Tag Archives: Ku Klux Klan

MORE ABOUT WHITE SUPREMACY IN THE UNITED STATES

Rush Limbaugh does it, Sean Hannity does it, Tucker Carlson does it, Bill O’Reilly does it and most every conservative pundit and talking head does it. What do they do? Before beginning a discussion on the recent demonstrations and protests such as Charlottesville, Boston, and Berkley, all folks participating in the discussion must first denounce white supremacy, white nationalism, neo-Nazism. For to not do so, would signal to the left in this country that you are not only a hater, but a white supremacy/white nationalist/neo-nazi yourself.  And once the left labels you as such, lack of evidence notwithstanding, you’re done.

As I indicated in my August 16 article, entitled, “Condemn the white groups first, forget the rest,” the citizens of the United States of America have been conditioned by the left that racism by whites or white groups, particularly white nationalists/white supremacists if the sin that can possible be committed on the planet, and anyone found guilty of this sin must die.

If a white nationalist group and a left wing radical group such as Antifa which has its roots in the old Occupy Wall Street movement and is a communist based organization, collide, you sure can’t blame both sides and let it go at that. You must first denounce the white supremacists/white nationalists/neo-Nazis as the biggest threat this country faces, forget about Kim Jung Un and a nuclear Korea, or the Islamic terrorist state of Iran and their continued violations of the treaty former President, Barack Obama made with them.

I also mentioned in my previous article that I had heard some talking head indicating that the number of white supremacists/white nationalists/neo-Nazis in this country numbered about 100,000. Plus, if there are regular cross-burnings and lynchings taking place in the country, I haven’t heard about it, and I live in central Alabama, the Birmingham area, to be exact. Furthermore, I’m not hearing of any Jewish people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps, have you? If cross burnings, lynchings, and the imprisonment of Jews are common place in this country, wouldn’t CNN, MSNBC, or other left-leaning media outlets be broadcasting it instead of Russia, Russia, Russia, and first lady, Melania Trump’s choice of shoes?

My point is that I don’t see these white supremacist/white nationalist/neo-Nazi groups as that prevalent or dangerous. Could they become dangerous and a threat to Americans? I’m sure, if provoked enough, they could. But right now, Antifa, the MS-13 gangs, and even Black Lives Matter are a bigger domestic threat to Americans than any of the various white supremacist/white nationalist/neo-Nazi groups. And let’s not forget ISIS or also known as the Islamic State, which had its origins in the vacuum created in Iraq when former President Barack Obama pulled troops out of that country. To date, ISIS is the evilest terrorist group on the planet, and they have a presence in the United States. Also worth mention are the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood (a favorite of former President Barack Obama), and Al Qaeda.

While we are all familiar with the Black Panthers, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, and now MS-13 and Antifa, before the Charlottesville melee and “Unite the Right,” except for the Ku Klux Klan, I couldn’t name any individual white supremacist groups. Once again, they are just not that prevalent and practically no incidents of a national news level can be contributed to these groups.

We have recently discovered that the son of Vice Presidential nominee, Tim Kaine, is a member of Antifa, and was arrested at the Minnesota State Capitol in March after disrupting a pro-Trump rally (According to Gateway Pundit). Children, even raised in the best of homes often go astray as did young Linwood Kaine. But, can you imagine if it had been discovered that the son or daughter of a prominent Republican was participating in a so-called White Nationalist group. CNN, MSNBC, and other MSM outlets would have a field day. Most likely, half of their time would be spent on “Russia, Russia, Russia, and the other half spent on the Republican’s son or daughter. And this would take place after the prominent Republican condemned, condemned, and condemned the actions of his offspring. To date, I am not aware That Tim Kaine has condemned the behavior of his son.

It’s hard to find statistics on White Nationalist groups. Cursory Google searches virtually turn up nothing. While searches for statistics on international terrorism, including acts committed on U.S. soil by individuals linked to foreign terrorist organizations, yields a gold mine, according to Sarah Tate Chambers in an August 17, 2017 article in lawfareblog.com. In Search of Data on White Supremacist Violent Crime.

