In a message distributed to supporters recently and published on League websites, League of the South president Michael Hill says his supporters will do “whatever it takes” to gain independence. Hill proclaimed this in the context of defending armed conflict with what he called the “U.S. empire.”
Hill began his column by recounting an appearance on the Alan Colmes radio show. On the program, Colmes asked Hill if “Southerners would physically defend ourselves if we were denied our rights, including the right to self-government and self-protection.” Hill’s answer startled Colmes:
He was startled when I answer unequivocally “Yes!” “You mean,” he asked, “you Southerners would take up arms against the US government if they threatened your rights?” He simply could not believe that someone in modern America could contemplate actually defending themselves and their rights by force!
He adds:
The modern American regime seeks to destroy real manhood, especially among us Southerners, because it knows—both instinctively and historically—that it is only real men who will dare stand against tyranny. And if you know your history, you know that Southerners are “defenders of the blood.” We are mostly Anglo-Celts (or we are descended from other European ethnicities that have a martial tradition), so it should not come as a surprise to those who know our history.
In Hill’s mind, time is short, and decisive action may be needed:
When you take stock of the current position of our people and what the future likely has in store for us if things continue as they are, we will be outnumbered, dispossessed, and have no land on which to live, work, worship, and raise our families. That is unacceptable. But it will become the reality unless we stand and do something to stop it.
For nearly twenty years The League of the South has advocated for the survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people. We want our separation from the US empire to be peaceful, if possible. But when the Southern people are rallied to our cause in sufficient numbers to effect a separation, then we will do whatever it takes to secure our independence and establish our own nation based on our own self interests.
Hill seems to think there is a critical mass of Southern white males who are ready to use violence to fight the “U.S. empire” for Southern independence. I have no idea whether or not Hill is serious, but the rhetoric is ominous.
Sounds to me like another one of the last gasps of angry white men who see their hegemony disappearing in coming years. Whites too will become a minority in the US, and seeing how whites have treated other minorities, well, that’s frightful to them. It’s the same stuff causing Republican state legislatures to try to restrict voting rights. Contra the Supreme Court, I think the battle over voting rights is just beginning anew.
Puh-leez, people. It’s just a bunch of talk, and a lot less racially divisive than say, Al Sharprton. No harm no foul.
http://dixienet.org/rights/2013/faq_frequently_asked_questions.php
Blahblahblah. If you can prove harm, I’m all down with yas. But obsessing on these cranks is closer to witch hunting than freedom riding.
So Tom, we should just ignore everything else they say and do, right?
So Tom, we should just ignore everything else they say and do, right?
Pretty much, WT, except to have a chuckle, like the weirdo on the street preaching to the parking meter. That’s my point. They just want attention. Much more like Confederate Civil War re-enactors than NightRiding KKK terrorist fulkheads I’d shoot on sight.
Just talkin’
shspit. Remember the New Black Panthers who actually stood in front of a polling place, talkin’ spit? The ones AG Eric Holder refused to prosecute?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
That sucked, but even that was chickenspit too—although they should have got at least a year just for “send a message” symbolism alone.
League of the South doesn’t even move the reality meter.
What pussies. Some racists. Sounds more like the Kiwanis Club. Or the Rainbow Coalition. ;-P
Cool! Sign me up, Brother Jesse.
…
Ooops. How did that get in here? That last part was from US Congressman Charles B. Rangel [D-NY], that piece of spit.
C’mon, WT. It’s not just these puny League of the South bozos setting us at each others’ throats. Charlie Rangel is a member of the government, the US Congress. Let’s clear the decks of all of ’em. This spit has got to end.
“Careless talk costs lives,” as the old wartime British slogan goes.
“When you take stock of the current position of our people and what the future likely has in store for us if things continue as they are, we will be outnumbered, dispossessed, and have no land on which to live, work, worship, and raise our families. That is unacceptable. But it will become the reality unless we stand and do something to stop it.” Too bad the Native Americans didn’t stick to this from the get-go. I think folks such as Hill are intimidated by both a black president and the burgeoning Latino population. It threatens their illusion of the US as a white nation. And people like this who probably never mingle with the diverse population around them tend to see other ethnic, racial and religious groups as less human, and less entitled, than they perceive themselves to be.
Exactly.
Puh-leez, people. It’s just a bunch of talk, and a lot less racially divisive than say, Al Sharprton. No harm no foul.
http://dixienet.org/rights/2013/faq_frequently_asked_questions.php
Blahblahblah. If you can prove harm, I’m all down with yas. But obsessing on these cranks is closer to witch hunting than freedom riding.
“Careless talk costs lives,” as the old wartime British slogan goes.
So Tom, we should just ignore everything else they say and do, right?
So Tom, we should just ignore everything else they say and do, right?
Pretty much, WT, except to have a chuckle, like the weirdo on the street preaching to the parking meter. That’s my point. They just want attention. Much more like Confederate Civil War re-enactors than NightRiding KKK terrorist fulkheads I’d shoot on sight.
Just talkin’
shspit. Remember the New Black Panthers who actually stood in front of a polling place, talkin’ spit? The ones AG Eric Holder refused to prosecute?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
That sucked, but even that was chickenspit too—although they should have got at least a year just for “send a message” symbolism alone.
