Traditional American Culture

Pictures and report from the Nathan Bedford Forrest event!

After witnessing the anti-Southern hysteria that has metastasized throughout the media and government in recent weeks I felt a pressing need to do something proactive. Of course, it’s certainly not as if our societal overseers didn’t hate the South and any symbol of our unique identity before the murders that took place in Charleston occurred, but they have since fully exploited the tragedy in order to launch an attempt to completely eradicate the Confederate flag and any memory of the righteous cause for which it stood. Their efforts have been particularly brutal and bloodthirsty in Memphis, where the local government unanimously passed a resolution to exhume the remains of General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife, as well as remove the monument that sits atop their graves. Not that it matters much, but Confederate Soldiers, Sailors and Marines who fought in The War of Northern Aggression were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in 1957, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Sec 410, which was approved on May 23, 1958. This made all Confederate Veterans equal to all U.S. Military Veterans, but I digress.

This shocking display of hatred could not go unanswered. In faithful service to the Confederate cavalry my great-great-great-grandfather rode with Forrest at Shiloh. Upon reading the news about their desire to desecrate the grave of an American hero his spirit reminded me of Forrest’s own admonition to, “Get there first with the most men.” I had organized rallies in Memphis before and was determined to do so again. But, rather than rush in haphazardly I thought it would be most prudent to reach out to other acquaintances with similar interests. As it turns out, a pro-Forrest rally was already being planned by other local activists and instead of having two competing events it just made more sense to join in line with those who had already laid some ground work and use the influence of my radio program to provide auxiliary support and assist them in turning out a much larger crowd. We should always concern ourselves first with providing results rather than getting credit for something. [Continue reading James’ article at The Political Cesspool site; lots of great photos.]

What Louis Michael Seidman Made Me Think About

An opinion piece in the December 30th New York Times by Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law, caught my eye.  Seidman, or the Times’ headline writer, entitled it “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution. This quote will convey a sense of its direction: 

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken.  But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. . . . Imagine that after careful study a government official—say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress—reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country.  Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, who knew nothing of our present situation, and who acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.  Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

I don’t know anything about Seidman and don’t presume to understand precisely what motivated him to offer this argument—his ideological leanings, his scholarly influences and directions, his experiences in his university environment, his ethnic identification and loyalties, his personal story, some combination of those things, or something else—and I’m really not interested in getting into that or the specifics of the position he articulates here, Or not much anyway.  Rather, I want to deal with three things his Times piece prompted me to think about within the frame of reference of this web site: a concern for the status and fate of White people of European heritage.  More particularly, I focus on American White non-Jews.  Reading what Seidman proposes reminded me of three tactics people and organizations that do not mean well by American Whites employ to bring them down: denigrate the White American heritage; democratize America; and collectivize America.  My comments on each in turn: 

Denigrate the White American heritage

Those harboring anti-gentilism (if there can be anti-Semitism there can be anti-gentilism) never let the chance slip by to disparage White traditions and personages.  Whether or not Seidman is anti-gentile to any extent, it is certainly the case that when disparaging the Founders he felt pressed to bring race into it: these creators of evil Constitutional provisions were White, he tells us.  Smearing Whites is so ubiquitous I doubt that most readers consciously noticed that reference.  Discrediting what Whites have established and those prominently associated with it clears the way for putting in place ideas, arrangements, and people that serve non-White interests at the expense of White interests.  Cutting off Whites’ positive connection with their past increases the chances that they will acquiesce to their own demise and even contribute to it.   Read more

Remembering Andy Griffith (1926-2012)

Like many middle-aged white adults, the news of Andy Griffith’s death yesterday brought back memories of my youth. Such somber reflection is quite depressing considering how much our country has changed in such a short amount of time.

Thirty-five and forty years ago, one’s after-school choices were rather limited. I usually spent my free time playing with friends if I wasn’t fishing with my grandfather.

As pastime activities, our generation lacked modern electronic gadgets. The Stone Age — the period prior to modern conveniences of the Internet, iPads, iPods, personal computers, or smart phones — offered few choices for entertainment. Jigsaw puzzles, board games like Monopoly and Ouija, or a deck of cards provided some relief on rainy days.

Ever reliable sitcoms, such as the “Dick Van Dyke Show,” “Gomer Pyle, USMC,” “Green Acres,” and “The Andy Griffith Show,” would get us through the week until Bugs Bunny, Yosemite Sam, Tweety and Sylvester, Speedy Gonzales, and Foghorn Leghorn hit the TV screen on Saturday mornings.

As an adolescent in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I spent countless hours watching reruns of the “Andy Griffith Show” (1960–1968) well into the late 1970s. Part of it was the simple fact that there wasn’t that much to do coming of age in the semi-rural Midwest. The other thing is that one could relate to the characters and mundane existence of Mayberry, RFD.

It was the one show that reflected the reality of small-town America where few if any Blacks or ethnic minorities lived; one could roam freely without fear of assault, rape, robbery or homicidal gang violence; neighbors helped each other in time of need and routinely never felt compelled to lock their doors or windows at night. Daily life in vast stretches of Middle America wasn’t the endless slutty, self-indulgent, mind-numbing, interracial onslaught of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians,” or for that matter much of today’s Disney Channel productions. Read more