The United States is a nation known for the patriotism of its citizenry. Indeed, 3 in 4 Americans say that they are at least somewhat patriotic, but the truth is that most Americans alive today have little to no understanding of what it truly means to be an American. And this is a problem across the political spectrum. Yes, it is true that 72% of Republicans consider themselves to be very patriotic while 71% of Democrats are only somewhat patriotic or not patriotic at all, but it is equally true that both sides ultimately reduce the nation to being a shallow veneer, a costume that can be worn by anyone rather than a nation of substance. We are a "nation of immigrants" where it is unacceptable to hold "white supremacist views" because this is a "melting pot" where everyone in the entire world is equal and welcome to stake their claim to all we have.
But what does any of this actually mean? Does the United States—both physically and spiritually—belong to the entire world as much as it belongs to its own citizens? Is a newly arrived immigrant just as much of an American as a ninth-generation citizen? Is being an American simply a costume that one puts on when they set foot on the soil, a costume that can be worn by anyone? Democrats and Republicans may have slightly different answers to these sorts of questions, but both sides almost without exception will proudly lock arms in defense of the idea that this nation was, is, and must always remain the "Mother of Exiles," begging the world to give us their tired, their poor, their huddled masses yearning to breathe free. This, they tell us, is what it means to be an American, the core essence of our nation and culture from the beginning.
In truth, however, this is nothing more than a farce, a 20th century myth meant to rob us of any sense of ownership of the nation and culture. To understand this, one need look no further than the First Congress, which established in 1790 that citizenship was only available to white persons. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford in 1857, saying, "We think [black persons] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." Importantly, this goes well beyond the issue of slavery and thus cannot be reduced to that issue, which the Left loves so very much to use as a bludgeon against anyone opposed to their progressivism. After all, does a nation not have a sovereign right to define who is or is not a citizen? As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1751, "Why increase the Sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red?" Why, indeed? Is it not acceptable to define who are your own and naturally exclude others?
Once we understand what was intended by the Founding Fathers, what came to pass is cast in a new light, specifically what has occurred from 1860 to the present, and, for me, as with so many Americans, this is deeply personal. My great-great-grandfather served in a heavy artillery regiment of the Confederate Army during the Civil War, and, despite what the politically correct hordes would have me say, I take pride in his service, just as I take pride in that my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather served during the War of 1812 as well as under his father's command during the Revolution. While it is acceptable to take pride in the latter two, at least for now, it is generally accepted that I should offer a refrain here regarding the former's service for his state and nation, "It is heritage, not hate." In other words, I am to make the ritualistic gestures to signal to others that I am of the initiated of the cult of "anti-racism." I can perhaps voice limited pride in my ancestor, but I must also simultaneously condemn him along with virtually everyone he knew in terms of all that they did, thought, or said. Even still, the cult would rather me say that I denounce the man himself as well.
But why should I, or anyone, have to condemn my ancestors for anything that they did? It is not as though my great-great-grandfather believed any differently than my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. One fought to establish this nation, and the other fought to preserve it. And, yes, dear reader, you read that correctly—to preserve it. By its very nature, the United States was built on an ideal as expressed in founding documents and the thoughts of the men who built this nation, and, despite what revisionists would have us believe, the so-called "Union" was decidedly against the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers believed. Indeed, who was on the side of the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison—the men who could cite the aforementioned patriots as well as the Bible in favor of their position, or Abraham Lincoln, his progressive abolitionists, his praise from Karl Marx, and his Marxist generals? Slavery may well have needed to be abolished, which many in the Confederacy felt was the case, but the Civil War was not merely about slavery.
At stake by 1860 was the very culture and nature of the nation, and this is why the leftists of today, just as the leftists then, need to silence all who are unwilling to go gently into that good night. Consider the fact that the 13th Amendment needed to be ratified by 27 out of 36 states to abolish slavery, which was simply impossible as the South possessed enough votes to permanently block the amendment. This did not prove to be a problem, however, since Lincoln unconstitutionally used a combination of puppet legislatures and martial law, and, by the end of 1865, all but two of the southern states had voted for ratification. A similar pattern followed with the 14th Amendment with all 11 of the southern states voting to provide citizenship to blacks by the end of 1870, and it was this amendment that would provide the basis for desegregating schools, legalizing abortion, and enacting gay marriage. And again with the 15th Amendment granting non-whites voting rights, which provided the basis for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, with 10 of the 11 voting for ratification. Again, none of these amendments could have passed without the southern states being forced to ratify them, and the Constitution makes no allowance for what was done.
