Monday, August 5, 2013

Phone Booth Conventions

When I started attending League of the South conferences and events in the early 2000s, the saying was, "When the League was founded in 1994, you could have held meetings of Southern nationalists in a telephone booth."

By the time I became aware of the League some seven or eight years later, its membership was reportedly in the tens of  thousands.

That was back in the days when League spokesmen said things like, "Southerners are a people, not a race," and League policy was guided by both traditional and Christian principles. There was tremendous respect for our Southern ancestors, particularly those who fought, suffered so much, and died for the cause of independence.

This pleased me because I considered myself to be both a heritage advocate and a Southern nationalist.

I became a member of the League twice, but even when I wasn't, I supported it and defended it from gratuitous attack. I rejected claims that the League was a "racist hate group" because the accusers always labeled as "racist" things that I did not define that way at all. (See here.)

Over the past year or two, though, there have been indicators that the League is changing -- radicalizing. It appears to have abandoned the counsel of wise elders to increasingly embrace the untried ideas of a younger folks.

I'm not one to automatically distrust or reject new ideas. I like innovation. But not to the extent of throwing out the proven, the reliable, the steadfast, as if it is so much trash, and embracing new ideas that are untried and whose effectiveness cannot be known.

In early summer of 2012, the League's radical new direction was brought home to me personally when I was removed without notice from the League's Facebook group following my initiating a discussion that, apparently, was not politically correct. Since then, I have watched from a distance as the League has continued to radicalize, to accept the influence of white nationalists masquerading as Southern nationalists and to slowly develop a an indifference to Southern tradition and Christianity.

The indifference to tradition is seen in the development of a "Southern nationalist flag" (a black saltaire on a white field) to use in demonstrations and protests. The disapproval of this gratuitous change seems to be wide and spreading, particularly among those who have deep respect for Confederate soldiers and their flag.

Michael Cushman of the Southern Nationalist Network, who has led the push for the new flag. reported on Facebook that there has been "push back" against it. He linked to a blog post by white nationalist Brad "Hunter Wallace" Griffin attempting to generate approval for the new flag by trashing good, decent people who oppose it with the label "Confederate Cryptkeepers."

That term now joins the infamous definitionless term, Rainbow Confederates, in the arsenal of insults these people gratuitously use against good, decent Southerners.

Griffin, btw, has asked the burning question on his blog, "Can Christianity Save us?' and by "us" he means the white race. I guess he doesn't know that the purpose of Christianity is to save souls, not races, which, one supposes, makes it irrelevant to him..... 

I participated on the Facebook thread that reported the "push back" on the flag, which has now apparently been deleted, but it reinforced some insights I've only glimpsed in the past. The ridicule and derision aimed at "old" Southern nationalists by "new" ones are worthy of the most vociferous flogger.

What do  they hope to gain by this practice, this tactic? Do they really expect to increase their numbers when prospective members see this sort of verbal abuse aimed at anyone who dares to deviate from the new dogma?

Basically, what you have here is people who claim to love the South and its people and want to see them free -- or preserved, depending on who's talkin'. But what they really love is whiteness, which includes a built-in aversion to non-whiteness ...  and any Southerners who don't share their dedication to whiteness are heaped with scorn and derision.

Gracious.  I simply note that a lot of yankees are white...

Judging by the comments I've received from time to time as my disapproval of the League's radicalization has become known, I'm certainly not the only one dismayed by this change. These folks still support independence for the South, though. There have been suggestions that maybe it's time for a new group, one that remains true to the League's original, recently jettisoned ideals.

Perhaps they're right. It will be interesting to see if the aversion to these changes for change's sake, this contempt for and derision of Southerners, produces more flight from the League, and whether a new movement or organization more attuned to true Southernism will emerge.

Is a return to League national conferences held in phone booths on the horizon? Since phone booths have pretty much disappeared since 1994, perhaps they'll have to use a bus stop shelter.

