Yes, Virginia, There Is A White Supremicist Teacher Principle

“Oops! Sorry.”

 

A commenter yesterday inquired about the Ethics Alarms position regarding efforts to punish participants at white nationalist rallies by publishing their photos on Facebook and other social media, presumably to help get them fired.

I’ll begin the analysis with the Naked Teacher Principle, explored in its many variations on Ethics Alarms, which states,

“A secondary school teacher or administrator (or other role model for children) who allows pictures of himself or herself to be widely publicized, as on the web, showing the teacher naked or engaging in sexually provocative poses, cannot complain when he or she is dismissed by the school as a result.”

The same general reasoning would apply to a secondary school teacher or administrator (or other role model for children) who placed videos or photos of himself or herself demonstrating in favor of racist causes, or giving the “Sieg Heil!” salute, on social media. Even a superb teacher, and one who never exhibited any racial bias at all, would be rendered untrustworthy by such photographs. A neo-Nazi has a right to his or her political views, but those views cannot interfere with the individual’s ability to do a job.

No, I wouldn’t trust a Klan member, a neo-Nazi or a white nationalist to teach my child.

The same would apply to social media posts, and the exact analogy are the college professors who have recently found themselves enmeshed in controversies by declaring on Twitter or Facebook that white people should be killed, that males are a social contagion, or similar bigoted sentiments. These teachers should be separated from their students, and many, though not all, have been. They are, however, publicizing themselves, as well as their bigoted views. Like the naked teachers who posed on-line, they are accountable for the images they project and publish, and how those images affect present and future employees.

However, this is different:

Thousands of strangers across the country had been working together to share photographs of the men bearing Tiki torches on the University of Virginia campus. They wanted to name and shame them to their employers, friends and neighbors. In a few cases, they succeeded.

The activity described is a direct effort to punish people for  their opinions expressed through legal means. It is in the same unethical category as sending private e-mails that reflect badly on former lovers through social media, or using a questionable tweet to destroy the life and career of the tweeter. This kind of  “amateur sleuthing”  as the Times whitewashes the practice, is vicious, destructive, reckless, unfair, and a Golden Rule breach.

I have already pointed out that I might be tempted  join a demonstration against the unethical airbrushing of history that taking down Robert E. Lee’s statue in his home state represents. If I were an idiot (but not a bigot), and didn’t recognize that the white nationalists were just exploiting the General’s memory for their own agenda, I might have been in that group of Tiki torch marchers. A photograph of me marching with a bunch of Klansman and neo-Nazis would hardly be good for my ethics business, though I would be completely innocent of racist views.

The “amateur sleuths” also are not always correct (being amateurs, after all) , as well as being self-righteous, vicious, and opponents of free speech. The Times describes that fate of a professor, Kyle Quinn, who runs a laboratory dedicated to wound-healing research, and who resembled another man caught in a photo marching with the racists. Quinn was attacked on Twitter and Instagram, and social media demanded that he be fired, accused him of racism, and posted his home address online.

Nice.

Be proud, you vicious social justice warriors!

The conduct of using a personal activity to get people fired, however, is unethical even when those individuals are correctly identified. American citizens have a right to a personal life. They have right to controversial views, even bigoted and racist views, as long as their ability to work with others and do their jobs well and ethically are not affected. The “amateur sleuths” don’t know them; they don’t know what kind of lives they lead, or what kind of parents or community members they are. All they know is that they have joined with a group in a specific event, making a political statement that is protected by the Bill of Rights, and for that they and their families, businesses and employers must be hurt, injured, punished and destroyed. Under no system of ethics is such conduct justifiable. It is, as I said, a Golden Rule breach. If everybody did this, we would live in Soviet-style fear that Lena Dunham lurked behind every bush. And the end that would be achieved by this means is the death of free speech and democracy.

I agree that an employer who is alerted to an employee’s public outing as a possible neo-Nazi could not be blamed for firing that employee, though it would show exemplary fairness and courage to resist. Do the eager, angry, merciless social justice warriors who puff up their chests with pride upon ruining lives think back on how this exact practice was used to attack gays and mixed-race Americans living as white in less enlightened times? I doubt that they think at all; their political correctness fervor has killed their judgement as well as their ethics alarms.

I feel strongly about this issue in part because of my late friend and laws school roommate, Leo B. Kennedy, who died in a freak accident at the age of 26. He was on the way to becoming a lawyer, and quite probably an elected leader. He was smart, articulate, charismatic and handsome. He treated everyone with respect, and was likely to be extremely successful as well as a beneficent force in his community.

Leo was also a white supremacist.

I know this because I and my other late roommate, Myron Dale, argued with Leo about his racism and anti-Semitism late into many nights. But Leo’s legion friends and colleagues did not know about his views, because he was relentlessly and passionately Christian in his conduct, and believed, he said, in treating all human beings with love and respect. And he did, until the day he died.

I would have hired Leo. I would have trusted him with my life—especially since he was Marine and used to shoot squirrels out of the trees from our house in Arlington, Virginia. He was more, much more, than his racist views, and because he was open-minded and compassionate (Leo’s only charity was the United Negro College Fund), I believe he would have eventually abandoned his bigotry for the right reasons: because he listed to arguments, and responded to logic, reason, and speech.

Not because he was punished for what he believed.

136 Comments

Filed under Business & Commercial, Character, Citizenship, Education, Ethics Dunces, Government & Politics, Rights, Social Media, U.S. Society, Workplace

136 responses to “Yes, Virginia, There Is A White Supremicist Teacher Principle

  1. Neil Dorr

    Jack,

    I’ll count this as a pointer credit, even though someone else may have linked to it first. Great article!

    Sincerely,
    Neil

  2. The left uses these tactics: the alt-right will copy them (and to greater effect)

    We now live in the Chinese proverb about ‘interesting’ times.

    • Sue Dunim

      The Nazis use them all the time. Always have done. Trans kids and their parents in particular are routinely victimised.

      That has never been seen as an excuse for retaliating in the past, and it’s unfortunate that those who fight monsters are becoming monsters themselves.

      Meanwhile, the latest…

      “Weev”, the system administrator for The Daily Stormer is planning on sending Nazis to #HeatherHeyer funeral. #Charlottesville,” Loomer wrote.

      Her tweet included a screen shot of a post by “Weev” asking for “e-sleuths” to track down the funeral location.

      “Yo, I need some research done,” Weev wrote. “What’s the location of this fat skank’s funeral.”

      Get on it, e-sleuths,” he added. “I want to get people on the ground there.”

      • valkygrrl

        and it’s unfortunate that those who fight monsters are becoming monsters themselves.

        So very Nietzschean.

        • Sue Dunim

          Yes. A trap that it is impossible not to be tempted to fall into.

          Resisting the temptation is possible though.

          The Abyss and I are buddies from way back. It blinked. So far, I haven’t.

      • Sounds like what I said: extremists on both sides are using the same dirty tricks.

        Sound a lot like what Trump said too.

  3. What we are witnessing is a rough equivalence to the Jews wearing the Star of David to identify themselves only now it’s social media doing the labeling, the difference is one is forced the other is self imposed because in some cases the victim is ignorantly posting self-incriminating evidence that social justice warriors use to destroy your life and in other cases the ignorant social justice warriors get it wrong but they still cause irreparable damage to lives. The equivalence is the outright bigotry and intentional shaming for being the person you are and their intent is to destroy the lives of those they disagree with regardless of whether the bigotry/shaming/destruction is actually warranted due to actual actions by the victims. If the Nazi’s had had the internet and social media in 1930’s this is exactly how they would have started to devalue the Jews into second class citizens not worthy of rights.

    We are sliding down a very, very slippery slope indeed and the speed of justifying “good” outright bigotry based hate is rapidly increasing! These idiotic social justice warriors don’t even recognize that they’re bigots and they are using/abusing the United States Constitution to destroy the lives of others simply because they disagree with them. Morally bankrupt is really not a strong enough phrase to describe these internet thugs. I think these people have gone so freaking far left that their mindset that they’ve merged with the right on the extreme back side of the circle in some weird convoluted form of communism and totalitarian. Commutotalitianism?

    Social justice warriors using their smart phones and social media are literally the morally bankrupt vigilante mobs of the 21st century using their Constitutional rights to strip the Constitutional rights of others and there’s nothing an individual can do to stop them except crawl in their shell. You can’t fix this special kind of stupid. Social justice warriors are the modern day equivalent to lynch mobs.

    This will come to severe blows and what we just recently wittnessed in Charlottesville was nothing compared to the potential escalation on the horizon; Charlottesville was just the tip of the iceberg.

    Remember; genius has limitations, stupidity does not. Really think about that.

    • Zanshin

      “there’s nothing an individual can do to stop them except crawl in their shell.”

      It is a numbers game, as more and more lives get destroyed by sjw, there will be victims who will stand up, having nothing to loose and will ‘go postal’.

      • Zanshin wrote, “It is a numbers game, as more and more lives get destroyed by sjw, there will be victims who will stand up, having nothing to loose and will ‘go postal’.”