Left wing smear merchant, Slate.com, in an article entitled “The Long List of Killings Committed by White Extremists Since the Oklahoma City Bombing,” published on August 14, 2017, tells us that in the two decades since Timothy McVeigh’s attack killing 168 in Oklahoma City, the Southern Poverty Law Center has created a list of thirty-five deadly attacks, rending 74 victims, carried or believed to be carried out by white extremists. You can read the list for yourself. The Long List of Killings Committed by White Extremists Since the Oklahoma City Bombing.  Key words here are “carried or believed to be carried out.” We don’t know if all of these killings were white supremacist based. Furthermore, these are single incidents carried by either one person or only a few people It’s not surprise that Slate pontificates on how egregious this is, thirty-five attacks in twenty years. I wonder if Slate has ever written about the bloodshed in the south side of Chicago that occurs on a nightly basis where scores of black lives have been taken and continue to be taken.

In an article on revealnews.org, a piece was written outlining an interview Reveal’s host, Al Letson had with known and admitted White Nationalist, Richard Spencer. Of course, to the left, Spencer is Adolph Hitler incarnate. Without dissecting the article, my take is that Richard Spencer indeed believes that those of white European descent are superior to those who are not. He doesn’t believe in the mixing of the races and believes that the so-called mixing has not worked well. Thus, he claims to have a long-term dream of an “ethnostate,” a territory set aside for people of European descent.

The piece on Reveal links to another article on Mother Jones, another far left smear merchant site. Among other things, the article in Mother Jones indicates that Spencer envisions a future for the United States along the lines of a “renewed Roman Empire,” a dictatorship where the main criteria for citizenship would be whiteness. Meet the White Nationalist Trying to Ride the Trump Train to Lasting Power.

While this Mother Jones article is replete with lies and half-truths, particularly about President Trump, the writing does not paint Richard Spencer as a violent or otherwise dangerous person. And if he were, I have no doubt that Mother Jones would get that in there somehow, or perhaps devote the entire piece to it. If he walked into a restaurant where I was dining, would I be scared that he would pull out a gun and start shooting? No. Would I want him seated at a table or booth next to me? No, again. If I were a non-white, how would I feel. I can’t answer that because I am white. But I think I would feel much the same way. Spencer has extreme weird philosophies that are not shared by most Americans. In other words, they are out of the mainstream of thought. But again, there is no indication that he is violent or dangerous. And for his statement in Reveal that he sees “the election of President Trump as a precursor to white identity politics becoming an overt and welcome part of mainstream conversation in America for the first time,” is a red herring. How many pot-smoking, anti-establishment former “long haired hippie-type,” baby-boomers saw the election of former President, Bill Clinton, as way to re-establish their sixties’ radicalism? How many supporters of former President, Barack Obama, felt that, as America’s first black president, even though he was only half-black, they could undeniably declare their hatred for the United States of America and be given credence?

I can’t envision the current White Nationalist/neo-Nazi movement as anything to quake and shake over. In Charlottesville, the group “Unite the Right” had a permit to protest both Friday night and Saturday. It wasn’t until Saturday when Antifa and Black Lives Matter got into the mix that things deteriorated and one woman was killed. Yes, “Unite the Right” carried tiki torches and shouted pro-Nazi rhetoric on Friday night, and did the same, sans the tiki torches on Saturday. Had these white nationalists been left alone to protest the removal of Robert E Lee’s statute and the renaming of that park, I firmly believe they would have “done their thing” and dispersed.

Antifa has participated in many demonstrations where violence and the destroying of property and the injuring human beings was intentional. So has Black Lives Matter. And to the left, these groups should be given accolades because they dared to take on white nationalists who were legally parading around and chanting slogans, but not destroying property or injuring other people.

