League of the South Hopes to Create Friendly First Impression at Immigration Rally

Or perhaps they should call it, the Anti-Demographic Displacement Rally. Or the Rally to Prevent White Genocide.
According to the League of the South, white nationalists of various sorts will be in Uvalda, GA on Saturday to “rally against our displacement as a people.” League president Michael Hill told white nationalist radio host Rodney Martin that illegal immigration will lead to “anti- white genocide” if it remains unchecked. Uvalda is the home of Paul Bridges, mayor of the town and defender of immigrants who provide much farm related work in the region. Called a “scalawag” by the Georgia League president, Bridges has become a focal point of League anger.Thus, the League heads to the little George town of Uvalda to make their stand.
They want their stand in Uvalda to be inviting to those who might be attracted to their cause. To present a “friendly first impression” of white nationalism, the League has promoted some guidelines for protesters, including a dress code:

No t-shirts. Shirts must be tucked in. Belt needed. No belt buckles with pictures, flags or messages. The same goes for hats. No old or holey jeans. No re-enactment paraphernalia. Do not bring flags or signs – we will provide these. Please be ready to smile and make a positive, friendly first impression of the League of the South and Southern nationalism!

Instead of the Confederate battle flag, the group will sport the Georgia secession flag and a new flag which is a black cross on white background.
LoSprotestflags
 
Creative.
The new black cross flag is designed to be the antithesis of the American colors. Watch:

Very European. Opposition to forced equality.
See especially the conversation where John describes the differences between their black cross and the colors of the American flag.  At 4:19, he says:

John: It’s a complete rejection of course of the red, white, and blue which was borrowed from the French revolution. You know, equality, democracy, fraternity, you know, liberty
Michael Cushman: Propositional nation.
John; Right, it was a nation built upon a philosophy, or something of that nature, and this is a complete rejection of that, obviously.

By proposition nation, Cushman is referring to the League of the South rejection of Lincoln’s Gettysburg statement that the United States was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
So when the Michael Peroutka’s League of the South displays this new rejection of the red, white and blue, the group’s protesters will not be advocating for the American view, but rather the Confederate view.

16 thoughts on “League of the South Hopes to Create Friendly First Impression at Immigration Rally”

  1. And of course the French revolution came 10 years after the American version. And the influence was the other way round. French leaders were inspired by the actions of the new nation. And PS. The American revolution was mostly fought by the French navy and marines. It bankrupted the monarchy and was a direct cause of the French revolution of 1789-1799.
    The absolute ignorance is breathtaking.

  2. I don’t understand why Lincoln’s view should be dubbed the “American view”. Was Robert Lee less American than Lincoln?
    And if Lincoln really thought that Southerners were created equal to Yankees, shouldn’t that have stopped him to kill Southerners? (Perhaps not. He had no problem with killing Yankees either, when he felt it was necessary.)
    In any way, the term “proposition nation” wasn’t invented by Lincoln, but by 20th century immigrants which promoted their own agenda (at the cost of the natives).

    1. Ummmm….nearly a hundred years before, Jefferson wrote the text that supposedly validated the reason for the break with Great Britain: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Timewise, the ‘American view’ was stated before southern states believed they could secede. Don’t forget that Jefferson, and the ‘grammarian’ of the Constitution Madison, repudiated the said ‘American view’ with the Kentucky & Virginian Resolutions. Another great example of the ‘continuity’ of American thought ha! Robert Lee believed being a Virginian was more important than an American Union, so the answer is yes, in a political context. Andrew Jackson threatened to send federal troops to South Carolina when Calhoun ranted about interposition. Killing aside and adopting your logic, if Southerners believed themselves to be equal to northerners, why did they believe they could enslave people of color not as humans but mere property? Ahhh…because the Constitution said so. Yes, that great declaration of liberty. And yes…that was the view of many northerners, or ‘natives’ as you described them, or ’19th century immigrants’ as we could agree on. The LOTS statement referred to is the Agrarian movement re-stated and romanticized. What strikes me about this statement from LOTS is the conditions under which they are stated politically: no one speaks for us, no one represents us, and we will do something about it. Not very good conditions that bode well for future resolution of the immigration issue I’d say.
      I know all about historical context, the equality of slaves vs. whites, and Jefferson’s views, etc. The LOTS statement referred to is purely a reactionary view; “phony diversity” and “ravages of multiculturalism” to use two examples of appealing to romantic ideals such as Owsley’s in the face of ‘ravages” and “phony” and other politically-charged language.