        Every action has a reaction; this is true in physics and psychology; it is for that reason that I wrote these things above…

        “This will come to severe blows and what we just recently witnessed in Charlottesville was nothing compared to the potential escalation on the horizon; Charlottesville was just the tip of the iceberg.

        Remember; genius has limitations, stupidity does not.”

      • Zanshin,
        We are clearly in a period where authorities are sitting by and actually allowing the escalation of ideological physical confrontations and this seemingly “approved” escalation can only lead to more and more physical confrontations each worse than the one before.

        When two sides confront and the ends justifies the means, Sicilian ethics control the brain, and everything comes down to tit-for-tat or worse, there’s no where to go but “war” in the streets.

    • Neil Dorr

      Zoltar:

      I sometimes imagine you learned to write by transcribing angry twitter feeds onto bathroom walls with a dull exacto knife.

      • Neil Dorr wrote, “Zoltar: I sometimes imagine you learned to write by transcribing angry twitter feeds onto bathroom walls with a dull exacto knife.”

        “Interesting” imagination; you might wanna get that checked.

  4. On your friend Leo.

    This reminds me of an aspect of the conversation I had with another libertarian where I mentioned he was torn between the “doxxing” of these protesters.

    One thing mentioned is: no one white supremacist just immediately became that way. They were acculturated into that worldview (and subsequently can be acculturated out of it … granted increasing can increase difficulty).

    Take a single one of those protesters, especially a young one and ask yourself a dozen questions about their background and experiences, you can’t answer a single one. But you can abstractly assume that at some point in their lives, they brought up, maybe out of curiosity, maybe out of assertion, something like “sure seems like more blacks are in prison than whites” or “sure seems like more white people become doctors and engineers than black people”. Maybe, instead of being discussed civilly in an open forum (like schools are supposed to be), that civil, open forum became a “you racist bigot”, “you caveman troglodyte”, “you abject deplorable” rant fest targeting a young white man who made a quite factual observation.

    Maybe, that young man, felt a little less inclined to listen to the hate and more inclined to listen elsewhere.

    Now, let’s mass a whole group of guys slowly being acculturated this way together, and let’s span that whole group of guys across a handful of decades, and you can see where an insular group becomes MORE insular and MORE extreme in it’s views and rhetoric, when the very fora that ideas should be discussed and corrected completely shuts down ALL debate other than the orthodox approved by the elite.

    Guys like Leo either don’t maintain that worldview or they maintain the worldview and still engage in respectable, civil behavior towards others in a community that doesn’t go to the extremes you see today.

    • So, just think what every young man who still has a wide open future to adjust their worldview is going to do if his life is ruined by his self-proclaimed social ‘elites’?

    • OK, I admit: I am hooked. 😉

      You, Tex, talk out of your posterior and you do not understand what is going on in young people. You are closed to understanding what the Indentity-focused Right is on about. And you spin things according to your projections. You correspond to Chris in this sense. In order to really come to understand what is going on, and where this movement will go, you are going to have to do more work.

      • I have come to determine that overall your effort is to destroy the possibility of fair exchange of ideas. You do what you can, and in the way that you can, to end conversations and not to begin them.

        It is a waste of time to try to respond to you in an honest and forthright way.

      • You do know that ethnic separation is an outgrowth of Multiculturalism taken to reductio ad absurdum, and one people one state is ultimately derived from progressive ideas right?

        Woodrow Wilson even advanced that notion as part of the post WW1 settlments.

        So yeah, I’m still reasonably confident that alt-right and progressivism are ultimately cut from the same flawed cloth. That might be one source of your confusion when you conflate Classical Liberalism with progressivism is you can’t recognize the monster because it looks too much like you.

        • I would accept that separatism is a logical by-product of and a reaction to the social engineering policies that have created ‘multiculturalism’.

          I would accept that in any situation — on whatever scale — when unalike people are forced into proximity (that is, when they did not choose it) that what will result is civil conflict.

          I would agree that one would need to step back and attempt to understand the social engineering projects that were put into motion during and after the Second War.

          I would agree that the white nationalism movement that I am aware of, and which I have read in some depth, and that I support, is desirous to bring out their message and to offer it to people.

          I would agree (with Spencer) that it is a set of powerful ideas, powerful because meaningful and relevant.

          I would agree that *people* and you, and many, and the MSM, and our present government both in the overt sense and in the ‘deep’ sense will now begin a more open assault against the people who hold these ideas.

          • Paragraph 1: good, so you are on the way to realizing that the ‘alt-right’ worldview is derived from the same general set of premises that progressives work from.

            Paragraph 2: you need to be clear what you are discussing… genetic differences or cultural differences?

            Paragraph 3: ok fine. But in no way does that evaluation lead one to conclude that the alt right solutions are valid.

            Paragraphs 4-6: non-substantive and unuseful. No comment.

            • Well, as I have been meditating on the question of ‘progressivism’, I find that to understand what that must mean I have to go back and research Catholic social doctrine. In my view to be a Christian is to come to see one’s extended family as part of the extended spiritual body. The notion of charity encompasses what is recommended. But it is more than just a recommendation insofar as (from the point of view of this doctrine) an element of one’s own salvation. You know, the salvation that one is ‘working out’.

              Therefor, and with that in mind, I have a way of understanding my own motivations for arranging to be involved in education and economic uplift programs where I live. (And these folks are brown people).

              (When I speak to you, Tex, I wonder if I am talking loud enough for my voice to reach you in your underground redoubt. Don’t hesitate to ask me to speak up though I admit I am embarrassed talking into a groundhog’s hole).

              My thinking on the matter is that people will likely mostly want to serve ‘their own people’. I have gotten the impression this is one of the problems with the Welfare State: that the ones contributing to it feel they are contributing to a) unproductive people and b) people that are not of their own community. This touches on the American Walmart culture and some of the problems with ‘multiculturalism’.

              But as I think it through, it is a necessary social value to bring ‘progressive’ uplift and help to others. That is, to work in one’s community.

              The Identitarian view-point — that is ‘white identity’ or ‘European identity’ — is based on a political and philosophical view that takes issue with aspects of hyper-liberalism. Not ‘liberalism’ in its best manifestations. The caveat is that there were and perhaps still are continental philosophers and theorists that had arguments against classic English liberalism. (I just got through a book by Stephan Hicks (Explaining Postmodernism) who I gather must be, more or less, a Libertarian (like you?). His ideas on contental philosophy, Kant, Hegel etc. likely mirror yours.) If you mean that some Nouvelle Droite philosophers have been influenced by Kant, Hegel, Schleiiermacher and people who influenced Marx, then sure, there is a link to ideas that progressives work with. And? Those same current of thought influenced many intellectuals, north and south, prior to and after the American Civil War.

              ‘Same general set of principles’ is somewhat vague. Does your hole connect to a library?

              As to 2) I see ‘identity’ as a group of different things and not as just one thing. I notice that when you speak of ‘genetic’ identity you will approach a dismissive argument through genetics. I would describe one’s ‘self’ as an assortment of things, and some of them very very intangible. So there is a biological component (genetics), a cultural component, but then all manner of aspects of components that are very hard to define. The link that one has to one’s land for example. As in Jefferson’s love of his country. Or a classic Southerner’s relationship to their soil. And what about the metaphysical aspect? Or the spiritual? In some cultures they define a relationship to their being through ancestral spirits. Language, tradition, art, locale, one’s physical structure, ‘blood and soil’: all these things are part of identity as I would define it.

              I expect that you will only be able to put emphasis on the ‘cultural’ aspect. So that any one, from anywhere, brought into you culture will be acculturated to it. So why not bring in anyone? Well, that is the general idea in the post-1965 America. It is indeed more insidious insofar as those wretched Marxist ideas influenced that shift (to socially engineer demographics). Your definition of Identity, unfortunately, has become weakened. Soon, you will fade away into ‘the sands of time’.

              3) I would venture to say that I cannot be sure you have any authority at all to make declarations about this. I choose to ‘revert’ if you will to the older concepts and arguments used by the original Americans: the ones who founded the place. By returning and enlivening their concept-structure, by reading their writing, I take away from it very very different ideas than what is dished in the present dispensation. I feel that a sharp and extremely defined turn to this ‘right’, into a conservatism that is also bound to Identitarian concepts, is exacly what is needed and, in fact, what is happening. Spencer is a very good example of this. The ‘reclaiming of America’, the ‘taking back’ of America is what *we* are interested in defining. It is vanguardist and — I admit — pretty radical (when it appears in the outraegously perverse present dispensation).

              4-6) Well, it is just that where you need to pay more attention. If you don’t gnaw them up I can bring some materials over to your burrow.

      • ALIZIA EXISTS!!!!

        (Thought the weekend events and spin would bring you out of your hole 🙂 )

        Zoltar has a point: tell a young man they are cause of all the evil in the world enough, just because of an intrinsic trait one cannot change, and at some point your young man will embrace that concept. Make everything tribal, then expect whites to eventually act tribal as well. Many Neo- movements are the extreme example of that: a reaction to 40 years of hate from the left.