League of the South doesn’t even move the reality meter.
What pussies. Some racists. Sounds more like the Kiwanis Club. Or the Rainbow Coalition. ;-P
Cool! Sign me up, Brother Jesse.
…
Ooops. How did that get in here? That last part was from US Congressman Charles B. Rangel [D-NY], that piece of spit.
C’mon, WT. It’s not just these puny League of the South bozos setting us at each others’ throats. Charlie Rangel is a member of the government, the US Congress. Let’s clear the decks of all of ’em. This spit has got to end.
“When you take stock of the current position of our people and what the future likely has in store for us if things continue as they are, we will be outnumbered, dispossessed, and have no land on which to live, work, worship, and raise our families. That is unacceptable. But it will become the reality unless we stand and do something to stop it.” Too bad the Native Americans didn’t stick to this from the get-go. I think folks such as Hill are intimidated by both a black president and the burgeoning Latino population. It threatens their illusion of the US as a white nation. And people like this who probably never mingle with the diverse population around them tend to see other ethnic, racial and religious groups as less human, and less entitled, than they perceive themselves to be.
Exactly.
All hat, no cattle. Thank goodness.
Love it!
Or as ma ole pa use to say: “all wind and no trousers.”
But seriously, it is possible that the approach cited by David M might be tried: the effective rigging of elections.
I doubt that would work either; freedom of speech will take care of that (and in this internet age, it’s very hard to ‘slip something through’ in any country that it democratic to any meaningful extent).
I agree, I don’t see any chance of a 2nd civil war. However, will people get hurt if this movement comes to its stated conclusion? Yes, I believe that is possible. Check out this scene: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/01/americas_scariest_police_chief_supended/
Indeed. Ideas like “we have a ‘right’ to indulge our prejudices against … [how long have you got?!]”** always cause harm of some kind.
** And this is what these people really want: the ‘right’ to exercise their ‘prejudicial desires’, and they are extremely annoyed that the Federal Government and/or Federal Congress and/or Supreme Court says that they can’t do this with impunity. They are also immoderately angry that the duly-elected President is not white … and let’s be honest: whatever his failings may be, he has gone out of his way (too far, some would argue – possibly with some justification) not to alienate or offend white Americans.
I’m curious, Warren. Are you suggesting that the gun rights movement and the white supremacy movement are linked? Or are you suggesting that the confluence of these two makes for a volatile situation? I certainly agree with the latter, and suspect there might be some truth to the former.
Would enough Americans go along with Hill’s desire for Civil War Two? I doubt it; I really doubt it.
And what would the new proposed ‘nation’ be called? Vichy America? New Syria? Perhaps a ‘Name that Nation’ lotto could be set up?
Hill & Co are stark staring bonkers. But, as you say, Warren, the rhetoric is ominous (and very nasty, and clearly racially-motivated: the reference to ‘Anglo-Celts’ – itself a rather interesting choice of label – is all-too-telling).
All hat, no cattle. Thank goodness.
Love it!
Or as ma ole pa use to say: “all wind and no trousers.”
But seriously, it is possible that the approach cited by David M might be tried: the effective rigging of elections.
I doubt that would work either; freedom of speech will take care of that (and in this internet age, it’s very hard to ‘slip something through’ in any country that it democratic to any meaningful extent).
I agree, I don’t see any chance of a 2nd civil war. However, will people get hurt if this movement comes to its stated conclusion? Yes, I believe that is possible. Check out this scene: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/01/americas_scariest_police_chief_supended/
Indeed. Ideas like “we have a ‘right’ to indulge our prejudices against … [how long have you got?!]”** always cause harm of some kind.
** And this is what these people really want: the ‘right’ to exercise their ‘prejudicial desires’, and they are extremely annoyed that the Federal Government and/or Federal Congress and/or Supreme Court says that they can’t do this with impunity. They are also immoderately angry that the duly-elected President is not white … and let’s be honest: whatever his failings may be, he has gone out of his way (too far, some would argue – possibly with some justification) not to alienate or offend white Americans.
I’m curious, Warren. Are you suggesting that the gun rights movement and the white supremacy movement are linked? Or are you suggesting that the confluence of these two makes for a volatile situation? I certainly agree with the latter, and suspect there might be some truth to the former.
Would enough Americans go along with Hill’s desire for Civil War Two? I doubt it; I really doubt it.
And what would the new proposed ‘nation’ be called? Vichy America? New Syria? Perhaps a ‘Name that Nation’ lotto could be set up?
Hill & Co are stark staring bonkers. But, as you say, Warren, the rhetoric is ominous (and very nasty, and clearly racially-motivated: the reference to ‘Anglo-Celts’ – itself a rather interesting choice of label – is all-too-telling).
Sounds to me like another one of the last gasps of angry white men who see their hegemony disappearing in coming years. Whites too will become a minority in the US, and seeing how whites have treated other minorities, well, that’s frightful to them. It’s the same stuff causing Republican state legislatures to try to restrict voting rights. Contra the Supreme Court, I think the battle over voting rights is just beginning anew.