The average liberal might say to me, “the white nationalists, while marching in Klan-like fashion and chanting pro-Nazi rhetoric, even though they were not destroying property or physically injuring people, were offending many people to the point where their victims could be emotionally damaged for life.” Cry me a river. While I certainly don’t desire to downplay that people can be damaged by emotional abuse, particularly when the abuse comes from a loved one such as a parent or a spouse, or by situations of constant, over the years, bullying by peers or classmates, a couple of hours of listening to chants where you might be the subject of those chants, especially when you can leave the scene and not listen or watch anymore, pales in comparison.

Is it a sin to hate, even if the hate doesn’t manifest itself in the form of physical violence? Absolutely. Is it a sin to offend someone/hurt someone’s feelings? Absolutely again. We’re all going to be judged on these things one fine day, though. In the meantime, why are we wasting all this media time on white nationalist groups when most people can’t name even one specific group, and violence collectively by these groups doesn’t really exist? When, on the other hand, groups such as Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the Black Panthers, ISIS, etc. have histories of destroying property and injuring people, but the left, including the MSM, and even some conservatives tout these groups as being admirable?

Facebooktwitter

TEAR THEM DOWN OR LEAVE THEM UP? – PART THREE

The first two parts of this series were very much emotionally driven by yours truly. Part 3 will conclude the series, and offer facts in support of my position that Confederate monuments and memorials should remain in place.

According to an article on townhall.com, written by Jack Kerwick, on May 24, 2017, many of his readers, including conservatives, called for the taking down of Confederate monuments. Their reasons boiled down to the following:

  1. The Confederates fought in defense of slavery.
  2. Slavery is immoral.
  3. Therefore, Confederates were immoral.
  4. Immoral behavior should never be publicly honored.
  5. Thus, by way of 3 and 4 above, Confederates should not be publicly honored.

According to Kerwick, while slavery was a major factor in the fighting of the War between the States, number 1 above is incorrect. Most Confederate soldiers, as well as prominent generals, including, most notably, Robert E. Lee, did not own slaves by the time that the war was raging. Kerwick also writes that both the laity and scholars realized that the complexity of the American Civil War defied all attempts to reduce it to such simple-minded, one-dimensional caricatures of the sort advanced by those who would attribute to Confederates, a single, nefarious motive: the love for slavery. Or the desire to do evil as I pointed out in Part 2.

Next, in his article, Kerwick gets rather analytical. The second premise that slavery is immoral is irrelevant. Without premise 1 above, you cannot reach premise 3. Thus, the immorality of the Confederates cannot be established through 1 and 2, 3 cannot be concluded, and thus, 4 and 5 cannot be adhered to.

For those folks who will have none of the above, those folks whose hatred has so overwhelmed them to the point that anyone who lived in the south at the time of the Civil War is, to an extreme, anti-American, immoral, and anti-people of color, are not going to listen to reason and will continue their barrage of hate. In fact, in some instances, I have read between the lines and have detected a hatred for the south and those of us who have lived in the south all our lives. While I can’t look into a person’s heart and interpret what’s in it, I can read their words and many of their words can be interpreted as overwhelming hate.

Kerwick asks us to assume the above, that every single Southern man and woman who took up the cause of secession was committed to perpetuating the institution of slavery, and that the Confederate symbols are monuments to “White Supremacy.”

If Confederate symbols deserve to be purged from the public, then so do virtually all the symbols of Western civilization.

The roots of what today is recognized as Western civilization are to be found in ancient Greece. Though they weren’t the first of the West’s philosophers, Plato and Aristotle enjoy the distinction of being among the greatest. Western philosophy, and even Christian theology would be inconceivable without these two. Yet even Plato’s ideal Republic included slaves, and Aristotle articulated a defense of “natural slavery,” the enslavement of those who by nature were suited to be slaves.

Since slavery is immoral, then the reasoning of the anti-Confederates demands that Plato and Aristotle be given the same treatment as Generals Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, and every other prominent Confederates. Also, all public commemorations of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and many other Founding Fathers involved with slavery are immoral as well.