    • valkygrrl

      Take a single one of those protesters, especially a young one and ask yourself a dozen questions about their background and experiences, you can’t answer a single one. But you can abstractly assume that at some point in their lives, they brought up, maybe out of curiosity, maybe out of assertion, something like “sure seems like more blacks are in prison than whites” or “sure seems like more white people become doctors and engineers than black people”. Maybe, instead of being discussed civilly in an open forum (like schools are supposed to be), that civil, open forum became a “you racist bigot”, “you caveman troglodyte”, “you abject deplorable” rant fest targeting a young white man who made a quite factual observation.

      So is this your approach to ISIL?

      • 1) I’m certain you see the ridiculousness of this analogy. So I’m probably foolish to even engage you on it, but here:

        2) I’m reasonably certain that most members of ISIS weren’t raised in American classrooms where they ought to have received an open and frank discussion about worldviews and various merits and flaws in them.

        3) I’m 100 percent certain that in whatever classroom they were raised, there was no emphasis placed on open discussion and toleration of mere ideas for the sake of debate and education.

        4) spoiler alert: when the hypothetical young man member of that ‘alt-right’ protest lays a black person on their stomach and saws their head off, my attitude will change. Since they are no longer engaging in speech, but actually engaging in conduct.

        5) would you like to try a different analogy for a gotcha?

        • valkygrrl

          There are no moral differences between Nazis, white supremacists, the KKK and ISIL. If you claim one can be deradaclaized then all can be.

          • Yeah… a member of Isis could be deradicalized. But holy cow, I know you can tell the difference between the degrees of a punk college boy joining an alt-right protest, and an Muslim extremist actively engaging in a war to kill non believers.

            Yeah they can both be deradicalized. One would be way easier by factors than the other…and the other probably wouldn’t give you the chance before you were compelled to kill him.

            Please tell me you don’t really think there’s a solid analogy here outside of the abstract notion of every individual’s ability to change their worldview…?

          • And, though this will open a can of worms for people unwilling to see nuance…

            As deplorable as a racial supremacist is, if they don’t take their views to the level of killing non-members of their race, there actually IS a moral difference between them and ISIS and Nazis.

            That doesn’t make the racial supremacist *good*. But it certainly means if they hold their attitudes in check from actually eliminating other races, they aren’t *as* bad morally as the others.

            • Chris

              Two days ago a conservative here drew a similar analogy between progressives and Nazis.

              Is the leap between Nazis and ISIS much larger than that?

              • 1) there’re many factors that can lead one to say there are moral differences between two entities.

                There’s a moral difference between someone who assaults another and someone who murders another.

                There’s a moral difference between someone who robs a bank and someone who murders another person.

                The moral differences betweem the two scenario are distinct despite still falling under the category of “morally different”.

                I’m certain the offending’ analogy may not even be applicable as you hope it is because of differences of quality like that. But try as you might, the burden is on you to show how you think they are analogs. Once presented, then perhaps I can agree with your reasoning or dismantle it.

                That being said, when I said above, “there’s a moral difference between them (racial supremacists) and Nazis and ISIS”, it should have been worded more like “there’s a moral difference between them and Nazis/ISIS” or “them and Nazis or them and ISIS”. My original wording looks like a meant a three way comparison.

          • There are no moral differences between Nazis, white supremacists, the KKK and ISIL. If you claim one can be deradaclaized then all can be.

            True, and we agree.

            Let me add the new black panthers, LULAC, BLM, and La Raza.

            Agreed, Val?

            • valkygrrl

              Nope. Have no idea what a LULAC is but you grouped them with one bunch of like 10 assholes, who as far as I know, never laid a hand on anyone, and two legitimate protest groups.

              How’s the reading going? Eagerly awaiting Provenance form Ann Leckie?

              • ..Have no idea what a LULAC is…

                Sheesh, Val, try a little research on your own. The League of Latin American Citizens is not some splinter group. They are racist immigration demgogges who have advocated violence against whites (and blacks, on occasion) in order to return everything west of the Mississippi river to Mexico.

                …you grouped them with one bunch of like 10 assholes, who as far as I know, never laid a hand on anyone, and two legitimate protest groups.

                Not sure who you think only have 10 members, but each of the New Black Panthers, Black Lives Matters, La Raza (literally ‘The Race’) are much more numerous than that. These ‘legitimate’ protest groups advocate violence to change society.

                BLM advocates have actually executed police officers on multiple occasions, and have expressed a wish to do so to whites in general.

                Exactly how are they different than the groups you spoke of, in terms of the discussion?

          • National Socialists, the Klu Klux Klan, those who define ‘white supremicism’ and ISIL are non-comparable, one to the other. They are only related because the one who forms the narrative places them in the same category and attempts to link them.

            Each must be examined as a separate question and problem.

            Many people who write on this blog seem to my humble persoage to be constrained by self-enforced politically correct thought. I begin to see all of you as variations on a single theme. I don’t really understand why you bicker among yourself. Your position is basically the same.

            This country came into existence because the people that founded it saw themselves as special and privelaged because they were white anglo-saxons. This doctrine is fundamental to understanding the republic, as well as Jefferson and Lincoln and their clearly expressed views on that topic. In the 20s and 30s men who came out of the better universities wrote at length on these issues: ‘The Rising Tide of Color’ (Lothrop Stoddard) is just one example and it clearly previsualizes what is now becoming evident in America. That ‘rising tide of color’ will gain the ascendency in this republic and they will turn and destroy those who made the country.

            Once you see this, once you internalize it, you will then be in a position to see clearly the existential situation. Then, you can turn back to the examination of the ideologies of those who are now storming forth onto the scene. My sense is that Antifa activism is the vanguard of that movement.

            The people I know in this movement, and the people I respect, recognize that what they must advocate for is separatism. They do not want to live in a ‘sea of color’ that will eventually seek to dispossess them. If you cannot recognize this dispossession in action, right now, and if you do not clearly see where it will lead (where it is leading, now) I suggest that you are people who have been indoctrinated in the worst and truest sense of that word. Your minds have been manipulated. You cannot think straight.

            I will make contributions to, I will voice my support for, I will network with these people that I consider very brave to continue to bring forward the message. You think that I cannot think? You think that I cannot reason? You think I am poisoned and that my thought processes are not sound? You think I have been ‘influenced’ to see wrongly? You think I can be or should be ‘reeducated’ in some sort of political-psychological center?

            Get your own head screwed on straight! From where I sit I look on a group of people whose thought-processes are CLEARLY influenced and determined against their will and certainly agaisnt their interests. I bring clarity, distinction — light if you will. It is you-plural that live in shadows.

            And all these things can be rationally and calmly argued. Your positions are confused and often emotional.

            • valkygrrl

              You think that I cannot think? You think that I cannot reason? You think I am poisoned and that my thought processes are not sound? You think I have been ‘influenced’ to see wrongly? You think I can be or should be ‘reeducated’ in some sort of political-psychological center?

              I think that if you were ever face to face with these people you correspond with and admire, they’d cave a swastika on your forehead and then rape you half a hundred times.

              • … because that happens every single day in America.

                Oh wait, that happens in countries controlled by socialists and worse.

                Nice slur, Val.

              • valkygrrl wrote, “I think that if you were ever face to face with these people you correspond with and admire, they’d carve a swastika on your forehead and then rape you half a hundred times.”

                That reply is full of all sorts of fucked up bull shit! If you weren’t planning to return with the “just joking” rationalization you might need to get some serious professional psychological help to change your prejudice based stereotypes.

              • For those who do not know valkygrrl says that because she knows I am formerly Jewish (and will still be seen by some as such since it is ‘in the blood’).

                I have opted at the idea-level to select those groups that I support and 1) get to know people in them and 2) make the small contributions that I can to them.

                I have opted to put my biological self to the side when I do this. It is a question of supporting a larger dimesnion of value, or value in a larger, abstract sense. It is in essence a spiritual question.

                Even if I am a Jew (or must always remain one in someone’s eyes) it does not change that I support the people and groups that I admire in their quest and struggles. I have a strange posture: I believe that as a Jew (who is of course a convert) I must support ‘Europe’ not for my own sake, but for theirs. I do not support Jewish ‘projects’ as such.

                My BF is as Gentile as God has ever made and understands everything about me. And all the people he knows accept me. And they are some of the people you think such bad things about.

                You need to do more research and to understand the positions of these people.

                • valkygrrl

                  The idea that people who think they’re born superior will accept you because you choose to identify with them is absurd. Their whole ideology is based on your irredeemable inferiority.

                  They’re Nazis. They will rape you and they will kill you.

                  • Val,

                    Sources? If this is a commonly occurring crime, where are the news stories? Surely the progressive media would be all over something like this.

                    They’re Nazis. They will rape you and they will kill you.

                    I thought progressives were against painting the actions of a few with a whole group? All of the people Alizia was discussing are not Nazis, in fact very few if any are. You call them that to denigrate your political opponents.

