Christopher Donovan: It’s a question in my mind. It’s a well-established kabuki dance: anti-whites call conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Confederate sympathizers “racists” who are hiding their true feelings. The conservatives respond with indignation, insisting that “Southern heritage” and the free market are their real concerns.
In the New York Times this morning, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham denounces the Virginia governor’s declaration of Confederate heritage month. It’s a typical yawner about how bad Whites are, and I’m sure someone will complain that “we’re not racists, we just want to honor the South” or some such.
There is a third position, however: White advocacy. It admits the anti-White critique that Confederate flags mask more direct racial concerns, but rejects the anti-White conclusion that the concerns aren’t legitimate. Why can’t this position get a hearing in the New York Times? Believe me, I’ve tried. But the New York Times is like a thick, high gray wall, allowing only the perspectives that advance its anti-white agenda. Its gatekeepers are always liberal and often Jewish, and they probably know full well that if an institution as grand and respected as itself lends credence to White advocacy, the universe as they’ve constructed it would start to crumble.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Facing the Future as a Minority
NY Times Beating Dead Horse For Obvious Race-Baiting In Favor Of ZOG-Mammon Empire-Of-Lies
(Apollonian, 11 Apr 10)
One must understand the large drama being played out–for NY Times is mere instrument–mere “player.” That drama then is the complete take-over of USA by the Jew-criminal oligarchs behind the great COUNTERFEIT scam/fraud called US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed)–see RealityZone.com and TheMoneyMasters.com for expo/ref.
So u see, NY Times must serve the purpose of fraud and lies behind and in front of Fed COUNTERFEITING–NY Times must obligatorily support lies for sake of lying–and that’s why they want to talk about slavery, and then racism rather than what Civil War was really about, states rights and the right to secede which was not prohibited by 10th Amendment of US Constitution.
Here’s exact, full text to said Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So it’s very simple: states indubitably had, AND STILL HAVE, right to secede. So what happened during Civ. War era in which people looked past such simple Constitutional principle?–answer is MORALISM-Pharisaism.
Northerners were convinced, evidently, southerners were attacking them. Southerners should not have started a fight they couldn’t win–but of course, they didn’t know that when things first began to happen.
As for slavery–it would have ended sooner or later naturally and without necessity of warfare–as Ron Paul pt.s out. And blacks know it was their own blacks who first sold them into slavery in first place.
Racism?–well, it’s simply loyalty, no less than 5th of original Ten Commandments (“Honor thy race” [parentage]), and everyone is racist, necessarily, by definition of the term–it’s axiomatic as one ends loyal either to the mixed or non-mixed race, even if only by default.
CONCLUSION: So I don’t think NY Times is really winning anything w. their obvious race-baiting–whites and blacks know it’s all a crock to keep the races fighting one another so Jews can remain on top. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
This Confederate denial thing, reminds me of an old pal of mine back in my College daze(as they used to say). This fellow was related not to one Confederate General, he was related to two Confederate Generals! I knew it, but, he never made much of it. He was a wonderful friend to me.
One time I fixed him up with this tall, blonde, girl athlete from the Philadelphia area. This was about the time that “Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner Daddy” first came out.
We were having dinner at a steakhouse, and his date says to him, what do you think about “Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner Daddy”? My pal turned a few shades of red, and says that movie is totally unrealistic! What would your daddy do if you brought, I think he said or words to the same, some stinking nigger home? LOL.
It was a cool evening after that…LOL.
they probably know full well that if an institution as grand and respected as itself lends credence to White advocacy, the universe as they’ve constructed it would start to crumble.
It’s going to crumble anyway Christopher.
Not just for what they won’t let out, but for what they won’t let in.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to underestimate the damage these people have done and can do.
But I want to stress something very important. Something I rarely hear mentioned, and then only by me.
It’s been said by more than a few of us that Jews hate us more than they love themselves. True.
But what most fail to see is that what Jews despise above all else, what fills them with a hatred so intense they can only fight it by promoting the most blatant lies with the most irritatingly oily self-satisfaction, what they would give anything to eliminate forever is – Reality.
Everything about them flows from this principle and has for a couple thousand years.
The entire Western world has fallen into their hands for a number of extremely complex reasons having to do with cultural history.
But it is only pushing into relief, more and more each day, this primitive hatred.
They hate Whites because it’s obvious from our history that we’ve produced more geniuses with highly developed, built-in shit detectors, as Hemingway might have put it.
Culturally, or, Racially, we are the group who has shown a more sustained interest in Reality, with a capital R.
This, I submit, is the REAL reason for their hatred of us. It is a manifestation of their hatred of Reality, which is considerable.