What it meant and what it means to be an American, what America herself means, is what has rested at the core of all the tension and hatred in our politics for more than 150 years. It is this same tension and hatred that has been foisted on nations across the West by the Left through the mass importation of foreigners. This is why the Left needs dissenters to cower until it is too late, and that time is closing fast as the United States is now estimated to become "minority majority" by 2045. People who the Founders said could not even become citizens will soon replace the American population, and, as can be seen below, the country will be nothing like what the Founders, or even modern Republicans, would recognize as America. Communism will come to the United States, not at the end of a bayonet but because Americans abandoned their own culture and nation to appease the enemy. A similar future is currently in store for the English, Irish, French, Germans, Italians, and others.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect of this is the fact that the Left makes no secret of what they are about and why. Take, for example, Stacey Abrams, a Democrat from Georgia, who recently wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs defending the Left's "identity politics," saying, "The marginalized did not create identity politics: their identities have been forced on them by dominant groups." To Abrams's mind, the Left's "identity" coalition of blacks, Hispanics, feminists, and LGBT is natural as each is merely seeking "redress and inclusion," but it never occurs to her, or other leftists, that theirs is a coalition of outsiders and subversives. A society that was never meant to include blacks or Hispanics—foreign populations for all intents and purposes—must nonetheless change for them. A society that had never accepted degenerate ideologies must be changed to suit an exceedingly small minority, even though Thomas Jefferson proposed castrating sodomites as a matter of law.
Thus, it is not their fault that they hate white people with traditional moral values, but it is rather whites' collective fault for having founded this nation for themselves and their own posterity and for accepting biblical morality. We are no more entitled to live our lives as we see fit than our ancestors were. To the Left, all must bow to what they desire. The supposed sin of our Confederate ancestors truly was not slavery, which has been practiced across the world since time immemorial, but it was rather that they dared to try preserving their way of life as their own. When confronted with the reality radical Republicans would fundamentally change society as they knew it, they dared to say they would not submit. When Lincoln chose war to force them to do so, still they refused to bend the knee, to give away what was theirs. That was their sin.
And so too is it the sin of those today who still refuse to submit. One need not call for the restoration of slavery, or to call for the abuse of minorities, or anything else of the sort to be seen as wicked and worthy of the Left's hatred. All one needs to do is believe that what their ancestors built and left to them is theirs to keep and preserve, their natural inheritance as a people united by blood and sweat, not by court rulings or presence on some patch of magical dirt. Americans must be denied anything that might remind them of their true heritage and their true culture. The Left cannot risk people waking up to what has been stolen from them, not just Southerners but all Americans. The narrative must be maintained so that people are afraid to question or to even think for themselves. They must hate themselves and their ancestors, to renounce and denounce all that they are or were meant to be. The rituals of the cult no longer stop at sacrificing your heritage. You must bleed yourself on the altar.
The latest example of this comes to us from Georgia where, on February 6, House Bill 175 was introduced by members of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus—Renitta Shannon (D-Decatur), Derrick Jackson (D-Tyrone), and Sandra Scott (D-Rex)—along with another black representative, Shelly Hutchinson (D-Snellville), and two white representatives, Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur) and Teri Anulewicz (D-Smyrna). The purpose of HB175 is to remove current language from Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the Code of Georgia to allow the removal of the Confederate Memorial Carving in Stone Mountain, as seen below, which is currently protected under Article 1 of the aforementioned chapter. In proposed language, no monument, memorial, plaque, or even informational marker could ever be placed or maintained on public property, whether publicly or privately funded, except in museums or battlefield parks.