                    You are just full of crap.

                    • valkygrrl

                      I call them that because they showed up in Charlottsville carrying torches and chanting blood and soil, and Jews will not replace us.

                      I’m comfortable calling them Nazis.

                    • Chris

                      It’s more likely to me, valky, that they will uphold people like Alizia as trophies–proof that they aren’t really “Nazis,” and are willing to accept those dirty Jews as long as they convert and pledge their loyalty to the white race and the non-existent thing known as “European culture,” as Alizia has.

                      slickwilly–if you don’t like the term “Nazis” as applied to Alizia and her fellow travelers, what term do you think we should call them? They are segregationists. They believe in an evil Jewish plot to control the world. They are, quite literally, white supremacists, in that they view the white race as superior to others and believe the US and other Western nations should be actively preferential to white people, with the law giving us preferential treatment.

                      I point this all out not to justify the Nazi label, but because you seem naive to their beliefs and aims.

                    • Chris,

                      I said “I thought progressives were against painting the actions of a few with a whole group? All of the people Alizia was discussing are not Nazis, in fact very few if any are.

                      You commit the same sin as you have railed against in the past: painting with too broad a brush. You cannot take the few representatives and say their traits are common across all such people. Today, progressives are unfairly misusing the term ‘Nazis’ to smear anyone they oppose.

                      How about calling them what they are? Some are KKK. Call them that. Some are white supremacists, but not Nazis. Some are just folks that don’t care for the removal of the statue, and not associated with any group: they do not have to be segregationists for that. (Hillary would call them ‘deplorables,’ but that is a broad term as well 🙂 ) How about ‘protesters?’

                      And nice deflection, by the way.

                      My point to val was that if these people (Nazis or not) are that bad, why don’t we see the crime statistics from the behavior she ascribed to them? There is no justification for her to say they would rape and kill anyone.

              • PS: Breaking ranks with The Tribe always gets this result. You have no idea what I had to deal with in relation to my own family! I underatand it though.

                • Chris

                  Yes, well, betraying one’s family to align with the ideological descendants of those who rounded them up and put them in camps will do that.

                  • Oh Chris. Another rhetorically-contaminated set of posts. Just want you to know that I believe that I do understand what you are up against. If this were a proper forum I could explain a great deal. In the years ahead, as we make inroads, you will understand much more. We represent a meta-historical force.

                    I ‘have issues’ with what has been called ‘the Jewish revolutionary spirit’ but in no sense does it mean I hate Jews, my family or anyone.

                    My keyboard broke! It is a nefarious Ferengi plot to reduce my posts to Twitter-length!

  5. Still Spartan

    Removing a statue is not airbrushing history. Statues are commissioned for one purpose — to offer honor and glory to a particular person. I took many college courses on the Civil War in college and I have a history degree; I did not learn about the Generals on both sides by looking at statues. Take a look at the Revolutionary War — I don’t recall ever seeing any statues of Benedict Arnold, and I’m positive that there are no monuments of George Washington in London. Civil War monuments should not be destroyed, but they should be in museums as part of larger exhibits on the Civil War generally and the individuals who fought in it. Frankly, I’m surprised that DC does not have a Civil War museum. It is a fascinating time in our history and it should be studied and remembered, but The Cause was immoral, not just by today’s standards but even by the standards of the time. My kids should not have to swim at the Robert E. Lee Recenter (they do), I should not have to drive down the Jefferson Davis highway every day (I do), and I should not have to look at statues of traitors outside of courthouses and universities.

    • Spartan,

      So you are okay with erasing all of the MLK references across society? No snark, looking to open the discussion.

      If we remove concrete (some literally) references in society, it becomes much easier to remove the references in the history books. This is how Islam works: it is also how communism works.

      If we ‘never had a civil war,’ since no references exist, why is MLK important? One follows the other, after all. Where is the line? Are you sure you want to go down this road? After all, your icons are then subject to be erased as well.

      Once you start, are you sure you can stop?

      • Still Spartan

        MLK was a layered man not without his own faults, but he is remembered for the Civil Rights movement. That movement would have happened with or without the Civil War, because racism exists everywhere. Even if slavery had been abolished peacefully in the US, there still would have been segregation.

        And I am limiting my stance on icons only — icons exist as symbols of glory. We should not honor someone who is without honor and is immoral. MLK’s good deeds outweigh his faults many times over. I will say the same about Washington and Jefferson (as repugnant as Jefferson was as a human being). It turns out Kennedy was an asshole (and perhaps gave away state secrets), but he still did a lot to advance Civil Rights so honor is warranted.

        But someone please tell me why there is Stonewall Jackson SHRINE in Virginia? I pass it at least once a month. A shrine? Yes, he was a competent (although arrogant and foolhardy) soldier, but his only claim to fame was fighting in a war to preserve slavery. He is not deserving of a shrine. He should be studied in the same way we study German troop movements of WWI and WWII, but nothing more.

        • I have to conclude that you didn’t read those books very carefully. Stating that Stonewall Jackson was a ‘competent’ soldier is kind of like saying Lincoln or Washington were average leaders. He was probably one of the greatest generals this country has produced, which is why I am sure that we still study his campaigns at West Point and the Army War College. Yes he was fighting for an evil cause, but that doesn’t diminish his accomplishments as a soldier.

          As well, I don’t think we can simply dismiss Lee and the rest as mere traitors. I daresay most countries that went through as bloody a civil war as we did do not come back together as a united nation in a relatively short period of time. Lee and others certainly had a significant role to play there.

      • Chris

        slickwilly asked:

        Spartan,

        So you are okay with erasing all of the MLK references across society?

        slick, I really don’t understand why this question occurred to you after reading Spartan’s comment. At no point did she suggest that anyone should have all references to themselves “erased across society.” She said we shouldn’t honor and glorify certain people by commemorating them with statues. She also made it clear that the existing statues should be moved to museums and not destroyed, so I’m baffled as to why you thought she was saying references to them should be erased. She also further clarified in that same comment that those considered traitors to their nation should not be honored by that nation (“I don’t recall ever seeing any statues of Benedict Arnold, and I’m positive that there are no monuments of George Washington in London.”). Our nation does not consider MLK a traitor, but we do consider Confederate generals to be traitors.

        I feel like this was all pretty clear; what part of it did you not understand before asking your question? I ask not to be snarky, but because I’ve been noticing a trend lately of some of the more conservative members of this blog responding to some of the more liberal members in ways that show they did not understand basic points of the liberal members’ comments. I haven’t seen you do this until today, but it has me wondering: are we just being very unclear? Is there something causing a breakdown in communication between us?

        • At no point did she suggest that anyone should have all references to themselves “erased across society.”

          Chris, you are completely correct. Spartan did not go there. Spartan’s argument naturally leads to where I went, however, and that was integral to my points in this thread. The Left DOES want to erase and rewrite history, and the logical progression of that concept is what I was exploring. Notice I asked that question without snark, simply wanting to explore the opinions.

          She said we shouldn’t honor and glorify certain people by commemorating them with statues.

          She has an opinion, but like so many progressives, she assumes she has a right to dictate what those communities hold as important. HER opinion is RIGHT and VIRTUOUS, and thus should prevail. And I suspect she never would think that such power would ever be used against the Forces of Light(tm) who wish to impose such things on the rest of us. Democrats are livid that the rules they changed and broke in Congress are turned against them when the wind blows from the right. The Left is still livid that the deplorables denied Hillary her rightful place, and are showing us how totalitarian they really are each day in their actions.

          The right used to hold themselves above such tactics, but that is no longer the case. Everything progressives do today will be used against them tomorrow, in our brave new world. The tools used by Jon ‘Americans have to be lied to for their own good’ Gruber and Eric ‘Fast and Furious’ Holder will be turned on the Left. Antifa attacks Trump supporters in violent riots, and the alt right gets violent in return. Human Nature.

          Our nation does not consider MLK a traitor, but we do consider Confederate generals to be traitors.

          No, the progressives consider them traitors because it fits a political narrative. The Southern Democrats who rebelled had many reasons to do so, and slavery was just the most important viewed through the lens of racial tension and the narrative put forth by Liberals since the mid 1960s. The communities that put up these statues saw those men at local heroes, who fought for their community against Northern economic dictation and tyranny.

          Those same men were pardoned by the Federal Government, and are not traitors by definition. Rebels, yes. Progressives now cast them as evil, and the evil was on both sides.

          Note who freed the slaves: the GOP. Note who ran the oppression and fought for slavery: Democrats. Jim Crow as not a Republican construct. My entire life I have been told that the GOP supported slavery and still does. The facts say otherwise.

          I’ve been noticing a trend lately of some of the more conservative members of this blog responding to some of the more liberal members in ways that show they did not understand basic points of the liberal members’ comments… Is there something causing a breakdown in communication between us?