And this is why they are so often the most fanatical supporters of the most far-fetched Utopias, as a glance of their interest and active involvement in Communism makes perfectly clear.
This is a unexplored, rich area of research waiting for a brilliant scholar to examine. The readiness is all!
Here’s nationally syndicated Mexican Roman Catholic writer Ruben Naravette on our Confederate Heritage:
AS someone who writes often about immigration issues,
I’m accustomed to hearing readers complain about those who insist on looking backward and obsessing over their heritage.
They have little tolerance for those who seem intent on separating themselves from the rest of us by defiantly maintaining their culture and customs rather than blending into the mainstream. And they have even less patience with those who would dare wave a foreign flag in public — especially if it happens to be the colors of a republic that was, just 150 years ago, literally at war with the United States.
I have to agree.
All of which leads me to ask: When exactly are Southerners going to assimilate?
Not anytime soon if Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has anything to say about it. The governor recently issued a proclamation designating April as Confederate History Month. The tone was unmistakably reverential. McDonnell praised the Confederacy for fighting “for their homes and communities” and “for independence.” It’s pretty clear that McDonnell thinks that Virginians fought and died for an honorable cause.
What isn’t so honorable is that McDonnell expunged language that recognized slavery as part of the Confederacy and condemned it. McDonnell explained his decision to drop that language — put there by former Gov. James Gilmore III, a fellow Republican — by saying that he had decided to focus on aspects of the Civil War that were “most significant for Virginia.”
Governor, you might want to stop talking. What a lot of African-Americans, Civil War historians, and Americans with common sense thought most distressing about this episode was that the leader of a state that is 20 percent African-American considers slavery to be an insignificant aspect of the Civil War. After a few days of criticism and pressure, McDonnell admitted his mistake, issued an apology, and amended the proclamation to include a few words about slavery.
Still, even with this flap, many Americans think nothing of Southerners paying respects to the Confederacy as part of their heritage.
That moment in time is something of which at least some people in the region are very proud. Their loyalty to the United States isn’t questioned.
When they display the Confederate flag, you don’t hear anyone challenging their allegiance to the Stars and Stripes. They have a separate and distinctive culture, and it is part of what makes them unique and interesting. And you certainly don’t hear people telling them to wipe away their uniqueness in order to blend into the mainstream.
Some folks aren’t so lucky. Take Mexican immigrants, for example. Or even U.S.-born Mexican-Americans. They’re continually suspected of having divided loyalties or being disloyal to the United States. To prove their allegiance and put others at ease, they’re told to ignore their heritage, abandon their culture, forget their language, and become just like everyone else.
Some of the same people who shrug off the Confederate flag as a symbol of regional pride go ballistic when they catch a glimpse of the Mexican flag. Ironically, this seems to be especially true in the South where, because of changing demographics, the new racial and ethnic dynamic isn’t just black and white but black and white and Latino.
Defenders of this double standard might try to rationalize this by insisting there is no comparison since the Mexican flag represents a foreign government. Really? The Confederate States of America saw itself as a separate government with its own constitution, presidency, legislature and military.
It traded with foreign countries and maintained diplomatic relations. And when one pledged allegiance to the confederacy, it necessarily meant opposing the United States.
Besides, part of the concern with those who display the Mexican flag is the worry that should the United States and Mexico wind up at loggerheads or even, in an unlikely event, go to war again as they did in the mid-19th century, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans would side with Mexico. Well, in the case of the Confederacy, we don’t have to deal in the hypothetical. It did go to war with the United States, and most Southerners at the time did choose to side with the insurgency against the Union.
There ought to be one standard for everyone. I’d prefer to treat both of these as harmless displays of pride — regional, cultural, national. But if we’re going to get all worked up over one, we should at least try to be consistent and get just as worked up over the other.
Ruben Navarrette is a columnist who offers new thinking on major issues, especially thorny questions involving ethnicity and national origin.
The Confederate re-enactors need to repeat what Ron Paul pointed out. Slavery was not the real cause of The War Between The States. If the Federal government had wanted to end Negro slavery, it would have been far easier and less costly to simply reimburse every Southern slave owner the cost of their slave and repatriate the slaves back to Africa. After all, it was not like they didn’t have an endless supply of peasant labor from Europe to replace Negro slavery.
No. Lincoln was a federalist who wanted to expand the power of the central government even if he had to destroy the South, butcher over a half a million White men and shred the United States Constitution to do it.
The only reason why Negro slaves were emancipated and enfranchised at the end of it all was to provide the North was a righteous causi bella to brandish to the rest of the world who was not fooled in the least.