Who’s Posterity Are They Talking About?

Preamble

Posterity:

1) all future generations

Type of: generation
group of genetically related organisms constituting a single step in the line of descent

2) all of the offspring of a given progenitor

we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity

Synonyms:
descendants

Type of:

biological group a group of plants or animals

My Roots Are This Nation’s Roots

My family moved to this country before it was a union. I can trace my roots back to the 1690’s in North Carolina, arriving from Scotland. In the late 1700’s, my family obtained a meager bit of land in Alabama (while it was still a territory… before statehood). They worked that land, surviving many hardships and early deaths. Yet they continued to prosper and grow the family, just like you saw in Little House on the Prairie. My family built that state. My family built the south. My family built this nation. My roots are this nation’s roots.

 In all the work my Dad did to trace our lineage, never once did he mention fighting for slavery, nor did my family own slaves. These southern men fought against unconstitutional aggression from a murderous, tyrannical, thieving Empire. These men fought to protect themselves and their families from the bloodthirsty onslaught by northerners who had no business coming into their lands to kill, plunder and devastate for Empire. I had many relatives that fought and died for the Confederacy. Not a single one fought and died for “slavery”. As a matter of fact, many despised slavery because it caused wages to be artificially low. Who would pay a decent wage when they could have the work done by slaves? (One could look at today’s prison workers to see the idea at work)

The only law that was applicable was The Constitution. Yet there was no constitutional reason for Lincoln’s actions. But there was constitutional rationale for the south to secede. If anyone was breaking any laws, it was Lincoln, by starting a war and invading lands that were constitutionally protected to secede if that was their choice.

Why is the Constitution’s Preamble significant?

It lays out the rationale for the Constitution. I chose the one word to highlight, because I can lay claim to that word and its meaning. As a man whose family built this country and has fought and died for this country over hundreds of years, I can explain what “posterity” in this context means. It means my genetic offspring. It means my ancestors and their children and their children and ME and my children. It also represents my wife’s family who are descendents of the Adams Presidents.

Very few can make these claims and if there is anyone that has a right to speak out about current events intent on erasing our heritage, by God, it is us. And we make no apologies for it.

Many people come here and LEGALLY become citizens. Fine and dandy. I am a product of a person coming here from post WWII Germany (marrying my father who was stationed there and met her). She is an American now. She isn’t “German-American”. She is American, plain and simple. For that matter, I welcome anyone willing to live and work and become Americans. I especially welcome white people to counter the influx of other races intentionally meant to water down the white race majority and to cause further discord and racial tensions. But do it legally and assimilate to become what my mother has become.

But when we have corrupt officials, who, in many cases, can not trace any lineage at all to the founding of this country and are dead set on destroying the very basis for what they now benefit from (and are actively hijacking), well, frankly, it pisses me off. People are brought here with no expectation of assimilation. They fly their flags, they speak their foreign languages and we simply make it easier for them to have their own foreign little countries within our borders.

We are expected to acquiesce and accommodate them, not the other way around. We are expected (and forced) to pay for their free college and health care (when I don’t get those luxuries). We are expected to lie prostrate and allow them to intimidate us, steal from us and kill us. We are expected to sit back and be politically correct as they take away our heritage and honor. We are expected to believe the “professional historians” as they outright lie and perpetuate the false memes they are brainwashed with. We are expected to allow the media to form false narratives that are directly opposed to truth and the Founder’s (my ancestors) dreams/goals for this nation. We are expected to allow their lies to destroy the very essence of what the illegal infiltrators and system-abusers now take advantage of, yet belittle us while taking that advantage. We are expected to simply sit back and allow our posterity to suffer at the hands of these ungrateful government protected hijackers, who only want a handout, taking advantage of the system that my family built.

Well, to hell with that.

h/t Preamble to the U.S. Constitution @ vocabulary.com

Important to Read:

Is The Civil War Over?

Historical Ignorance

Cat Lady Logic

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the right hand panel of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

Comment Policy:

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post. 1st time commenters must receive Admin approval, but have free reign after that.


All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

What Do You Mean, “Destroy Institutional Marriage”?

Pride-2010-Mock-Sex-Acts-LG

In my post, “Gay Marriage Now: What’s Next?“, I wrote about the gay agenda and the Marxist (Jewish) attempts to normalize various repulsive behaviors that any sane, rational person understands is incompatible with healthy societal standards. As much as they want the world to believe that having sex with children is acceptable, or “natural and normal”, most people know that it isn’t.

2A03D56C00000578-3140610-Come_together_People_display_placards_as_they_celebrate_the_US_S-a-1_1435409446353However, political correctness rules today’s society and we have apparently lost our bearings, desperately trying to appease this gay minority (as we do all minorities) by proving that we aren’t superior or racist… that we are accepting of men sticking their penises up another man’s anus and calling it “love”. We celebrate attacks against people and/or businesses that want to distance themselves from such reviling actions for any reason, most especially religious ones. We hardly even turn our heads away from putrid displays in public, then endorse jail time for two people of the opposite sex having sex on the beach. (My point is not to promote sex on the beach in public by anyone)

To me, beyond the depravity and abhorrent, in-your-face gross displays (which is bad enough), there is an ultimate agenda being pursued. I wrote in that article:

You need to understand that this entire movement (trans, gays, pedophilia, bestiality acceptance and normalization) is an agenda to accomplish several things, but especially one crucial target: destroy Institutional Marriage.

gay-pride-at-its-finest-18531

By manipulating the public’s acceptance of crass, vile, distasteful behaviors, they have set the stage to minimize and negate traditional marriage and the family unit. Having pride in being gay (no matter the cause of gayness, be it genetic, psychological, societal pressures, wanting to fit in somwhere because you don’t fit in otherwise, “acceptance” or maybe even vaccines, whatever) isn’t the issue. Love isn’t the issue.

The issue is destruction of the family. And it didn’t take the US government elected officials long to jump on their law making degrading platforms to introduce legislature to strike “husband” and “wife” from Federal Law.

Wasting little time, Democrats in Congress are already proposing legislation to replace the words “husband” and “wife” in the federal code with gender-neutral language reflective of the Supreme Court’s June 26 pronouncement that married couples in the United States need no longer consist of a male and a female.

On July 8, Representative Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act, which she said in a press release “would strike the use of gendered terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from the federal code and replace them with more gender-neutral terms, such as ‘spouse’ or ‘married couple.’”

“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said.

In other words, the U.S. Code’s use of “husband” and “wife” — until recently, uncontroversial terms for the parties to the millennia-old practice of matrimony — is now evidence of bigotry that must be expunged.

America, you have so much to look forward to

silly-gay-men

You must understand that this is all inter-related.