          Why, yes there is. 😉

          Conservatives are getting tired of the progressive framing of the narrative in our country. Some of that spills over into EA, and this is not really fair to our friends here. Why is that? Some statements have been so politicized these days that a simple comment from one side can have a lot of baggage to unpack when read by the other side. I was guilty of this sloppiness in this case: I should have explained better. I read Spartan’s comments as a first step in what I am hearing from progressives in the news, and reacted from there.

          For instance, Charles got an earful when he used the term ‘fly over country’ in terms of comment on his perceived lack of economic advantage away from the coasts. His post was seen as another slur on the deplorables, despite his lack of intent to insult. Coastal progressives have a reputation of looking down their noses at the ‘unenlightened,’ and want to run our lives based on the purity of their motives and not the results of their programs. For example, we even had progressives here at EA tell us we are not insulted by the ‘fly over’ insults we are insulted by! We get to decide what we think, not limousine liberals.

          Progressives want to dictate what we think, what we do, and how we live. Progressives want to change the definition of words, phrases and concepts to box all thought into their paradigms, and thereby limit debate to preclude any ‘unapproved’ ideas. Free speech is to be defined as to whatever the elite decides it is, and can change day by day. People have lost their JOBS to progressive researchers who take a perfectly innocent and ‘approved’ position from years back, which they themselves agreed with at the time, and unfairly fit it into current fads, excoriating their target as unacceptable.

          The back lash is just starting. I am not happy it is going this way. Reasonable political debate is a thing of the past, except in this limited forum. the exchange of ideas has been rejected by the mainstream left, and thus now by many on the right. unless we get some powerful leadership (not likely with Trump or our current crop of elite establishment politicians) I do not see this getting better on it;s own.

          Sorry to be long winded: your questions needed a lot of unpacking!

          • Chris

            Chris, you are completely correct. Spartan did not go there. Spartan’s argument naturally leads to where I went,

            It does not, for the reasons she explained in her comment, and which I clarified in my own.

            The Left DOES want to erase and rewrite history, and the logical progression of that concept is what I was exploring

            Confederate monuments were put up in large part to erase and rewrite history.

            The right used to hold themselves above such tactics, but that is no longer the case.

            It was never the case. Politics has always been dirty on both sides. You are rewriting history to glamorize the past of your ideological allies while placing the blame on your ideological opponents. This is nothing but a “you started it” argument meant to dodge accountability.

            No, the progressives consider them traitors because it fits a political narrative.

            They turned against their country. They fought a *war* against their country. They were traitors by definition.

            The Southern Democrats who rebelled had many reasons to do so, and slavery was just the most important viewed through the lens of racial tension and the narrative put forth by Liberals since the mid 1960s.

            This sentence is incoherent. Are you trying to say that slavery only became viewed as the most important reason for the Civil War in the 1960s? That’s ridiculous. The declarations of secession were not written in the 1960s. Alexander Stephens did not say the Confederacy’s foundation was the belief in the superiority of the white race in the 1960s. If it took until the 60s for the country to recall that fear of losing the institution of slavery was the primary motive for the Civil War, it’s because the “Lost Cause” revisionism from Confederate sympathizers was all too successful at rewriting history.

            The communities that put up these statues saw those men at local heroes, who fought for their community against Northern economic dictation and tyranny.

            Yes, and they put up these statues to terrorize blacks during Jim Crow. This is a fact.

            Note who freed the slaves: the GOP. Note who ran the oppression and fought for slavery: Democrats. Jim Crow as not a Republican construct. My entire life I have been told that the GOP supported slavery and still does. The facts say otherwise.

            This point is idiotic. Everyone knows that Democrats founded the KKK and Jim Crow. Everyone also knows about the southern realignment. I know that Republicans like to pretend that this never happened, but given that you have no other explanation for why the KKK and every other white supremacist group now identifies with the right, or why it is Republicans, not Democrats, now clamoring to preserve Confederate flags and icons, that stance is flat-out delusional. Are you under the impression that the racists marching in Charlottesville were part of a “Unite the Left” rally? If not, why do you think it’s at all relevant to bring up the fact that Democrats created the KKK, or that the two parties today bear any relation to the parties during the time you are referring to when it comes to race relations?

      • glencora63

        The Confederacy, nor their leaders should ever have been honored. Racist, embittered, hateful, angry white, Southern men erected these statues with the cooperation of organizations like, “The Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy”. They didn’t hold a vote and they certainly didn’t ask African-Americans if they felt their former slave owners should be honored. Put the statues of traitors and those that committed crimes against God and humanity in a museum where they belong.

        • Welcome, glencora.

          Why do you hate statues to Democrats so? /snark

          Now I ask you who gets to determine what historical landmarks remain, and by what criteria. It is easy to have an indoctrinated juvenile opinion that does not research the subject, but having commented you should address the point of the thread. Where would YOU place that line?

          As is being agitated in south Chicago today, do you think George Washington should also be moved to a museum?

          Are there any statues you think should stay? Are you prepared, when the wind blows the other way, to have YOUR public remembrances removed as well. Because once this succeeds, that will happen.

        • PS: do you even KNOW what the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy do? How many minority charities they sponsor?

          Or is the name itself enough to make them “…racist, embittered, hateful, angry white, Southern men [and women]?”

          • Chris

            One thing the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy do is lie about history in order to whitewash the Confederacy and make them seem less racist.

            http://cwmemory.com/2015/10/17/black-family-reclaims-history-from-sons-of-confederate-veterans/

            One might suspect they sponsor minority charities for the same reason.

            • Name one you have known, Chris. I have known many. You are full of shit, but sitting over in la-la land you will never know.

              And your source is progressive bullshit.

              • Chris

                Name one what? Are you asking me if I know any members of the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy personally? I don’t. Why would I need to make judgments about their organization? Do you know anyone who works for the site you just declared “progressive bullshit?” Can you see how that has nothing to do with whether or not you can make judgments about their claims and goals?

                What about the site is progressive bullshit? I’d like to know so I don’t fall for fake news or link to dishonest sites. Are you objecting to the claim I made, that the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy lies about the aims of the Confederacy, downplaying the facts that slavery and white supremacy were central to its existence? These facts are backed up by a lot more than just that site.

                • What about the site is progressive bullshit?

                  The author is a progressive shill, Chris. Did you read anything other than the post you googled? His ‘oh so rational’ tone throughout is sanctimonious virtue signalling mixed with historical revisionism.

                  I only had to see the blog titled “To Hell with your Confederate Heritage” to know what this guy was. The arrogant condescension in that post alone should be enough to classify him… res ipsa loquitur

                  But, given your rebuttal, I researched further. Thanks for that: now I need a bath.

                  Why would I need to make judgments about their organization?…downplaying the facts that slavery and white supremacy were central to its existence?

                  This is simple propaganda to vilify an enemy that is now being taught as history. They simply tell the other side of the War between the States, Chris. Many of the chapters hold documents from the time, telling why the soldiers on both sides fought. Hint: they could not have cared less about the plight of the Negro, just as Lincoln did not. They believe in understanding the errors of the past, committed on both sides, as a way to prevent those errors in the future. They are a historical society that supports charity, not revisionism.

                  Northern states prevented Negros from moving there for decades after the war, and did not allow mixed marriages and full citizenship rights during that time. So spare me your ill informed righteous indignation. The North persecuted the weaker South for 50 years before the war brought things to a head, using their populations and wealth to coerce tariffs and policies that blatantly favored northern states. It was about economics, of which slavery was a part.

                  CSA veterans are considered American war vets. Not too long ago there were widows of May-December marriages from that war still receiving benefits from the Federal Government. Your talk of ‘traitors’ is ill informed propaganda.

                  • Chris

                    War between the States

                    No

                    Northern states

                    Stop

                    telling why the soldiers on both sides fought.

                    Why individual soldiers fought has nothing to do with why the war was waged in the first place

                    tariffs

                    My god.

                    Thank you for proving my point: the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy have done a marvelous job rewriting history to convince people like you to see the Confederacy’s aims as nobler than they really were. That you call it the “War between the States” proved it more than anything. You are just parroting back the exact “Lost Cause” narrative I’ve described. You responded to “progressive bullshit” with Confederate sympathizer bullshit. The South was fine with the tariff situation by 1860, and said so. They made it clear that they were not going to war over tariffs, but to preserve white supremacy. That was their words. I’ve shown you this already. That the North was also racist is a fact that no one denies, but the North did not go to war to preserve white supremacy. The South did. This is a fact.

                    The Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy deliberately obscure and lie about this fact.

                    CSA veterans are considered American war vets. Not too long ago there were widows of May-December marriages from that war still receiving benefits from the Federal Government.

                    What is “not too long ago?” The war ended in 1865. Assuming a widow was as young as 15 that year, she would have likely died sometime prior to 1950. So what are you talking about?

                    Your talk of ‘traitors’ is ill informed propaganda.

                    A person who secedes from their country and then takes up arms against that country is a traitor by definition. That’s a fact. As I believe some on the right are fond of saying, facts don’t care about your feelings.

