all of it), or shutter the Fed, or grant the South a free pass to leave the Union? At best he is going to marginally tax less, marginally spend less, and marginally pull back on our foreign policy adventurism, because he has talked himself into a corner. So we pay slightly less in taxes and the country financially collapses in 2035 instead of 2030. Whoopee!

This is why I have such an aversion to rhetorical concessions. I don’t have a problem with stylistic concessions. I don’t have a problem massaging how you say certain things. I don’t have a problem with “playing the game” (competing in a GOP primary or being active in the party for example) to a degree. I don’t have a problem conceding the political reality as it actually is on the ground. In fact, I have always been very realistic about the sorry state of our present political reality.

It is partially because our reality is so sorry that rhetoric matters so much. Because at this point it’s all we got. Therefore we have to be willing to wage the rhetorical battle and make some headway there before the political battle will matter. When a national politician with Presidential aspirations can say to a HuffPo reporter “Darn right I think Lincoln was a tyrant and secession is a perfectly legal option! If I didn’t I wouldn’t be a propper conservative.” and the “right” doesn’t go into spastic denunciations, then we will have made some progress.

At this point, ours is primarily a rhetorical battle whether everyone wants to accept this fact or not.

Note: For those who say we are overdoing the Hunter story, you’re wrong. Fighting the PC Thought Police is the field of battle right now.

A Tale of Two Secessionists

Both the Marxist and Neocon defenders of big government have come after Jack Hunter with knives sharpened. Apparently, it’s unacceptable that Senator Rand Paul have a staffer who was once in a secessionist organization:

Prior to his radio career, while in his 20s, Hunter was a chairman in the League of the South, which “advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic.”

“The League of the South is an implicitly racist group in that the idealized version of the South that they promote is one which, to use their ideology, is dominated by ‘Anglo-Celtic’ culture, which is their code word for ‘white’,” said Mark Pitcavage, the director of investigative research at the ADL.

As we all know, Hunter has renounced many of his views, though that hasn’t calmed down his detractors (has it ever?).

But let’s take a look at another political activist with a similar history — yet very different reception from the media.

Tony Villar joined the UCLA chapter of MEChA, the “Movimiento Estudiantíl Chicano de Aztlán,” or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan and became that group’s leader. MEChA’s founding statement asserts:

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.

We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks, which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.

Talk about your idealized version of history! The organization’s goal is to recover “lost Territories” of the Southwestern United States and form a Chicano country called Aztlan.

A youthful indiscretion? Maybe — but Tony Villar never denounced MEChA’s goals. And later, when Villar changed his name to Antonio Villaraigosa and ran for mayor of Los Angeles, no one one challenged him about his former advocacy of Latino secession. Nor was the issue raised during his tenure as mayor from 2005 to 2013.

When Villaraigosa chaired the 2012 Democratic National Convention, his secessionist past was not so much as whispered in the national media.

Two similar pasts, and two very different outcomes. It makes you wonder if some secessionist movements are more equal than others.

The PC Thought Police Go After Jack Hunter (a.k.a. the Southern Avenger)

The Cultural Marxist PC Thought Police are frothing at the mouth again. They’ve identified a new thoughtcriminal for their Two Minutes Hate, Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the Southern Avenger.

Here is the Washington Free Beacon fatwa … err … article that got the jihad started. When I first heard rumblings that the PC Gestapo was going after Jack, I suspected the author might be the loathsome PC enforcer Jamie Kirchick, but it wasn’t. It’s some writer I’ve never heard of named Alana Goodman. Here is Goodman’s bio per the Free Beacon:

Alana Goodman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she was assistant online editor at Commentary (neocon alert!). She has written for the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. Goodman graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 2010, and lives in Washington, D.C. Her Twitter handle is @alanagoodman. Her email address is goodman@freebeacon.com.

Jonathan Chait picked up on the story here. Chait isn’t someone I normally associate with this type of PC Thought Enforcement campaign (I could be wrong), but this drive by smear job is inexcusable. He says this:

But his son and progeny Rand Paul also has a close aide who is a huge racist, reports Alana Goodman.

A “huge racist?” Actually Chait, Goodman isn’t even shameless enough to say that in so many words even though her “article” is a transparent PC/neocon rightthink enforcement hitpiece. (I say neocon in addition to PC because she heavily focuses on foreign policy and highlights among other things his belief that the nuking of Japanese civilians was unjustified.)

Salon piles on here.

What’s noteworthy about the Goodman piece is just how lame the allegations are. Anyone who has followed Jack’s career at all knows that he is pro-South and supports the right of secession. As Dave Weigle points out in a semi-snarky pile on of his own, this is not news, but the PC Rightthink Enforcers thinks this is a scandalous revelation. Beyond that she presents a laundry list of statements and policy positions that are supposed to scandalize all decent rightthinkers. I could defend each of Hunter’s statements individually, but I don’t have time for that now. In general, taken together the quotes and positions place Hunter in an identifiable paleocon/paleolibertarian sphere, but there is nothing here that is not routine opinion in those circles and each individual opinion can be found in mainstream conservatism as well.