ConfederateToSodomiteFlag

They are attacking white people (and the black population is falling for it like fools) , primarily southern whites, and especially religious southern whites (who tend to keep traditional family values forefront in their lives). Black families used to be the same, but now they have the largest single parent family segment in our society, which further leads to the deterioration we are experiencing right now.

So when you embrace the putrid displays and approve of the meme of white privilege/supremacy, know that you are simply obliterating normal, healthy, family morality and principles. You might as well find a man’s ass to stick your penis in and go all the way.

If you really want the full experience, find a black ass.

h/t Disenchanted Scholar and New American

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the right hand panel of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

Comment Policy:

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post. 1st time commenters must receive Admin approval, but have free reign after that.


All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Where Are The Rebels?

rebel_with_a_cause

I am a Rebel. Always have been. Seldom have I gone with the mainstream because I have my own opinion and desires. Nor am I afraid to speak about those opinions and desires. This is not to say that I am simply contrary just to be an asshole (although some of you may disagree). Its just that I learned a long time ago that if I don’t believe in myself, speak loudly about that belief, then I end up complacent and compliant to others with an agenda that is not conducive to my betterment.

What is a rebel (in a nutshell)?

A rebel stands up for what they believe in, no matter what anybody else says. They are independent, but enjoy socializing with like-minded people. A rebel is honest, speaking truth to power. They question everything until they know the truth. They must speak their mind, especially truth to power. Although they are strong-willed, they are able to learn and modify their perspective when truth is revealed. They don’t care what others think of them and do not conform to another politically correct viewpoint just to get along. They are what they are and are proud of it.

**FILE**The University of Mississippi has been disassociated for several years from the

**FILE**The University of Mississippi has been disassociated for several years from the “Rebel” flag, shown being waved by Ole Miss fans at a 1995 football game at Oxford, Miss.. However, efforts last year by coaches to help change the state flag which bears the symbol within its borders failed in a statewide vote. Little if any fallout over the vote has affected the school’s recruiting efforts among black athletes. (AP Photo/Tannen Maury, File)

OleMissRebelsGrowing up in Mississippi, being a rebel meant many things, including being an Ole Miss fan. Colonel Reb was a favorite icon for the school (along with the Dixie flag). You could see thousands of those flags waved at a football game by all colors and creeds. Political correctness has changed all of that. The Rebels aren’t really rebellious any more (now they are “bears“, for Pete’s sake). The authorities of that school have caved to the few that demand their compliance (in spite of huge popular support of Col Reb).

In 2003, Colonel Reb was removed from the sidelines at Ole Miss athletic events as the on-the-field mascot[1] due to its racial connotations as a Confederate soldier or antebellum Southern plantation owner.[2] A contest was held in which fans were invited to design a replacement. The athletic department chose two finalists, Rebel Bruiser and Rowdy Rebel,[3] and invited fans to vote on their favorite. The limited fan response[3] prompted the administration to cancel the poll. Many still supported Colonel Reb as the school mascot.[2]

In 2010, Ole Miss students voted to choose a new mascot. The election did not allow the option of reinstating Colonel Reb as the official mascot of Ole Miss, in spite of sizable popular support..

(Believe me when I say that there are many pissed off Ole Miss Fans… they haven’t all fallen for the politically correct directives.)

We are seeing similar attempts to blur history with other political escapades in the south.

It seems to be the same all over the country.

Or is it?

civil-war-rebels

It appears that in some places, the rebel identity will not die. Maybe college football money whores fall to political correctness, but many southerners will not let it die (to the consternation of those who believe the lies). I tried to help people understand this rebellious nature in that article, by explaining my thoughts about the reason for secession and the fight that southerners took against Empire and Central government control.

But are we too mindless to see the organized, purposeful Psyop to Neuter The Rebel?

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

On a profound level, mass shootings and assassinations (whether staged or not) are used to define the ever-present “lone assassin” as the REPRESENTATION AND THE SYMBOL OF WHAT THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL IS.

You’re a separate and distinct individual? An outsider? Watch out. Overnight, you could turn into a raging killer.

You happen to know an outsider, a loner? He’s dangerous. He doesn’t live by the rules the rest of us accept. He’s deranged. Stay away from him. Shun him. And if you see the slightest indication of (insert your own term here), report him to the authorities.

“See a rebel, say something,” to paraphrase the DHS motto.

Any human being who has courage, intelligence, eyes to see, and a determination to express his power in uncompromising terms can now be redefined as a potential threat to the stability of society—if he criticizes the prevailing Authority.

Jon goes on to explain how several historical events and media portrayals have been used isaac-likes-james-dean-rebel-without-a-causeto make the rebel a caricature… seeming like a loon or a joke. These powers deem rebels as crazies, haters, druggies, criminals, etc. Always a negative construct to counter the rebellious spirit. It is happening as we speak with too many willing participants ready to lie in regards to easily researched truths.

Strangely, there are those who try to take the mantle of the rebel because it is so well understood.Other “race rebels” like Cornel West, Al Sharpton and AC Wharton (and many others) find some limelight and jump on the chance to fuel the fires for whatever dubious motivation leads them and certainly not in pursuit of truth. Certain Jews try to steal the moniker when they have no real rebellious spirit to tell the entire truth. Even Latinos jump on the bandwagon.

Everyone wants a piece but they don’t seem to want white people to have any.

But what is really at the bottom of it all?

confederate-plates

DC Dave pointed out a Politico article entitled, “Why The Confederacy Lives: One hundred-fifty years after Appomattox, many Southerners still won’t give up“. The article discusses the Sons of Confederate Veterans’  argument in front of the Supreme Court for their right to have Texas Dixie flag vanity plates. It asks the question, why would anyone want to?

…displaying the Confederate flag in 2015 is an indicator of a complex and reactionary politics that is very much alive in America today. It is a politics that harks back to the South’s proud stand in the Civil War as a way of rallying opinion against the federal government—and against the country’s changing demographic, economic, and moral character, of which Washington is often seen as the malign author. Today’s understanding of the Confederacy by its supporters is thus neither nostalgia, nor mere heritage; rather Confederate sympathy in 2015 is a well-funded and active political movement…

This was one of my points in the Stars and Bars article. Even though heritage is a part of the brouhaha, it is mostly, in my opinion, a way to rebel against the tyranny of the centralized government which must be considered an Empire.  I wrote in the Stars and Bars article:

That flag is an image of rebellion against centralized government over-reaches and a representation of individual state’s rights. In my mind, it should be used to unite people of all colors and creeds to fight against the imperial power structure that dominates this planet.