  3. Nice flag. Stark white background with the black X reminding us that the south wouldn’t be what it is today without the forced labor of millions of black slaves.

    1. And rotting along with the rest of the country due to disfunctional egalitarianism. Noone is literally equal, whether individuals or groups. Multiculturalism does not work so why does this government insist on tormenting everyone with it. You literally have to deny and give up your family ties, linguistic ties, religious/spiritual ties, cultural ties, and shared heritage… everything that makes a person human. Communists may love to wallow in degrading humanity in such ways, but normal people resist.

      1. But there is a problem with clinging to ‘family / cultural / etc ties’ (however much we might – rightly or wrongly – value them). See Luke 14 : 25 – 27 (or other similar sayings).
        Failure to move beyond one’s ‘comfort zone’ compromises one’s humanity. People who stick only to what they know often become complacent, pinched and mean.
        (BTW, I fail to see how you have answered Carol’s point on slavery, ‘T J’.)

  4. Nice flag. Stark white background with the black X reminding us that the south wouldn’t be what it is today without the forced labor of millions of black slaves.

    1. And rotting along with the rest of the country due to disfunctional egalitarianism. Noone is literally equal, whether individuals or groups. Multiculturalism does not work so why does this government insist on tormenting everyone with it. You literally have to deny and give up your family ties, linguistic ties, religious/spiritual ties, cultural ties, and shared heritage… everything that makes a person human. Communists may love to wallow in degrading humanity in such ways, but normal people resist.

      1. But there is a problem with clinging to ‘family / cultural / etc ties’ (however much we might – rightly or wrongly – value them). See Luke 14 : 25 – 27 (or other similar sayings).
        Failure to move beyond one’s ‘comfort zone’ compromises one’s humanity. People who stick only to what they know often become complacent, pinched and mean.
        (BTW, I fail to see how you have answered Carol’s point on slavery, ‘T J’.)

  5. And of course the French revolution came 10 years after the American version. And the influence was the other way round. French leaders were inspired by the actions of the new nation. And PS. The American revolution was mostly fought by the French navy and marines. It bankrupted the monarchy and was a direct cause of the French revolution of 1789-1799.
    The absolute ignorance is breathtaking.

  6. I don’t understand why Lincoln’s view should be dubbed the “American view”. Was Robert Lee less American than Lincoln?
    And if Lincoln really thought that Southerners were created equal to Yankees, shouldn’t that have stopped him to kill Southerners? (Perhaps not. He had no problem with killing Yankees either, when he felt it was necessary.)
    In any way, the term “proposition nation” wasn’t invented by Lincoln, but by 20th century immigrants which promoted their own agenda (at the cost of the natives).

    1. Ummmm….nearly a hundred years before, Jefferson wrote the text that supposedly validated the reason for the break with Great Britain: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Timewise, the ‘American view’ was stated before southern states believed they could secede. Don’t forget that Jefferson, and the ‘grammarian’ of the Constitution Madison, repudiated the said ‘American view’ with the Kentucky & Virginian Resolutions. Another great example of the ‘continuity’ of American thought ha! Robert Lee believed being a Virginian was more important than an American Union, so the answer is yes, in a political context. Andrew Jackson threatened to send federal troops to South Carolina when Calhoun ranted about interposition. Killing aside and adopting your logic, if Southerners believed themselves to be equal to northerners, why did they believe they could enslave people of color not as humans but mere property? Ahhh…because the Constitution said so. Yes, that great declaration of liberty. And yes…that was the view of many northerners, or ‘natives’ as you described them, or ’19th century immigrants’ as we could agree on. The LOTS statement referred to is the Agrarian movement re-stated and romanticized. What strikes me about this statement from LOTS is the conditions under which they are stated politically: no one speaks for us, no one represents us, and we will do something about it. Not very good conditions that bode well for future resolution of the immigration issue I’d say.
      I know all about historical context, the equality of slaves vs. whites, and Jefferson’s views, etc. The LOTS statement referred to is purely a reactionary view; “phony diversity” and “ravages of multiculturalism” to use two examples of appealing to romantic ideals such as Owsley’s in the face of ‘ravages” and “phony” and other politically-charged language.

Comments are closed.