Images: Wikimedia Commons available under GNU Creative Common License.


  1. CC, I have no desire to get into a debate or argument with you but if what I really loved was 'Whiteness' I would have stayed in Spain and not returned to the Lower South. If I decided right now that what I really loved was 'Whiteness' I would not be living in South Carolina.

  2. One blue sky above us! One ocean lapping on our shores! One earth so green and round! Who could ask for more? And because I love you, I'll give it one more try to show my Rainbow Race! It's too soon to die!

  3. Wow, Jared, with that one insulting post, you have advanced the cause of Southern nationalism by a quantum leap! Good job!

  4. Wow, you could have listened to me way back in the late 90's...

    I told you so!

  5. No, Corey, in the late 90s, you didn't say that in 2012 or so, the League would jettison its older leaders and many of its founding principles -- and radicalize?

    You're a liar and a fraud. I would never listen to you.

  6. I have railed against the LoS for a decade or more old site is gone and I don't have the posts proving they are a racist group. But hell since I am a fraud and liar...would love to know can read about the leagues activity at the SPLC...but you wouldn't believe them either.

  7. No, Corey, I don't believe the SPLC, for reasons I have given many times. They use anonymous sources almost exclusively, which means their claims can't be verified, meaning they could be totally fabricated. And I believe they are.

    SPLC reports aren't written to inform but to sway. They use the language of propaganda, not journalism.

    I know for a fact that they embellish their reports, that they send spies to Southern events pretending to be something they aren't... kind of the real-life version of making fraudulent profile like, oh, say Fenster Henhawk or Tyler Ratke...

    I also know that they do more than embellish -- they flatout lie. When Potok or whoever it was wrote that it was not official League policy to oppose interracial marriage, he was lying. That has never been official League policy, and as far as I know, still isn't, even since the radicalization has started.

    Besides, a lot of what you likely conceptualize as racist probably isn't.

    The League's radicalization is very recent, only in the past year or two.

  8. One other question, Corey. I believe you're married, or you have been. You mentioned your children once or twice.

    Is your wife (or ex-wife, as the case may be) a white woman?

  9. Hi Connie,
    Are you Pro-White or pro White Genocide?

  10. Hi Jimmy Straw. Why don't you noodle around on my websites and see if you can figure it out?

  11. "Christainity is about saving souls, not races"

    As pointed out by South Carolinian Bob Whitaker in "The Mantra" there is a well advanced program to blend the white race out of existence.
    If Christianity wouldn't oppose that then can we presume it wouldn't oppose abortion or murder?
    Would Christianity oppose theft?
    Either we can agree that Christianity opposes immoral behavior, and thus the targeting of the white race, or we define the deliberate elimination of a race as moral.
    This isn't well written. I was a physics/engineering major, not an English major, but I think you can get my question.

  12. Connie,
    That is not an answer, that is an evasion.

    I posted the White Genocide mantra and you censored it.

    Censorship is when you prevent OTHERS from seeing something, you personally do not like.

    Since you don't want people to see the White Genocide Mantra and are publicly advocating racial integration of Whites with non-Whites, its pretty clear you are Pro White Genocide.

  13. Well, Jimmy, that Mantra thingy is only all over the internet. I thought it was spam, so I sent it to the spam filter.

    Go here and scroll down until you see the graphic that's second from the bottom. The red, black, gray and white one with a map on it. I made it. You tell me if you think it advocates white genocide.

    Now listen, you little toad, this is my blog. I rule here, and if I want to censor something, I will. If you don't like that, go play some place else.

  14. She just likes the attention inflammatory articles get.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. .

    Mark Potok or whoever wrote that it WAS official League policy to oppose interracial marriage.

    I personally searched for verification of claim over an extended period of time. I never found it in any official league policy documents. I never heard any League leadership say that in person. Therefore, I have no choice but to conclude that Potok (or whoever) lied. And as far as I know, that hasn't changed, even since the radicalization has started.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.