08537047-4D83-4EF8-9EE2-6A006E6DD5FDState’s Rights are secondary to the Empire. The world’s rights are secondary to the Empire. Can you imagine the American people united with other nations, flying this flag in rebellion against this absolute power?

Its not just about a flag, but about what that flag represents, which is a symbol of revolution against Federal government activities that are not good for Americans (or the rest of the world). The politico article delves into this phenomena. It points out an upsurge in this sentiment of anti-Empire, anti-Federal government intrusion and policies. Just as I ask the questions of why this sentiment is becoming more popular (leading to all the demonization of white southerners we have seen in the media outlets and tainted politicians), Politico asks:

So what makes this Confederate politics so attractive? To adherents, today’s Confederate ideology exposes falsehoods in mainstream accounts of U.S. history and offers to reveal “the truth,” which has supposedly been suppressed by “East Coast elites” and “liberal academics” pandering to ethnic minority pressure. According to this narrative, the Civil War was not fought over slavery but rather because the Union and President Abraham Lincoln acted without regard for the Constitution to accumulate power. Confederate sympathy offers an ideology that explains why life in America is not what one expected it to be, why Spanish is increasingly heard in towns across the country, why despite working hard one never seems to get ahead, why African Americans have recently occupied highly visible leadership positions as attorney general, secretary of state and, of course, president. It is a politics of victimization, a sentiment that political correctness and anti-discrimination laws constrain right-thinking and hard-working people, and that for 150 years America has strayed from its preordained and righteous path.

Maybe not quite so eloquently done, I examine every one of those issues. I ask constantly in this blog, how these things can occur with the majority of Americans either agreeing or just staying silent, especially when the truth is so obvious. It is why I am so verbal about saving the heritage and asking others of all colors and creeds to join in. Don’t let the liars and mainstream media whores fool you. This movement isn’t about slavery (I am personally appalled by the idea, nor did my ancestors who fought and died for this country ever participate in it). It is about being rebels against rulers who could not give a damn about you.

Over the past few weeks I have linked many of these obvious power grabs and misdirections together. The gay marriage thing. The Trans thing (linking those to the next progression of even more uncivilized, unacceptable debauchery). The Charleston thing. The Flag thing. The race war thing. The vilifying of white people thing.  It is all intermingled. It is all planned. It is all meant to make white people (especially southerners) less influential and to be the “bad guys”.

But it will backfire

Mr Fred describes it better than I ever could in his latest,“Payback’s a Bitch”: Rural Wisdom and the Gathering Storm”

When the federal government and the talking heads want to ban my past—here, permit me to exit momentarily the fraudulent objectivity of literature—I hate the sonsofbitches.

A lot of people quietly hate the sonsofbitches.

To them, to us, the Confederate flag stands for resistance to control from afar, to meddling and instruction from people we detest. It is the flag of “Leave me the hell alone.” And this Washington, Boston, and New York will…not…do.

A surprise may be coming.

What is the anger about? Most visibly, but far from uniquely, race: the illegals, the Knock-Out game, and Washington’s protection of both. The racial hostility that pervades the country today is largely the doing of the talking heads and its perverse social policies. The rancor is unlike anything I have seen.

[…]

But look what happened. We now see forced hiring of the incompetent as a right, endless accounts of blacks destroying shopping malls, burning cities, brutally attacking whites in gangs, and the giving to blacks of anything they want because they are black. You don’t like the Confederate flag, Jesse? Why then, it must go. Whatever you say, Jesse.

It wasn’t this way, but it is now. It is getting worse. But there is far more than race.  We now are compelled to live in a national sexual-freak show. Day after day after day the media are full of trans-this and trans-that, of homosexual marriages, all thrust in our faces, a parade of prancing peculiarities demanding and demanding and demanding. People who dare not say so are sick of it.

[…]

Any sexual predilection can be called natural, and arguments can be made for all of them: Polygamy, or marriage with a sheep, or copulating on a public bus, or sex with girls of nine years. (How about, “Sex is natural. Children are erotic: Don’t they play doctor? Little girls are only afraid of it because of puritanical conditioning by society. Oral sex feels good, and adults do it, so why not…? Why shouldn’t her father gently teach her….” And so on.)

And crime is out of control, protected by a President and Attorney General with whom we, so many Americans,  have nothing in common, who dislike us,  and who want to disarm us and flood our country with illegal and incompatible aliens.

[…]

I could go on. There is quiet fury about open borders, the forced acceptance of criminal aliens, of 100,000 Somalis by Minnesota, the endless wars, the declining standard of living, the insane censorship (say “nigger” and your career of thirty years ends) and the ungodly surveillance. Washington pushes, pushes, and pushes, thinking that with just enough pressure, we will all come to kowtow.

What if one day we don’t?

[…]

Maybe Washington will always get away with it. Maybe it won’t. White Americans are an obedient and passive people, easily cowed, but maybe enough will prove enough. Maybe things will blow. Maybe jurisdictions will just ignore the feds, as begins to happen.

But it is dangerous. The economy declines, people out of college can’t get jobs, the ghettoes simmer, automation surges across the board, and one day soon we will have cutbacks in the entitlements. When groups begin competing for dwindling resources, things will get ugly. It could explode. It really could. You might be surprised how many people out there think, “Bring it on.” Not a good idea, but we go that way.

Tick Tick. Tick.

I think a new Confederacy that includes like-minded rebels of ALL RACES should band together to fight the lies of the Empire. I would embrace the Dixie Flag as the symbol, or let’s make another one. Whatever. But that Battle Flag is recognized and was used for the very same thing. Seems like the perfect image to represent rebels everywhere.

h/t Jon Rappoport, Politico, Fred On Everything, and DC Dave

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the right hand panel of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

Comment Policy:

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post. 1st time commenters must receive Admin approval, but have free reign after that.


All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

The “Rebel” Flag and the “Civil War” Debated

The “Rebel” Flag and the “Civil War” Debated

by DC Dave

confed7re+%281%29

Overdoing Learning

Could it be I’ve learned too much?
If charged, I must confess.
My views would be more popular
If I knew much less.

I might vote for Democrats
Or for the GOP
And not have old acquaintances
Almost run from me.

Education’s big with them
And ignorance the foe,
Except for those disturbing things
That they don’t want to know.

You will find the poem above if you click on the “post-doctoral” in my message, “Welcome to the world of post-doctoral politics” on my home page. I have the distinct impression that one such “old acquaintance” has been running from me for quite some time. Actually, he’s a bit more than an acquaintance. I really thought of him as my closest friend at the small college in North Carolina where I taught economics for six years when we were both fresh out of graduate school. He’s the one person there whose email address I have retained and with whom I have remained in touch over a period of some 37 years. I grew up not far from the college and on occasion when I was in the area I would call him or drop in on him and he would bring me up to date on what had transpired since I left. Teaching history there, as it turned out, was not only his first job out of graduate school, but it was his last job as well. He spent his entire career there, retiring a few years ago.