                    • What is “not too long ago?” The war ended in 1865. Assuming a widow was as young as 15 that year, she would have likely died sometime prior to 1950. So what are you talking about?

                      This statement alone proves what an idiot you are being.

                      Civil War soldier joins at 16, war ends before he is 20. He lives into his 90s, so about 1935. Along the way he marries many times, as childbirth caused many wives to die during that time. So along about the time he is 70 of so, say 1916, he marries a sweet young thing (not uncommon at that time) of 16. After his death that girl is officially a war widow, and gets whatever benefits he was due. She lives into her 80s or 90s… 1990 or so, and collects those benefits her entire life.

                      Since you HAVE NO IDEA what life is like outside the peepuls repuplik of Kali, you make stupid assumptions about our lives here inthe heartland. My grandparents were poor tenant dirt farmers during the 1930s. I grew up with the physical evidence and stories from people who lived during every war in the 20th century. We have diaries and newspaper accounts from those times. I think I know more about the verified history of which I speak than some punk 20 something progressive millennial who never lived here.

                      THIS is what helped get Trump elected: progressive historical revisionism and arrogant false moral authority. People are tired of your ignorant spew.

                      Still love ya like a brother, Chris… a particularly slow uneducated one, but still family. 🙂

                    • Chris

                      Your entire argument is fallacious, slick, and you are appealing solely to emotion and experience. What difference does it make if the widows of Confederate soldiers were alive up until about thirty years ago? What difference does it make that you have read diaries of individual soldiers?
                      None of that changes the fact that the Confederacy as an organization explicitly fought to preserve slavery and white supremacy.

                      That you come from the South does not make you more informed on this subject, it only makes you more biased. That you get your information from biased pro-Confederate groups only worsens that problem for you. You could easily Google the declarations of secession from every state and see that they all said slavery was their primary concern. You could easily Google Alexander Stevens’ most important speech and see what he said the Confederacy was based on. Anyone can do this, whether they come from the North, South, east or west. Your strange notion that only Southerners could possible know why the South really fought is ludicrous, made even more so by the fact that many Southerners have a vested interest in whitewashing their own past.

                      Don’t you dare accuse me of revisionist history when you are engaging in just that.

                    • Until you argue fairly and edit this mantra to “the Confederacy as an organization explicitly fought to preserve slavery and white supremacy, as well as a State’s contitutional right to govern itself by the will of the state’s citizens without being dictated to by the US, and thus to withdraw from the union peacefully when it so chose, as the assumption was when the Union was formed”, then I see no reason why anyone should take you seriously on this issue. Both were the reasons behind the Civil War. They may have been inseparable, but one cannot point to one (as the South’s defenders do) while ignoring the other and argue either intelligently or fairly.

                      This is classic dishonest argument, Chris, and you should recognize the habit and break it. The same occurs in abortion: the advocates pretend that no second human life is involved; the opponents ignore the real issue of human autonomy.

                    • Chris, my history is more reliable than your progressive lies. You side MAKES THINGS UP all the time: why would you tell the truth now?

                      Progressives ARE revisionist to their core. They were ‘for the war before they were against it.’ They continually lie in their press. They have been condescending to the rest of the country for decades, and we are tired of it.

                      You just told me to believe you over my own lying eyes, telling me my family, friends and community all have some great shame over the War of Northern Aggression. Please! Progressives are the ones hung up on this stuff.

                      You just have your panties in a wad because your victims are beginning to stand up to your socialist agenda, some of whom are using your own Alinsky tactic against you. Hurts, don’t it? Keep spinning how Antifa are using GOOD violence or something.

                      I feel sorry for you in that you have been indoctrinated into socialism and emotional virtue signalling. You are so young you never had a chance to know any better.

                      As far as whitewashing, maybe you should ponder WHO is attempting to white wash their past by removing these reminders… Southerners or Democrats? Might this be an attempt by the Democrats to erase the blot on their history?

                    • Chris

                      Fine, Jack. I’ll edit:

                      ““the Confederacy as an organization explicitly fought to preserve slavery and white supremacy, as well as a State’s constitutional right to govern itself by the will of the state’s citizens without being dictated to by the US, and thus to withdraw from the union peacefully when it so chose, as the assumption was when the Union was formed.”

                      But as you said, the latter reason was inseparable from the former. And tariffs had absolutely nothing to do with why they fought.

                      slick, your response is partisan drivel. “I won’t believe you because you’re a Democrat” is not a reasonable argument.

                      Keep spinning how Antifa are using GOOD violence or something.

                      I have condemned Antifa multiple times on this blog in the past week, and this doesn’t even have anything to do with what we’re talking about. You aren’t even arguing with me at this point, you’re arguing with an evil progressive bogeyman that exists inside your head. Don’t project that shit on me.

                • … “the Confederacy as an organization explicitly fought to preserve slavery and white supremacy, as well as a State’s constitutional right to govern itself by the will of the state’s citizens without being dictated to by the US, and thus to withdraw from the union peacefully when it so chose, as the assumption was when the Union was formed”

                  For the record, this is my stance. I am on record saying that slavery was about economics, and the decision to leave the Union was about economics. Most southerners did not own slaves, as my families documentation shows: they knew they were getting taken advantage of by the North and thus fought for freedom from tyranny, which is ironic in that their society was based on a form thereof.

                  • As un-nuanced as Chris is approaching this from, I think the argument “most southerners were not slave owners”, though true, is misleading in that it attempts to distance the Plantation-system from the core of the southern economy. I think poor southern whites were just as enthralled to the Plantation system and the Planter elites with the political power as the slaves were (granted they weren’t actually slaves or treated as such).

                    • Chris

                      Well said, tex.

                      And of course, what individual soldiers fought for is not the subject under discussion; the question is why the war was waged. The fact that most Southerners did not own slaves does not mean that the Southern states seceded primarily over the issue of slavery.

                    • But it does matter.

                      The South seceded to defend against what it believed would be the Republican plan to eradicate slavery via the National level of government.

                      Slavery is why the South seceded – Slavery could be said to be a type of Final Cause of secession.

                      But that said, slavery was merely the topic of the question, “Who has final authority to make significant economic decisions within the individual states: The States or the National level of government?” State powers — those not delegated to the Union — was the issue to be answered as it pertained to slavery. So “States Rights” could be said to a type of Formal Cause of secession.

                      There was NO war at that point, because secession, prior to the Civil War, was widely regarded as a perfectly legal course for States *voluntarily* part of a Union to do.

                      Stopping secession, that is preserving the Union status quo, is *why* hostilities began.

                      Opposing a perceived invasion against their home states’ legal authority to function as a state is *why* Southerners flocked to the Army of the CSA.

                      There are a wide combination of “causes” or “reasons” of the Civil War, the absence of a single one sufficient to prevent the Civil War – but pared down in a line of causation, the Civil War boils down to TWO causes (or One, depending on how it is worded or whether or not the righteousness of secession can be found in the Constitution): Preservation of the Union status quo and right of States to Secede.

                      Secession itself, has the Formal cause of “states rights” and the Final cause of “slave-based economic system”.

                      So, yes, it is phenomenally more nuanced than “the Civil War was about slavery”. That’s the easy summary because a wide number of un-tested constitutional structures were brought to the surface over the topic of slavery. But easy answers are often incomplete.

                    • Comment of the Day. Fair, measured, true, and apparently more necessary than I thought…

                    • Thanks! Though it’s not as detailed as I hoped and I’m not certain I labeled “formal” and “final” causes correctly. Maybe supposed to be “material” and “formal” respectively.

                    • Chris

                      That should say “The fact that most Southerners did not own slaves does not change the fact that the Southern states seceded primarily over the issue of slavery.”

    • Boy, I hope there’s a better argument than that one, because that was terrible. There are no monuments to Jack the Ripper either. Arnold was never regarded as worthy of honor, and George Washington was not a British citizen, a British hero, or anything else a statue would honor. Once statues are up, they are part of history. Your arguments, such as it is, would also apply to retro-editing literature, and you cannot articulate what the stop is on that slippery slope that doesn’t end with blowing up Mount Rushmore: Slaveholder, Slaveholder, White supremacist, Imperialist nationalist animal-killer.

      • Still Spartan

        What the heck are you talking about? Who said anything about literature or Mount Rushmore? George Washington was a slaver, but he is honored for his acts of being a brave General (on the winning side of a war) and for being a competent President. Lee is remembered for: 1) being a traitor; 2) leading armies in rebellion; and 3) losing the War. And yes, it is repugnant to honor someone who fought a war for the main purpose of being to chain up other human beings.

        And you made my point about Arnold. Of course there are no statues of him — because he was a traitor. (Although only so because he was on the losing side.) So why do we have statues of our Southern traitors? What makes their stories different than Arnold’s? Darn … I can’t quite put my finger on it.

        And wait a minute. Are you seriously arguing that George Washington was not a British subject? (Please give me a few minutes. I need to go make some popcorn.)

        • Emily

          “Traitor” requires context. George Washington was a traitor to the British, but not the US. Arnold was a traitor to the US, but not Britain.