Looked at as objectively as I can as an interested co-combatant, the thing that might be most shocking to the ears that the Rightthink Enforcers are aiming to prick is his use of the word terrorism to describe the nuking of Japanese civilians and his comparison of that act to 9/11. (FTR, I don’t think terrorism is the right word to describe our use of nukes against the Japanese civilian population. It is needlessly inflamatory and isn’t really an accurate word choice. It is more accurate to describe it as a war crime, but that is for a separate thread.) Beyond that Hunter is accused of saying that there is a double standard against whites. Other races can celebrate their race but whites can’t celebrate theirs. Well no duh! This is a thoroughly mundane and unarguable observation. He’s also acused of saying our foreign policy in the Middle East is influenced by Israel. Is there anyone who seriously denies this? In fact, the interventionist at the Free Beacon celebrate this as right and good. He is excoriated for suggesting that immigration alters the culture. Again, no duh! Does anyone seriously deny this? In fact, immigration boosters celebrate the fact that immigration brings about change in the culture. You know, that whole “Diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.

I could go on, but you get the point. Unfortunately, Jack concedes too much in what was I’m sure a damage control interview with the Free Beacon. Those of us who have followed Hunter’s career for a while have recognized that he has become more politically pragmatic over the years, thus his defense of some of Rand Paul’s misguided concessions. But I have always hoped that that old self-described “right-wing radical” still lurked beneath the surface. But this is not the time to criticize Hunter. Now is the time to defend him against the baying PC Rightthink mob. They’ll be time for dragging him fully back into the fold once the PC Enforcers have been called out for their rightthink policing shenanigans.

The South vs. America’s Immigration Disaster

Had it been left up to the South, notes William L. Huston, the nation-busting 1965 Immigration Reform Act would never have been passed. In this VDare article, Huston then examines the regional voting patterns on immigration and concludes that the South is the last stronghold of traditional America.

And oh, yes, he makes the next logical step: that it is time for Southerners to once again “calculate the value of the Union” versus its cost. I’d bet that 99% of those who think about it will conclude it’s time to reclaim both delegated and stolen rights from an out-of-control central government more concerned about its own power than the well-being of its subjects.

It’s time to secede.

American Spectator Publishes More Lincoln and WBTS Dissent

AmSpec has published a review of the new movie Copperhead.This is the second recent article that expresses dissent on Lincoln and WBTS groupthink. This is progress. Here is my comment:

When I saw this review I clicked on it because I knew the comments would quickly evolve into a debate about The War to Prevent Southern Independence. I wasn’t disappointed. It did so with the first post from The Mighty Lincoln Shill.

AmSpec deserves kudos for posting some dissent on Lincoln and the War, instead of the Jaffaite revisionist boilerplate that normally passes for history and philosophy at most mainstream “conservative” outlets.

American Spectator Publishes an Anti-Lincoln Article

This is progress. The article does a good job of detailing the ebb and flow of anti-Lincoln sentiment on the right. There are a lot of encouraging comments as well. If you click on the comments give them time to load. If you scroll down too quickly, they won’t all load properly. At this time my comment is the second from the last. I came to the party a little late.

Michael Peroutka Elected to the League of the South Board of Directors

Michael Peroutka, who was the Constitution Party’s 2004 nominee for President, spoke at the League of the South’s National Convention on Friday the 21st. Peroutka, who is a lawyer, spoke on “The Case Against Case Law.” It was announced at the Convention that Mr. Peroutka has been elected as the newest member of the League of the South Board of Directors.

Cross posted at IPR.

What is the League of the South?

by Dr Michael Hill – LS President

Most organizations founder because they lack self-definition and a definite goal. The League of the South is a Southern Nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is a free and independent Southern republic. To reach this goal, we intend to create the climate for a free South among our people by 1) de-legitimating the American Empire at every opportunity; 2) by proving our willingness to be servant-leaders to the Southern people; and 3) by making The League of the South a strong, viable organization that will lead us to Southern independence.

While our overall strategy–short, medium, and long range–is determined by the President, the Board, and our State Chairman, our tactical operational focus is on the local level. We intend to form active chapters in every county in every Southern State, and as many chapters as possible in non-Southern States. We also encourage individuals and families to personally secede from the corrupt and corrupting influence of post-Christian culture in America. We call this “abjuring the realm,” and it’s a real and dramatic first step all of us can take by simply withdrawing our support of and allegiance to a regime that has imperiled our future.

While we seek to use shame and contempt to de-legitimate the institutions controlled by the Empire, we must not stop there. We must create our own parallel institutions to which our people can attach their loyalties. A good example of this is the move out of the “public” schools and into home schooling or the establishment of our own private academies. Also, the League sponsors weekend Hedge Schools and week-long summer institutes to educate our people.

At present, the League is more concerned with resurrecting our cultural base than with entering into the political arena. Once our Southern culture is re-established, then the political issues will begin to take care of themselves. Good leaders flow naturally out of a healthy culture; however, power-hungry, self-seeking politicians are all we can expect from the debased cultural climate we have today.