Reflecting now on the relationship, I think that the friendship was a bit one-sided. We got along splendidly as colleagues, but I think a major reason for it at the time was that our political views were so similar. I have summed mine up with a 2002 poem entitled “A Chomsky Dissenter.”

A Chomsky Dissenter

When I trusted Noam Chomsky
I had a cozy home.
With my academic friends
I did not feel alone.

I liked his doughty dissidence;
At least I thought him bold.
And he helped me see beyond
The daily lies we’re told.

Then I saw he stayed away
From major mysteries
Like a student of the woods
Who won’t go near the trees.

Now the trees are falling down
And crushing all we see,
And all the Chomskyites can do
Is run away from me.

Another indicator of the one-sidedness of the friendship is that through the years, now that I think of it, all the emails between us, I believe, have been from me to him, except in the cases where I might have asked a question and a response was required. None, from my recollection, came at his initiative. Most tellingly, since he was on my mailing list and I write about political matters that I think should at least interest him, I have regularly sent him articles that I have written, and I never heard the first peep from him about any of them until this past week.

What did it was a very short email that I sent a couple of weeks ago. I went on two major trips in June and had little time to do any writing of my own, so I sent out a highly topical article by my frequent collaborator on videos who uses the screen name of Buelahman, or B’Man for short. It read simply:

Enjoy

Dave

round1

That finally produced a response from the old friend. It came five days later and here it is:

I do enjoy reading this person, “B-Man”, making a fool of himself.  But I get the impression that you endorse this nonsense.  Sad.

Ahem! I responded immediately this way:

Indeed, I have found practically nothing that this gentleman has written that I disagree with.  I was particularly pleased to see him reference my essay, “Mencken and More on Lincoln’s Speech.”  I would be very interested to know why you think what he has written is nonsense and why you think my endorsement of it is sad.  As Thomas Sowell says he used to write with red pencil on his students’ papers, “Specify, don’t characterize.”

You see that he gives readers an opportunity to comment.  I am placing this exchange on the comment page so all involved can defend what they have written.

I did as I promised and promptly put the exchange up, identifying my interlocutor only as an old academic colleague.

round2

The next day the former colleague did, in fact, “specify” with this response:

Thanks for replying.

I must admit that I did not read all of B-Man’s essay.  It goes on and on, and I didn’t have the endurance.  Here is my response to its central question.

Let’s leave aside some important issues, such as the overwhelming consensus among professional historians about the role of slavery in causing the Civil War, what slavery meant, what “heritage” means, what our white ancestors thought they were fighting for, etc.

Let’s simply address how we should treat fellow citizens.  A large segment of them, mostly black, say they are insulted, humiliated, and in other ways hurt by the sight of the common version of the Confederate flag.  Even if we don’t feel them ourselves, it is not the place of B-Man, or you, or me to deny those emotions in others.  We should assume them to be genuine and acknowledge that there are aspects of the symbolism of the flag that might cause them.

It is a matter of common courtesy and decency to stop doing things that cause our fellow citizens pain.

On the related issue, the right of anyone to fly the flag:  Governor Haley, and most other public officials I’ve heard address the issue, have explicitly affirmed the right of individuals to display the flag on their property.  The problem is its display at official public buildings, supported by taxpayers, including black ones and others offended by the flag.  (I supposed ultimately it could become an issue decided by courts and/or voters in some jurisdictions.)

Just because a right exists, however, is no reason why it should be exercised.

The email came in around the dinner hour, so I didn’t respond in detail until the next day, offering only a short acknowledgment of having received it at the time. Here is my detailed answer:

May I congratulate you for the somewhat improved tone of your follow-up email.  I say “somewhat” because it is still a bit lofty and dismissive concerning Buelahman’s essay, beginning as it does with what I can only take as a confession of intellectual laziness, “I must admit that I did not read all of B-Man’s essay.  It goes on and on, and I didn’t have the endurance.”

That is to say, you admit that you fired off your 23-word insult to your old academic colleague and his frequent collaborator without having bothered to read all of what he (and I?) have written on the matter.  In your short email, I might remind you, you manage to say that he is making “a fool of himself” and that he is writing “nonsense” and that it is “sad” that I should seem to go along with it.

Your opening sally in this follow-up raises an important question.  Have you still not read it?  You’re retired and certainly have the time, but are you still just going, as it appears to me, on emotions and impressions?  And how far did you get with your initial reading?  Did you pitch it aside just as he set the stage?

The MSM is not our friend. They are not truthful. They are pawns used to brainwash you. Period. But I want to focus on one particular subject today: the Stars and Bars…  The people who are embracing the media lies about this flag are the same people who kowtow to the media clowns doing the Empire’s bidding. The same people who are ignorant about WWII. The same people who fall for every conceivable lie meant to divide the races and every other erroneous and fake cause.

Where is the nonsense here?  This looks like horse sense to me.  Are you among those people who believe that Timothy McVeigh masterminded the Oklahoma City bombing, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did likewise for 9/11, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone culprit in the death of JFK, and the Tsarnaev brothers killed the people the MSM say they did in Boston, to mention just four examples of the sort of thing he is talking about?  If so, I can see why your mind might close up tight at that point and you would do no further reading.

Is it also your considered opinion that I have made a fool of myself with “Mencken and More on Lincoln’s Speech,” upon which B’Man draws heavily?  How so?

Now, with not the slightest sense of irony, on the heels of your short, insulting blast, you lecture us in the best New Englander tradition that it all comes down to a matter of civility. Civility!  Many black people, you–and our wonderful news media–tell us, take the Stars and Bars as a symbol of racial superiority and a celebration of slavery and therefore, all of us, but Southerners in particular, should simply have the common courtesy never to display the damned thing.

The worst thing about that argument is its timing.  If we were still in the 60s and Southern hardliners were waving the flag in the face of people at lunch-counter sit-ins, I might say you have a point.  Considering the original motivation behind the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag on the Capitol Building in South Carolina and the fact that it is supported by public funds, I agree with you that the case is strong to take it down there.  But let’s take the sort of cold, clear-eyed look that Buelahman takes in his essay at this obviously orchestrated campaign to mothball the Stars and Bars forever in the wake of the event in Charleston.

For one so putatively concerned about people’s feelings, you should see how this hullabaloo looks to many native Southerners.  At a time when racial harmony in the South has never been greater, the national press is dragging their culture, their history, and the flag that to many is representative of their Southernness into the mud, all because of this truly bizarre and anomalous happening in Charleston.  In a nutshell, it certainly looks like we Southerners are all being blamed for killing a group or righteous black people on account of our endemic and ineradicable racial hatred.  I don’t like that.  It’s easily as insulting as your first email.