          Lee was a traitor to the US, but not the state of Virginia, which (I understand) he considered his primary loyalty. Virginia left the US, Lee left the US. Virginia returned, Lee returned. So honoring him in Virginia isn’t any more honoring a traitor than honoring Washington anywhere in the US.

          • Still Spartan

            It doesn’t matter what he considered his primary loyalty. It is not a subjective test.

          • Sue Dunim

            There are statues of Benedict Arnold in Connecticut.

            They weren’t put up there to celebrate the cause of rejoining Canada.

            The many, many statues of Confederate soldiers and generals that were erected in the South in the 1920s were to celebrate Jim Crow.

          • Nor was the official position of the US after the Civil war, nor Lincoln’s, that the soldiers, officers and leaders of the Confederacy were traitors. The argument that the Confederacy, including Virginia, had the law and the Constitution on their side is certainly arguable, and almost certainly would have been the position that prevailed had the case been litigated. The increasing tendency to vilify the Confederacy rather than grant it the label of just tragically wrong and too late to adapt to evolving cultural values is one more mark of the rigid, angry, doctrinaire militancy of the emerging progressive movement. Lincoln regarded the war as a necessary but tragic family disagreement, a far healthier and less divisive attitude.

            I’m with Lincoln. Had he lived, and a kinder, gentler reconstruction been put in place, there may not have been any Jim Crow. Today’s self-righteous hate the old Confederate soldiers far more than many of the old Northern soldiers who fought them.

            • Chris

              I suppose I just don’t understand the idea that it was OK to fight and kill these people, but it somehow crosses the line to tear down statues of them. It fundamentally does not make sense to me.

              Lincoln was right to welcome back the traitors with open arms; it had to be done to reunite the union. That does not make them any less traitors, and it does not mean we need to continue honoring them a century and a half later.

          • valkygrrl

            Lee was a traitor to the US, but not the state of Virginia, which (I understand) he considered his primary loyalty.

            25A. Frederick’s Compulsion or “It’s My Duty!”

            • Emily

              The question was not “did Lee make the ethical choice?” I’m not touching that one with a ten foot pole.

              The question was “was Lee a traitor?” One can be loyal to many unethical institutions, which might make one unethical on other counts, but not a traitor.

              • valkygrrl

                That’s an interesting, if way off-topic idea. Are you a traitor if you don’t consider yourself one? Is that American Taliban hid they took out of Afghanistan some years ago a traitor?

                • Emily

                  Like I said, the word traitor requires context. Someone is a traitor *to specific institutions.* This doesn’t preclude loyalty to other institutions, and an institution they were loyal to has every right to view that loyalty as a virtue.

                  • valkygrrl

                    Next question, and i don’t mean to pick on you, you’re posting in good-faith,. Why do they have a statue of Robert E Lee, but not John Brown?

                    • Like these statues of John Brown?

                    • valkygrrl

                      Which ones are in Virgina?

                    • Was he from or had some previous loyalty to Virginia? You know the likes of which form the context of Emily’s comment?

                    • valkygrrl

                      Since he was convicted of treason against Virginia, they, at least, should think so.

                    • So Emily’s assertion then, that Lee might be seen by Virginians as performing an act of loyalty towards Virginia and therefore might lead some of them to erect a statue in his honor, should be seen as undermined because the same Virginians might see John Brown performing an act of disloyalty towards Virginia and not want to erect a statue in his honor?

                      Wait…what?

                    • Because John Brown was a lunatic, a terrorist and a murderer?

                    • Emily

                      What Tex eventually got at. If Virginia saw John Brown as a traitor to Virginia, that means they’re unlikely to consider that a virtue. One could still argue he was loyal to the US, or at least the cause of abolitionism. And people who valued that loyalty might want a statue. But that doesn’t mean the state of Virginia should honor him.

                      It also doesn’t mean they shouldn’t. As I implied with Lee when I refused the question of whether he made the ethical choice, there’s a lot more that goes into judging character than loyalty. With both Lee and Brown people far more informed than I am have written a library of books on both sides, and I’m keeping quiet on my opinions because I’m not prepared to defend them rigorously. I just felt that the specific charge of “traitor” was missing context that was relevant to the statue under discussion.

        • Once The United States declared its independence as a matter of law, he was not, in fact, a British subject. If he were, then HE would be a traitor. I think I was pretty clear. Here…I’ll repeat it: you cannot articulate what the stop is on that slippery slope that doesn’t end with blowing up Mount Rushmore.

          • Still Spartan

            I think the British would disagree — that’s why they were fighting the war after all.

          • valkygrrl

            So was he a treasonous dog, as a matter of law, on July 1’st 1776?

          • I disagree. The matter of law wasn’t settled until someone won.

            Secession/rebellion/independence attempts are all non-legal (to be clear this doesn’t mean “illegal”) actions. There is literally no way to govern such an action through rule of law. It’s an attempt by one people to sever the legal ties they have with another people. Either the people being severed from do nothing, and it’s a win for those leaving or the people being severed from try to stop them, and it boils down to who wins.

            Either way, there’s no legal principle involved…it’s pure competition, no law other than the law of “who wins” governs it.

            • Secession was a Constitutional issue, as it will be if, say, California tries to secede now. Lincoln used a war to change the law. There is little controversy over whether the original signatories to the Constitution thought their states could leave the union at any time.

              • I agree with this. Obviously. But I think the Founders also recognized the inherently problematic nature of encoding such an ability in the Constitution in order to give it a legal framework. Because it lacked that encoding, it lacked any legal founding. Of course, because it wasn’t encoded also that the States were compelled to remain, there also lacked any legal founding for the other States to compel them to remain.

                I think the Founders inherently knew:

                1) The very value of secessionist threats WAS a solid check on Federal power, ante-bellum political history I think bears this out. I think, if the South hadn’t used the tool in support of Slavery, we’d still see threats of secession both occur more often, more seriously, and taken more seriously by the Union in terms of rethinking encroachment on State powers. It would still be a valid reminder of the spirit of the declaration of independence: “hey, keep pushing us and we’ll push back”

                AND

                2) You can’t encode secession/independence movements. They have to be tried and won (won either by the union not stopping them, or won by force of arms when the union does try to stop them). Enshrining some Constitutional measure PERMITTING secession would make the act TOO easy and fundamentally undermine the Union, as the act being TOO easy undermines it’s value as a check against the Federal government. Enshrining some Constitutional measure PROHIBITING secession would defeat the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

        • crella

          There’s already a group clamoring for the destruction of Stone Mountain, Ga. That Mt. Rushmore will one day be too offensive to exist is not all that hard to imagine.

    • I think it’s a bit more nuanced than “they were traitors”.

      • Still Spartan

        You’re right. They were traitors fighting to perpetuate slavery. End of nuances.

        • Spartan,

          Your denigration of the Civil War as a ‘traitors fighting for slavery’ conflict shows you are not the student of history you claim to be.

          -What issues precipitated the War between the States? Slavery was a factor, but it was also so much more complex. (hint: research the laws the North was passing to force the South to send their raw products to Northern textile mills, and the South being denied purchasing products from less expensive offshore sources instead of Northern sources)

          -What did Lincoln say about freeing the slaves just before he did so? (hint: he could not have cared less: it was a political move to injure a war time enemy)

          -When were slaves freed in the Northern states? Were there still legal slaves in the North at the end of the Civil War?

          -Which political party fought for slavery, and withheld civil rights for a hundred years afterwards, through poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and so on?

          And another thing: the Southern soldiers were not traitors. Saying so is ignorant.

          • Still Spartan

            Slick — please don’t start. I’ve read dozens of books on the subject and have taken many, many classes. I don’t need to answer your questions but nice deflection. Of course the North had problems, racism being one of those problems. But the Civil War was over slavery, one side was for it, and the other wanted to end it.

            Every officer in the South was a traitor. Sometimes the common man doesn’t have a choice, but the leaders were traitors.

            • wyogranny

              Many people think the Civil War was about state’s rights. Including generals and leaders of the Confederacy.
              How many books did you read? Did none of them mention that?

              • Still Spartan

                What was the primary state’s right in question?

                • Chris

                  Oh, this bullshit again. Fun.

                  Every single state’s declaration of secession listed the preservation of slavery as their primary concern. Every single one. The vice president of the confederacy, Alexander Stevens, said this:

                  The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split’. He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
                  This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the ‘storm came and the wind blew’.
                  Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

                  So it is impossible to deny that slavery was the primary reason for secession. That Lincoln was willing to tolerate slavery and wasn’t actually intent on eliminating it doesn’t change the fact that the Confederates certainly thought he was coming for their slaves, and reacted to this largely imagined threat by starting a war. In a war between a government indifferent to slavery and a government that claims preserving slavery as its entire reason for being, I am perfectly comfortable identifying the latter as the bad guys. Yes, the South also complained about tariffs…in the 1830s. By 1860 the South was largely satisfied on that end, and said so.