The League of the South seeks leaders who have the hearts of servants. The Bible tells us clearly that no man can lead until he is willing to serve his fellowmen. When you join our organization, we expect you to begin immediately serving our cause and our people. We will show you how.

Our revised website, www.dixienet.org, is a cutting-edge, interactive site filled with a wealth of information. We are presently working on an operations manual for new members and local officers. New members are provided a list of State Chairmen for our organized States. We strongly advise our new recruits to contact their State or local officers, offer your talents, and make plans to attend your local and State chapter meetings. There you will be shown how to put the League’s strategy into effect by means of our tactical operational plan. You also will meet our leaders, get to know other members, and become part of a real community dedicated to a noble cause. If you live in a State or locality that does not have an organized chapter, this website has a document (listed as “How to Form A County Chapter” under our Introduction on the Main Menu) that shows you how to form and run a local chapter.

All League members receive the Southern Patriot newsletter every other month. Read it closely to keep abreast of League activities and projects.

By joining The League of the South you have placed yourself among a group of men and women who are not content to sit by and allow their land, liberty, and culture be destroyed by an alien regime and ideology. You have joined an active organization that knows where it wants to go and how to go about getting there. The League is no place for the lazy or the faint-hearted. We would love to welcome you to our growing band of Brothers and Sisters. Please join us today.

For Southern independence,
Michael Hill
President

29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary

Here’s a rather jarring omen of how diseased our political system has become – a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University reveals that 29% of American voters believe it will take an armed revolt to protect their civil liberties.

Little wonder people are so frustrated and frightened these days. How much confidence can they have in a political system when the anti-war, pro-civil liberty candidate wins the election, then orders yet another surge of US troops in an unpopular war, and expands both domestic surveillance and the exercise of arbitrary government power?

This poll reflects genuine concern about the abuse of power by a centralized, hostile federal government that Robert E. Lee predicted would rise from Lincoln’s successful counter-revolution against the principles of 1776. The dynamic that Lee foresaw – “aggressive abroad and despotic at home” – is made vividly clear today as civilian control methods perfected in occupied Iraq are beiing utilized here at home by an increasingly militarized police. What a perfect illustration of the mutual hostility and distrust between rulers and the ruled.

As DC hardens itself to reform by hamstringing potential third parties and nullifying local self-government, frustration with our increasingly inept and catastrophic government can only solidify and spread.

Chechnya

I have long said that Russia should just let Chechnya go. They clearly don’t think of themselves as Russians. Is it really worth all the trouble to keep them in? They let Georgia go, for example, when the USSR collapsed. Why not let Chechnya go? I have read that it has to do with their relative statuses before the breakup. Georgia already enjoyed a higher level of autonomy than Chechnya does. So they’re keeping Chechnya on a technicality?

Russia aided secessionist South Ossetia when they thought doing so would tweak the Georgians.  But they won’t allow Chechnya their independence. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Of course, America’s official position on the issue should be neutrality. I’m just sayin’ for me personally… I believe if I were a Russian I would be thinking, “Good riddance! Don’t let the door hit you on the backside on the way out.”

Conservative or libertarian? Round III

The energetic discussion generated by the question of what organizing principle best advances liberty has been a pleasant surprise to me. Check out the various arguments raised here, here, and here.

Another worthy contribution to the debate is posted at The Classic Liberal. It’s definitely worth reading in its entirety.

Here’s as brief a summary as I can offer of the difference between conservatism and all the other little isms: Conservatism was first described in reaction to the advent of leftism in the Western world, the French Revolution. The Jacobins saw reason as sovereign, and desired to sweep away all the imperfections and irrational practices that they imagined had held mankind back. Burke vigorously rejected that notion, and countered that custom and tradition are sovereign. The accumulated wisdom of an organic society is priceless and irreplaceable.

Click here to continue.

League of the South Statement on Gun Control

LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH NEWS SERVICE

9 January 2013

For immediate release:

The Obama administration is threatening to use Executive Orders to further dismantle the Second Amendment. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein (CA) is set to introduce a draconian bill to ban “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines, among other things, later this month. Between the two, they are intent on turning otherwise law-abiding gun owners in the South and elsewhere into outlaws with the stroke of a pen.

But won’t these law-abiding gun owners comply with the new “laws?” Won’t they dutifully register their “assault weapons” with the authorities and submit to other restrictions on buying, owning, and transferring firearms? Some will but many will not. They will instead become outlaws.

In the last month, millions of Americans have bought millions of weapons and over a billion rounds of ammunition. They are not buying these expensive things in order to register them or turn them in to the gun grabbers at some point in the future. They are buying them to defend themselves, their families, and their property from whomever might threaten them. And at present, the biggest threat is the U.S. government itself.

The League of the South, the premier Southern nationalist organization, will not comply with any diminution of our God-given right to keep and bear the sort of arms a free people need to remain free. This means “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. Moreover, we will view any attempt to deprive the Southern people of these tools as a criminal act by a criminal regime.

Continue reading