I also do not accept the assertion that within the grassroots black community there is any strong revulsion to the Stars and Bars as it has been used for the last thirty years or so.  This current hysteria certainly looks ginned up to me by agents of the Empire, people like Al Sharpton.  The knucklehead successors to Ronnie Van Zant in Lynyrd Skynyrd might have capitulated, but I don’t think the writers and performers of “The Ballad of Curtis Loew” need worry about how their display of the flag is taken by the black community. In my view they should continue to show their pride in their roots with the most recognizable symbol available, and I’m pretty confident that Buelahman would agree with me on that.

Now, briefly, let’s talk about your first point.  You appear not to know to whom you are writing when you invoke “the overwhelming consensus among professional historians about the role of slavery in causing the Civil War.” Just this April I began my essay, “Letter to a Court Historian about Forrestal’s Death” with these lines:  “H.L. Mencken aptly called them ‘the timorous eunuchs who posture as American historians.’”  In 2009 I penned “The Case for Free Inquiry”:

You say they gassed six million Jews.
I ask you how you know.
You say it’s from historians;
They agree that it is so.

But what about the Forrestal death?
They agree on that one, too.
And until I checked it for myself,
I only thought I knew.

I don’t need “professional historians” to do the most elementary thinking for me.  The war in question was, somewhat like our two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a war of choice.  Then it was the choice of Abraham Lincoln and his cohorts to wage a war of aggression against the states that had proclaimed their secession from the Union.  Even Lincoln’s biggest defenders will admit that the Fort Sumter episode was designed by Lincoln to get the South to fire the first shot so that he could claim the moral high ground.

No one could deny that the slavery was an important factor in the secession.  I think that it is debatable as to whether it was the most important factor, though.  The war, itself, is all on Lincoln.  The professional historians that you like to invoke consistently rate this butcher of so many of his fellow Americans as perhaps our greatest president, which is another good reason not to trust them.

I can say with some confidence that my great grandfather, John Henry Martin, who came from a piedmont county in North Carolina that had virtually no slaves, did not fight under Robert E. Lee and spend the last months of the war in the hell hole of the Point Lookout P.O.W. camp to defend the institution of slavery.  He and his fellow Southerners were attacked by the minions of Lincoln’s federal government and they felt that they had no choice but to resist.  What’s going on now has made me want to trek back down to Southern Maryland and plant another Confederate Battle Flag by the monument to John Henry and his fellow victims.  See http://www.plpow.com and http://www.cem.va.gov/cems/lots/point_lookout.asp.

round3

That one got his juices flowing, and his pen. The manifestly unwarranted tone of condescension is still there as best exemplified by the concluding short paragraph with its otherwise puzzling repetition of his supposed sadness, but now one can detect a rather strong admixture of dudgeon:

Thanks for your congratulations.  Now I see what you mean about being “lofty.”  I do enjoy being taken to the woodshed.

I wish you had not posted my first message to you on B-Man’s site without my permission; I hope you didn’t do likewise with my second.

In your latest you either stated or implied that I’ve been brainwashed, “kowtow to media clowns,” and am lazy.  I emphatically reject the first two charges.  On the third, I read enough of B-Man’s rant (much more than you evidently think), with its belaboring of the obvious, sweeping generalizations about his opponents, odd digressions, etc., to get enough of his point.  But life’s too short, and B-Man’s piece is too long; I’ll accept the charge of intellectual laziness in this case.

You apparently accept without qualification Mencken’s belief that professional historians are “timorous eunuchs.”  You certainly make clear your own contempt for them, as does B-Man.

In the cases that seem to bother you most, regarding the very existence of the Holocaust and Lincoln/Civil War causes, it is true that specialists in those topics are almost entirely against you (though many portrayals of Lincoln are complicated).  Apparently you see this as the result of nefarious conspiracies, not research and reflection.  Are there any other topics that cause you to condemn the entire profession?

(I have not examined your Holocaust stuff; I studied and taught the topic and am familiar with the evidence and controversies, at least until 2007.  I have not looked at yours in part because my anguish about the topic itself is profound, and yes, I think deniers’ arguments that I have read are nonsense.  Damn!  Intellectual laziness again.)

On the other supposed controversies that you mention, I prefer not to touch those tar-babies.  If you think I’m hopelessly naïve, so be it.

In paragraph 4 above, I should have said “contempt for us.” I have been a professional historian, by which I mean someone who has gotten paid for teaching and publishing, for many years.  So was my father, far more distinguished than I.  I know many professional historians.  Some are of course charlatans and some incompetent.  But I personally know or knew several who contributed significantly to debates about Southern history and the causes of the Civil War, and they are all (or were, some now being dead) diligent, honest, honorable people, trying hard to get it right, and Pa was one of them.

You and B-man rightly reject sweeping generalizations about Southerners.  Heal thyself.  Blanket rejection of the work of an entire class is silly.

Here’s an anecdote: In the 1950s my father taught early 20th century US history.  When a colleague died suddenly (Charles Sydnor; maybe you remember the name), he added the South as a field and had to get up to speed quickly.  I distinctly remember asking him, when I was trying to do a report in the 7th grade (I think), what caused the Civil War, he said “sectionalism.”  I had no idea what that meant, and he tried to explain it, probably without success.  I was 12.

Some years later he had changed his mind, believing slavery to be the root cause.   I don’t know what caused him to take the new view.  Perhaps he had become more conversant with the primary sources; perhaps he had read new stuff.  Perhaps the profession itself was shifting.  There is a theory that historians, influenced by the tensions of the Cold War in the 1950s, had an unacknowledged tendency to promote national unity, and highlighting the role of slavery in Southern culture might not do that. Things changed as Cold War tensions decreased.  Perhaps.  All good professional historians acknowledge the role of bias in their work, and that the national “mood” helps create it.  The mood is different now.  You and B-Man might agree.

The point is, Truth about the past is elusive, never rigid.  What is accepted now will certainly be modified in the future.  It’s not useful to be stuck in the past about the past.

Having said that, it is still legitimate, I believe, to say that slavery was the root cause of the war, not merely an “important factor.”  More emphatically, it was the “primary cause”, despite B-Man’s belief to the contrary.  Sectional pride, the Southern way of life, and anger at self-righteous Yankee bullies and tariff mongers, etc., become pale imitations of what they actually were if you remove slavery from the mix.