These Democrats apparently recognize, however, that removing the Confederate Memorial Carving would be unlikely even if some form of HB175 passed, so they also offer proposed changes to paragraphs of § 50-3-1 that make it a crime to mutilate, deface, defile, or abuse any publicly owned Confederate monument, plaque, marker, or memorial and also provide civil recourse for the owner(s) of any privately owned Confederate monument, plaque, marker, or memorial that is mutilated, defaced, defiled, abused, relocated, removed, concealed, or obscured without authority. Importantly, language could have been proposed to allow the government to do as it sees fit with monuments, but they instead chose to modify them so that criminal actions specifically against Confederate monuments are no longer targeted. In short, if they cannot destroy a cultural landmark through the legislative process, they will try to protect their violent compatriots from facing consequences after resorting to more barbaric means. To exacerbate this, the Stone Mountain Memorial Association would also be gutted by amendment so that the memorial was no longer part of its legally defined purpose and so that Confederate memorabilia could no longer be sold to raise funds (such as would be needed to make repairs after it had been vandalized).
As if this insanity were not enough, § 1-4-20(c) would be repealed entirely as it encourages government officials, boards of education, elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and businesses to participate in programs, displays, and activities as part of Confederate History and Heritage Month. Furthermore, § 50-3-10 would specifically be amended so that it no longer included the Confederate flag on its list as being legal "for decorative or patriotic purposes, either inside or outside of any residence, store, place of business, public building, or school building." This is important as § 50-3-8 forbids the use of federal or state flags, including all flags used by the Confederacy, "for the purpose of advertising, selling, or promoting the sale of any article." Thus, with the proposed amendments, any business owner displaying the Confederate flag could be charged with a misdemeanor for that simple fact alone as the display could be construed as commercial with no patriotic exception allowed.
We see something similar with the new effort to remove John Wayne's name from John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California, because he dared to say things in 1971 that do not comport with leftist ideals regarding race and homosexuality. In New Orleans, following their success in removing Confederate statues, leftists now seek to tear down statues of Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville, the founder of the city, President Andrew Jackson, Chief Justice Edward White, US Senator Henry Clay, and John McDonogh, a wealthy 19th century businessman who left much of his fortune to the city to fund schools for poor whites and freed black children. Then there is the effort to change the state flag of Mississippi because it incorporates the Confederate flag in its design, which some prominent Republicans support. The design embraced by this movement has no basis in history and was only designed in 2016, but that has not stopped Clarksdale Municipal Judge Carlos Moore from ordering that the bogus flag must fly in his courtroom in place of the state flag after the failure of his own lawsuit "to have the Mississippi flag declared an unconstitutional relic of slavery."
The Confederate flag has become a symbol of so much more than the people or events of 1861-1865, and, despite what the Left says, it is no more a symbol of slavery than the United States flag or any other. The flag of the Confederate States of America in all its incarnations is rather a symbol of the United States as she was meant to be, and slavery is only related to that as an accident of history—just as slavery came to a peaceful end in other nations so too could it have ended in the Confederacy, without costing the lives of more than 600,000 men. The "rebel flag" is a symbol of the nation as defined and understood by the Founding Fathers, and this is why it is hated by the Left and their globalist allies in the GOP. They need us to think that we have no unique American culture that is our own. They need us to believe that we are some nebulous "nation of immigrants" so that we will accept their ongoing efforts to displace and replace us entirely. For them to remove us, they must keep us convinced that we have nothing worth preserving, that what we have was never really meant just for us.
We are fighting for our continued existence, and the front lines of this battle are fighting for the freedom to have a culture that is our own and that does not need to be shared with or defined by others. Every time a movie or television show presents European history as multiracial, or a monument or memorial is torn down, or we are told that our symbols cannot even be displayed, we are being told that we are not allowed to have our own culture or heritage. All that belongs to us must be shared with everyone else, and that means forgetting who we are and letting our history be rewritten with someone else as the heroes of our own story. This fight is what the Confederate flag truly represents, and it should fly proudly alongside the 13 Stars, the Gadsden, the Bonnie Blue, and other symbols of what America once was and could be again—not of slavery, but of a nation built by colonists and pioneers, explorers and frontiersmen, for their own God-fearing posterity and no one else's.
Call these Georgia Democrats and respectfully let them know that you do not appreciate their attempt to erase our culture and heritage.
Renitta Shannon - 404.656.7859
Derrick Jackson - 404.656.0220
Sandra Scott - 404.656.0314
Shelly Hutchinson - 404.656.0287
Mary Margaret Oliver - 404.656.0265
Teri Anulewicz - 404.656.0116