Thus, in addition to monuments and statues commemorating prominent Confederates, states, cities, schools, streets, and parks named after this nation’s Founding Fathers should also be removed or renamed.

Kerwick cites many other examples, and if those examples were followed, the United States of America would be transformed into something unrecognizable. The left, though, would probably like that because they hate this country and anyone living in this country who does not agree with them on the issues.

According to Kendall Will Sterling, in an article dated July 27, 2015, on richmond.com, the story these symbols tell is more nuanced than what we typically hear. It is said that the South seceded to perpetuate slavery, and yet six slave states sent men to die for the North, and the Southern states rejected an offer from Lincoln that would have made slavery permanent in exchange for their return to the Union. While many Northern states had ended slavery by 1860, many had also passed, “black laws,” a forerunner of Jim Crow, which placed tight restrictions on blacks and often forbade them from even living in the state. Furthermore, West Virginia was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1863, and slaves in that and other Northern states had to wait until 1865, two years after the Emancipation Proclamation, for their freedom.

Sterling concludes that slavery was more than just a Southern problem; it was an American problem.

Instead of removing all vestiges of the Confederacy, Sterling suggests that we use these statues and memorials to start a new conversation, one that acknowledges the roles of everyone involved and offers hope for our nation and its people, both black and white.

Fat chance that any liberals are going to agree to implementing any such conversations. The left is not interested in solving problems, they just want to destroy the United States of America and all those people within it who don’t toe their line.

Most of us recognize Nathan Bedford Forest as a slave owner and the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. But are we aware that Forrest’s 45 slaves rode and fought alongside him as equals, and that their loyalty was such that they remained with him even after he gave them their freedom papers. Do people also know that the Klan’s original purpose was to serve as a volunteer police force against rampant crime in the occupied South. Also, in 1870, when the Klan morphed into a terrorist organization, Forrest resigned and ordered the group disbanded. Softened by an encounter with his God, Forrest spent his final years advocating for political and social advancement for black Americans. When he died in 1877, more than 3,000 blacks lined up to pay their respects as part of his funeral procession.

Sterling further suggests that we let the statue of Robert E. Lee, and the schools that bear his name, remind us all of a Sunday in 1865 at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, where Lee worshiped when in Richmond. That Sunday, with the wounds of the war still raw, a black man walked down the aisle of St. Paul’s and knelt to receive Communion. The whites in attendance weren’t certain if they could, or should, take Communion. For a moment, no one knew what to do. Then came a rustle, the scrape of boots on the floorboards, and the congregation looked up to see Lee walking down the aisle to kneel beside that black man, by his own example teaching those around him the way of respect.

The plight of men such as Nathan Bedford Forrest reminds me of the Apostle Paul. Paul, formerly called Saul, was a persecutor of Christians. On a journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, Saul was stuck down and blinded by God because God was calling him to do his work, the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world as it was known at that time. Saul became the Apostle Paul, revered and studied by Christians all over the world.

I’m against the taking down and/or the demolition of monuments and/or memorials erected to honor prominent Confederates. While I do acknowledge that there are two distinct sides, I don’t want this section of our history to be diminished.

The Civil War should be taught in schools and should be remembered, lest we ever again make the mistake of splitting up the great Unites States of America.

Will anyone on the left plus those conservatives who believe that these memorials should come down, read my three articles and attempt to examine both sides? Of course not. And if any liberals do take a chance and decide to read what I have written, will they acknowledge and respect my writings and my opinions? Of course not, once again. I will be subjected to the continued ridicule and hate that liberals have shown me in the past.

Why do I continue, you may ask? Because I like doing this. Simple, but true.

Note: Here are links to articles where the information outlined above was obtained.

In Defense of Honoring the Confederacy: A Response to the Cultural Cleansers.

Pro and Con, Should Confederate Monuments be Removed.

 

Facebooktwitter