But you needn’t do a thought experiment.  Read the Declarations of Secession of the rebel states.  Of course, defending state sovereignty in general is right there, but what specifically are they defending?  Slavery.  It’s discussed at length at the beginning of the SC, GA, TX, and MS declarations and is virtually the only specific issue mentioned.  As I understand it, only four states produced Declarations wherein they detailed causes of their action, rather than legalistic Ordinances of Secession (which all did).

I had suggested that we lay this thorny problem aside.  We did not.  Fine.  Nevertheless, given all the above, I don’t see how any rational person can deny that black people, particularly those who are descendants of slaves, are entitled to believe that the Civil War, and the flag widely considered to be the symbol of the Southern side, are linked to slavery and therefore racism, even if some say that’s not what they mean when they display it.  An insult can still be an insult despite the intent of the issuer.  “I’m sorry you misunderstood me” is a lame response to criticism.  And others, you’ll acknowledge, do have racist intent by flying the flag.

Now, I must respond to the issue of my New England background, from which I am allegedly lecturing you.  It is true that my father was born in MA.  My mother was born in KA.  I am 70.  I went to school 7 years in MA but have lived 63 years in the South.  I was born in Alexandria VA, but my parents came to NC when I was 13 months.  I decided to come with them.  I went 10 years to segregated NC public schools, and, I’m sorry to say, absorbed and lived a lot of racism, despite my parents’ efforts to resist it.  I agree, however, that my Southernness is tainted; I can’t help it.

However much it comes from a Yankee background, which is actually irrelevant, and however much my concern for others’ feelings is “putative,” the only way you addressed the substance of my call for decency and courtesy to our fellow citizens is to assert that you “do not accept” that there is revulsion for the flag in the “grassroots” black community.  You give no evidence for this.

This is anecdotal, but I know and frequently meet with a number of “grassroots” black people, assuming by grassroots you mean wage earners, schoolteachers, preachers, healthcare workers, etc.  They are all offended by the flag, in varying ways.  At least one dismisses it as white folks being white folks; at least two are brought nearly to tears as they discuss it; and another seethes quietly, to take four examples.  Poll after poll says that blacks see the flag as a symbol of racism.  For example, CNN: 72% of blacks nationwide, 75% in the South.  I know: this is MSM.  But do you have evidence of your own that removes us from the realm of anecdote?

Do you get out much?  The only way I can keep a straight face about your belief that race relations in the South over the past several decades “have never been better” is to note how low the bar was set.  From that standpoint, yes, things have improved, and white and black Southerners deserve credit.  Thus far, it looks to me as though the flag controversy is improving things, not worsening them.

And I still see no reason for rejecting the plea to flag displayers to consider the feelings of their fellow citizens, however much you impeach me, the messenger.  Generosity is a noble trait, well within the best Southern tradition.

Finally re MSM, which is a blanket whose size I don’t know. You and B-Man reject them totally, as near as I can tell.  Another sweeping generalization.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to evaluate them newspaper by newspaper, network by network, pundit by pundit, etc.?  When, for example, in the aftermath of the Charleston murders, a report launches a sweeping, stereotyped condemnation of Southern racists, chalk it up to the fact that the reporter is a simpleton (as many are) or an idiot (fewer, perhaps, but plenty nonetheless).  Then also note that that many of the same MSM widely publicized moving, humane statements by Paul Thurmond, Mayor Riley, and many other white folks, some ordinary, some not.  They were an eloquent contradiction of the crude, false stereotypes sometimes perpetrated.

Anyone in his or her right mind knows that there were and are many honorable Southerners like your great-grandfather (and your father, from what I remember about him).  If MSM or anybody else state or imply otherwise, shame on them.  But there is often a baby in the bathwater.

So ends the lecture.  I apologize for its length.  I remain sad to participate in this.

I must say that that response got my juices flowing, and I responded immediately, which was just yesterday:

Thanks for responding. Concerning some of your main points:

“I wish you had not posted my first message to you on B-Man’s site without my permission; I hope you didn’t do likewise with my second.”

I see what you mean with your confession of intellectual laziness.  How hard would it have been to check the site to see that I did?  What’s the problem?  Are you ashamed of what you have written?  I didn’t identify you after all?  As Buelahman suggests with his comment, it really does look like you have a free speech problem.  You know as well as I do that I would be wasting my time discussing these important topics in private with you.  I think they should be aired.

“In the cases that seem to bother you most, regarding the very existence of the Holocaust and Lincoln/Civil War causes, it is true that specialists in those topics are almost entirely against you (though many portrayals of Lincoln are complicated).”

More intellectual laziness on display, I’m sorry to say.  On the record, it is you, not me, that they seem to bother the most.  I have written relatively very little on either topic, which is not to say that they do not bother me.

“Are there any other topics that cause you to condemn the entire profession?”

I must say that this pretty much takes the cake in the intellectual laziness department.  I name the article in which I invoke H.L. Mencken favorably in his denunciation of American historians and I give its date of April 2015.  Do you know I have a web site?  I have sent you articles from it over and over.  Did you just trash them all?  I guess I have to give you a link:  “Letter to a Court Historian about Forrestal’s Death.”  Were you to have only bothered to read the article to which I referred, you would have discovered that I have written quite a bit about Forrestal’s death and you would have discovered that YOU professional historians have richly earned every bit of the contempt that Mencken and I pour upon y’all, and then some.

A critical reader can also see that the poem in my rejoinder to you, “The Case for Free Inquiry,” is a great deal more about Forrestal and about professional historians–and about the poem’s title, for Pete’s sake–than it is about the gassed six million story.

Your chosen profession also comes in for its share of contempt from me for what it has said or not said about the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster.  See http://ariwatch.com/Links/DCDave.htm#VinceFoster.  See also my poem “Ignoble Historians.”  You will notice that in that third-person web site listing the categories in which I have weighed in there is no mention of the Holocaust or anything having to do with Lincoln or the Civil War.

“You and B-man rightly reject sweeping generalizations about Southerners.  Heal thyself.  Blanket rejection of the work of an entire class is silly.”

Point me to one professional historian who has written anything truthful and worth reading about James Forrestal’s death that takes into account the latest evidence, available to the public since 2004, and I might begin to reconsider my blanket rejection of their work. (Would you like to join me in a joint article for publication?)  Show me one American news organ that reported on the full contents of the Starr Report on Foster’s death, including the part that the 3-judge panel that appointed Kenneth Starr forced him to include, and I might begin to have second thoughts about that entire class, as well.  More recently and closer to home, show me the American news organs that are reporting on the federal case against the nation’s biggest alien smuggler, headquartered in North Carolina.

No, on the record, I would say that accepting as truthful almost anything that these groups tell us about anything that is really serious is not warranted.

“But you needn’t do a thought experiment.  Read the Declarations of Secession of the rebel states.  Of course, defending state sovereignty in general is right there, but what specifically are they defending?  Slavery.”