                  The implied slur on Democrats is just historically ignorant. The people flying the stars and bars today are not Democrats. The Nazis who marched on Charlottesville voted for the Republican candidate in the last race, not the Democrat candidate. Whatever residual guilt the current Democrat party should bear (thanks wyogranny for the spelling correction on this the other day) for the sins of the Southern Democrats must be taken in the context of the shifts that have brought us to the present situation, where white rural Southerners are far more likely to support the Republican party and far more likely to glorify the Confederacy, while blacks are much more likely to vote Democrat. I understand the standard Republican line is that these shifts never occurred and are a myth, but given that they have no other explanation for what brought us to the present situation, that denial strikes me as facially absurd.

                  • “So it is impossible to deny that slavery was the primary reason for secession.”

                    Irrelevant to the legal question, however, and the legitimate issue of states right. I agree that Lincoln’s gamble was a utilitarian win, but just because of moral luck. The South had the law and almost a century of mutual understanding on its side. The reason it wanted to do something completely legal can still be completely immoral, but that doesn’t make the South’s position any weaker legally .

                    I do understand why leftists are tempearmentally and emotionally unable to accept this.

                    • Chris

                      “So it is impossible to deny that slavery was the primary reason for secession.”

                      Irrelevant to the legal question, however, and the legitimate issue of states right.

                      Good thing we weren’t debating the legal question, then.

                      I agree that Lincoln’s gamble was a utilitarian win, but just because of moral luck. The South had the law and almost a century of mutual understanding on its side. The reason it wanted to do something completely legal can still be completely immoral, but that doesn’t make the South’s position any weaker legally .

                      Irrelevant to whether their statues should be torn down. What Hitler did was also technically legal. Post-war Germany still tore down his statues, and rightly so.

                      I do understand why leftists are tempearmentally and emotionally unable to accept this.

                      These unnecessary, unprovoked digs that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand are becoming more and more common from you, Jack, and are making this blog an unpleasant place to be.

                    • wyogranny

                      My purpose in identifying historical facts is not to deny that slavery was the huge overriding issue of the day, but to clarify history. When we don’t clearly and correctly understand the underpinnings of history we are working in the dark. It would be helpful if we were talking from a common perspective of fact.

                      Mobs are literally tearing down artifacts of history as if tearing down a statue could erase history. These are mobs incited by emotion and emboldened by passive government. History has some lessons about this that we should all be fully aware of.

              • valkygrrl

                Many people think vaccinations cause autism. Maybe people are stupid and argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

                The slavers rebelled because they were afraid they’d lose slavery. What many people might say to rationalize it changes nothing. As Chris pointed out, we have the seceshes reasons in their own words.

            • Every officer in the South was a traitor. Sometimes the common man doesn’t have a choice, but the leaders were traitors.

              By definition, they are not traitors. And your vaunted education lacks if you can say that when the USA never treated them as traitors after the War of Northern Aggression was over.

              In short, your premise is bullshit, coming from a progressive revisionist limousine liberal viewpoint that denies reality.

    • There’s a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square, a gift from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

        • Chris

          That is interesting, Zoltar–thanks.

          I’m curious: is the consensus opinion across the pond that the Americans were justified in the Revolutionary War? If so, that may explain why a Washington statue there would be regarded as inoffensive, while the Confederate statues spur so much controversy here. But if the Founding Fathers are regarded there the way the Confederacy is regarded by the North here in the U.S., then I’d be surprised if there weren’t some Brits angry about the statue.

          • Chris asked, “I’m curious: is the consensus opinion across the pond that the Americans were justified in the Revolutionary War?”

            How the hell am I supposed to know the answer to that question Chris, I’m not across the pond and I have no insight about the opinions of those in the UK.

            First you write a ridiculous question that I can’t possibly answer and then go off on a tangent making conclusions based on assumptions regarding the ridiculous questions. This is the kind of stupid trolling claptrap you write and somehow your little brain tells you that it’s valid to interject these kinds of off the wall deflections into these discussions?

      • Still Spartan

        That’s awesome. Maybe the Brits should take it down — then again, Washington was on the winning side of the war. 🙂

    • Arnold is, all around, a fascinating figure from history. In my personal opinion, the more you delve into the truth surrounding his defection/betrayal of the colonies, the harder it becomes to revile the man as the traitor we Americans are often indoctrinated to view him as.

      He had a hard life… his father driving their family into penury when he was young, and destroying many of Arnold’s prospects. He excelled despite, or perhaps because, of this, becoming a hugely successful business man, until British taxes and tariffs might have bankrupted him.

      As a military tactician, he was by all accounts brilliant, but far from humble… and it rubbed many of his landed contemporaries poorly, there is little doubt. For his own part, Arnold was well known to express that he felt slighted about being passed over for promotion in favor of less competent, but better pedigreed men.

      He paid out of his own pocket for many of the campaigns he led troops on… and when he petitioned Congress for redress, was told that not only would it not be forthcoming, but he owed them yet more money (which he did not have, having sunk virtually all of his fortunes into the war efforts), due to poorly kept books.

  6. Lincoln saw the whole country, North and South, as equal victims of a losing situation. From his Ottawa debate with Stephen Douglas:

    “Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tiptop Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.

    “When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.”

    Lincoln would not judge his brethren of the South because he saw what an accident of history it was that he ended up in Illinois while others ended up further south. In 1862, he wrote again of higher forces influencing events, with the immediate contestants relative pawns:

    “The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true — that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.”

    And in the Second Inaugural, Lincoln still refuses to pass judgment on the opponent:

    “…Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’

    ‘With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

  7. Slick Willy: “Progressives want to dictate what we think, what we do, and how we live. Progressives want to change the definition of words, phrases and concepts to box all thought into their paradigms, and thereby limit debate to preclude any ‘unapproved’ ideas. Free speech is to be defined as to whatever the elite decides it is, and can change day by day. People have lost their JOBS to progressive researchers who take a perfectly innocent and ‘approved’ position from years back, which they themselves agreed with at the time, and unfairly fit it into current fads, excoriating their target as unacceptable.”

    As I have come to understand things it is this ‘progressive thought’ which has become so powerful, so predominant, so penetrated into the mind of the culture that it cannot be resisted. I would actually go so far as to say that the ideology that stands behind progressivism cannot be countered by anyone with a coherent counter-structure of idea that makes sense. Take for example the way that ‘feminism’ is railed against in the present. They attempt to bring up a counter-argument to it but their counter-argument fails. In order to define a position that can operate successfully against feminist doctrine, one would have to define an entire counter-position, not only against the liberation of woman, or their rebellion from the role nature assigned to them, but against a whole group of other doctrines that are now interwoven with the way we think, see and interpret this world.

    This is why I see conservatism as being a sort of Last Stand or, to put it another way, a Lost Cause. The conservative right is fading away. But moreover they accept nearly every ideological position that the Progressive Left puts forward and holds to. Conservatism has no answer to that, no counter-proposition.

    From my perspective, this is why the Progressive and cultural Marxist has made such amazing progress. Its Gramsci’s ‘cultural hegemony’. But it is the thinking now of 90% of the people. There is not a way to THINK in counter-propositional terms. Surely I would note that if you do think in counter-propositional terms, you will give expression to regressivism, and regressivism is of course (hello Chris) ‘Nazism’. And with that declaration of Nazi! they manage to psychologically control people. They defeat them at a pre-intellectual level.

    The alternative? The alternative is to explore revisionism. There is no alternative offered. The progressive’s underlying intention (in the Marxian-Gramscian sense) is to destroy the possibility of opposition. So one must investigate that project as being about ‘destruction’. Or to frame it as destruction. For example, I defend the South of the US in their secession. But the way the progressive frames it, by doing this I must also defend slavery! But if I am forced to codemn slavery, I will then be forced to agree that those who attack and de-platform Jefferson and Washington are justified to do so. It all revolves around a series of ideological manipulations that are centered in emotional coercion.

    So I am forced to defend what is seen and viewed as a regressive position in order to defend 1) my own sovereigny as a person who desires not to be coerced, and 2) the sovereignty of the ones who were on the losing side of history’s mutability. At that point it becomes a question of Will, or at least Will enters into it. So then, my will to define a different platform will lead me, and has led me, to revise not just that forced interpretation of events (the present interpretation that determines how the N-S conflict is understood), but all other elements upon which the ‘patriotic narrative’ has been established.

    So, I have revised my understanding of the War Between the States. I have revised my understanding of the 2 Eurpean Wars. I have revised my understanding of the National Socialist movement. And I also (jumping ahead) have revised far more recent history insofar as there is very compelling evidence that the 9/11 narrative is very very shakey. And the implications go directly to what you imagine them to be: enormous collusion by vast powers in the engineering of the present we live in. The structure of the present is seen as undermined.

    Now tell me who to trust? What ‘narrative’ to trust? Who shall I turn to who will reveal to me ‘truth’ that is not simultaneously and deliberately getting into my skull and coercing me to *see* what *they* desire me to see, but for purposes not my own?

    And who are all of you!? Truth-tellers? Or victims of lies?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s