I do believe you mean the “seceding” states.  Your bias is showing.  You also are talking about those states’ stated reasons for seceding.  Yet, in your first response to me you strongly imply that slavery, which you say your evidence shows was the reason for the secession, caused the Civil War according to a consensus of historians.  Just look at Lincoln’s first inaugural address.  He could hardly make it clearer that he is going to war against the seceding states and that he is doing so for one reason alone, and that is for their act of secession.  It’s almost enough to make one ask not what all those historians have been reading, but what they have been smoking.

“On the other supposed controversies that you mention, I prefer not to touch those tar-babies.  If you think I’m hopelessly naïve, so be it.”

Supposed controversies?  The JFK assassination, 9/11, etc.?  What about the RFK and MLK, Jr. assassinations? Surely you must see why I have a problem with your profession.  You want the public to trust your judgment and your opinions and here in debate (which you would clearly prefer not be open) you virtually confess to hopeless naiveté on the most important subjects of our day.   How can you compartmentalize your thinking like that?  Who’s being silly and who’s being serious?

I have repeated the exchange just as it transpired with links as I had them. Perhaps I should have put them in more freely, because my debating opponent seems to be somewhat cyber-challenged. Buelahman linked to my “Mencken and More on Lincoln’s Speech,” so I didn’t really see the need to do it again, and perhaps that leaves him with an excuse to continue to ignore it, like he ignored my letter to the “court historian.” What strikes me about the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln’s first inaugural is the great similarity of their arguments. The war is all about the mortal danger to the noble experiment of democracy that the secession represents. Don’t take my word for it. Take Lincoln’s.

I also failed to put in a link to the tribute to all little-known black blues performers everywhere by the quintessentially Southern rock band, Lynyrd Skynyrd, either, so here it is: “The Ballad of Curtis Loew.”

Call me unfair for putting this exchange up at the point where I have the last word, but stay tuned. Should another response, lachrymose or otherwise, be forthcoming, I shall publish it. In the meantime I have plans afoot to take to task publicly one of the surviving cohorts of my debating opponent’s father for some public utterances of his about the Vince Foster case.

David Martin

July 9, 2015

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the right hand panel of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

Comment Policy:

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post. 1st time commenters must receive Admin approval, but have free reign after that.


All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton: Black Man Or A “N”…

There you go, again, B’Man, you racist scumbag. You’re using the “N” word again to show your supremacy over others.

Look, I never call a black person nigger (unless they are being one). I understand how upset they get when white people use it, so why just be mean for meanness sake? I HAVE called many white people niggers, though. But it is because of how they act. Same with black people.

Ain’t it funny, because black people call each other nigger all the time. And hardly do they ever bitch and moan about it, but most often laugh and use it endearingly. What a bunch of racists!

Nigger:

nigga, niggah etc. al.(noun)

1. describes an ignorant, uneducated, foolish individual regardless of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
2. endearing term between two or more individual to describe a friendship or bond.

But let’s get to the truth of it, shall we? I didn’t change the meaning of the word, political correctness did. All you have to do is pull up a contemporary online dictionary and look for the word “nigger“. It only describes it as the ultimate racist word for blacks (or dark-skinned people). But when I was growing up, the word was described in Dictionaries as “an ignorant person”. To me, it is simply about one’s character… nothing to do with color.

So, when I speak of A.C. Wharton, mayor of Memphis, being a “nigger” (an ignorant, opportunistic race-baiter), let us understand the context.

forrest7

…Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton wants to dig up the bodies of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife and remove them from a city park in the latest and perhaps most despicable example of the anti-Southern cleansing spreading across the nation.

“Which African-American wants to have a picnic in the shadow of Nathan Bedford Forrest?” Wharton said in a Thursday press briefing.

In addition to desecrating the graves, Wharton wants to tear down a massive statue honoring the Confederate general who was involved in organizing the Ku Klux Klan. The bodies of Forrest and his wife would be relocated to a cemetery.

“These relics, these messages of this despicable period of this great nation, it’s time for those to be moved,” the mayor said.

So, you ask, why is Wharton ignorant? Because he knows nothing about Nathan Bedford Forrest, except what he has been brainwashed with. My wife is a descendant of Forrest’s. She is one of the least racist Southern Belles you could ever meet. As a matter of fact, her best friend is black. No one that knows her would ever call her a racist. But if someone learns of her ancestry, all of the sudden, the knee jerks and they assume the same thing that AC Wharton assumes. That is ignorant.

Sadly, even she was ignorant of her own ancestor’s history, because she just assumed that the media clowns (and “professional historians“) knew what they were talking about. I explained to her that we should look into the real history, untainted by the hate-whitey agenda and politically correct establishment historian whores, to see what the man was truly about. As I always say, if the media or government is saying one thing, the opposite is probably true.

forrest2Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest (1821-1877) was a renowned Southern military leader and strategist during the War Between the States. During the Civil War, Forrest’s Confederate cavalry wrecked [sic] havoc among Union forces throughout the mid-South. He gained worldwide fame from his many battlefield successes, but the wartime heroics have overshadowed his post-war work as a community leader and civil rights advocate. He fought fiercely on the battlefield, yet was a compassionate man off the field. After the war, Forrest worked tirelessly to build the New South and to promote employment for black Southerners. Forrest was known near and far as a great general, and was a well-respected citizen by both blacks and whites alike.

The Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association (predecessor to the NAACP) was organized by Southern blacks after the war to promote black voting rights, etc. One of their early conventions was held in Memphis and Mr. Forrest was invited to be the guest speaker, the first white man ever to be invited to speak to the Association.

After the Civil War, General Forrest made a speech to the Memphis City Council (then called the Board of Aldermen). In this speech he said that there was no reason that the black man could not be doctors, store clerks, bankers, or any other job equal to whites. They were part of our community and should be involved and employed as such just like anyone else. In another speech to Federal authorities, Forrest said that many of the ex-slaves were skilled artisans and needed to be employed and that those skills needed to be taught to the younger workers. If not, then the next generation of blacks would have no skills and could not succeed and would become dependent on the welfare of society.

Forrest’s words went unheeded. The Memphis & Selma Railroad was organized by Forrest after the war to help rebuild the South’s transportation and to build the ‘new South’. Forrest took it upon himself to hire blacks as architects, construction engineers and foremen, train engineers and conductors, and other high level jobs. In the North, blacks were prohibited from holding such jobs. When the Civil War began, Forrest offered freedom to 44 of his slaves if they would serve with him in the Confederate army. All 44 agreed. One later deserted; the other 43 served faithfully until the end of the war.

Though they had many chances to leave, they chose to remain loyal to the South and to Forrest. Part of General Forrest’s command included his own Escort Company, his Green Berets, made up of the very best soldiers available. This unit, which varied in size from 40-90 men, was the elite of the cavalry. Eight of these picked men were black soldiers and all served gallantly and bravely throughout the war. All were armed with at least 2 pistols and a rifle. Most also carried two additional pistols in saddle holsters. At war’s end, when Forrest’s cavalry surrendered in May 1865, there were 65 black troopers on the muster roll. Of the soldiers who served under him, Forrest said of the black troops: Finer Confederates never fought.

Forrest was a brilliant cavalryman and courageous soldier. As author Jack Hurst writes: a man possessed of physical valor perhaps unprecedented among his countrymen, as well as, ironically, a man whose social attitudes may well have changed farther in the direction of racial enlightenment over the span of his lifetime than those of most American historical figures.

When Forrest died in 1877 it is noteworthy that his funeral in Memphis was attended not only by a throng of thousands of whites but by hundreds of blacks as well. The funeral procession was over two miles long and was attended by over 10,000 area residents, including 3000 black citizens paying their respects.

A.C. Wharton is so ignorant of history (perhaps purposefully so) that Forrest was invited to speak at the Independent Order Pole-Bearers Association meeting July 5, 1875, where he proved he was no racist in the speech he made there.

A convention and BBQ was held by the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association at the fairgrounds of Memphis, five miles east of the city. An invitation to speak was conveyed to General Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the city’s most prominent citizens, and one of the foremost cavalry commanders in the late War Between the States. This was the first invitation granted to a white man to speak at this gathering. The invitation’s purpose, one of the leaders said, was to extend peace, joy, and union, and following a brief welcoming address a Miss Lou Lewis, daughter of an officer of the Pole-Bearers, brought forward flowers and assurances that she conveyed them as a token of good will. After Miss Lewis handed him the flowers, General Forrest responded with a short speech that, in the contemporary pages of the Memphis Appeal, evinces Forrest’s racial open-mindedness that seemed to have been growing in him.

Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand. (Prolonged applause.)

Whereupon N. B. Forrest again thanked Miss Lewis for the bouquet and then gave her a kiss on the cheek. Such a kiss was unheard of in the society of those days, in 1875, but it showed a token of respect and friendship between the general and the black community and did much to promote harmony among the citizens of Memphis.

A.C. Wharton is the epitome of the old school nigger, because NBF was actually his ally. He also has no idea what the Confederacy stood for.

1872 cartoon depiction of Carl Schurz as a Carpetbagger

1872 cartoon depiction of Carl Schurz as a Carpetbagger

And he obviously knows nothing about the KKK’s initial formation and why Forrest was involved.The original rationale of the KKK had nothing to do with blacks, but carpet baggers (mostly Jews) that came down infringing upon southerners.

In an 1868 newspaper interview, Forrest stated that the Klan’s primary opposition was to the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments, people like Tennessee governor Brownlow and other ″carpetbaggers″ and ″scalawags″.[39] He argued that many southerners believed that blacks were voting for the Republican Party because they were being hoodwinked by the Loyal Leagues.
When the KKK became violent toward blacks, Forrest resigned. A.C. Wharton won’t explain this to the Memphis black citizenry, because it doesn’t fit the agenda.

Now even though Wharton is ignorant, this is not to mean that Wharton is stupid. No. He is smart enough to consciously be on board with furthering the racial divide. He knows that by fueling the Charleston media spectacle, he can further incite black people into a false rage. But his ignorance is also in the forefront because he is obviously unaware of the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act, which protects these monuments against such erroneous assaults by politically motivated hacks like A.C.

This law will assist in the Memphis issue with the Forrest Park anti-renaming campaign and will clearly hereafter protect the Forrest Statue, as well as the Jefferson Davis Statute and the SCV Confederate cannons in Confederate Park.It will also protect scores of other Confederate and War For Southern Independence sites throughout Tennessee.

I invite readers to peruse the comments at WMC’s website (the newscast that featured A.C. Wharton’s comments) to see how well this lead balloon is going over with Memphians.

“Those hoof beats die not upon fame’s crimson sod,
But will ring through her song and her story;
He fought like a Titan and struck like a god,
And his dust is our ashes of glory.”
(Written by Mrs. Virginia Frazer Boyle)

h/t Disenchanted Scholar, The Burning Platform, General Nathan Bedford Forrest Historical Society, Rense


Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the right hand panel of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

Comment Policy:

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post. 1st time commenters must receive Admin approval, but have free reign after that.


All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

B’Man’s 2016 POTUS Watch: Bernie Sanders- The More People See Of Him, The More They Like Him

Maybe you think I was wrong by claiming that Bernie Sanders may very well win the next POTUS election. I think it is more than playing Hillary’s foil, as was Obama’s Dennis Kucinich or Romney’s Ron Paul (appeasing the constituents, but ultimately forcing the chosen candidate). In Sander’s case I contend that he is the Jewish establishment’s go-to guy (What? You don’t think the Jews want a Jewish President?)

Bernard uses the right buzz words. But he speaks with a forked tongue, reminiscent of Ron Paul. He is supportive of the Military Industrial Complex within his state. He voted to increase military spending while verbally denouncing wars. He is a pro-Israel/pro-Jewish candidate like all the rest of them; puking up the same, tired old lies.

He hires ex-AIPAC scoundrels. He also tells citizens to “shut up” when they voice opposition to his voting FOR Israel’s “right to defend itself” against Palestinians. In other words, he will kowtow to Jewish interests (which are not America’s interests), categorically making him an enemy of America (just like the rest).

“The more people see of him, the more they like him”

You will see more and more media outlets give him more air time. Don’t believe me? Then listen to this alternative media Jew explain it:

Bernie Sanders surges in the polls and Hillary backer Senator Claire Mccaskill unloads a silly and red baiting attack on Sanders. A new Gallup poll says that 47% of Americans would consider voting for a Socialist candidate…

Apparently, Seder paints being a “Socialist” as the antithesis of “Capitalist”, just like all the other bogus dichotomy divides. The truth is that Socialism is still a governmental controlled ideology (meaning: use force) . Of course, Sanders, Seder and others will give us the nuances of how this is an incorrect understanding, just as those who were keen on it in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s tried to erroneously explain those nuances then. (Communism is but an extreme form of Socialism)

Another issue is that the left versus right divide has worn America down. Many people are looking for an Independent (as Sanders calls himself). Except in Sanders case, he is part of the establishment, so his viability is much greater than say, Ralph Nader (whom I supported). He ekes out a small differentiation in name only from the democRats.

Maybe another more mainstream Jew can help you understand?

Bill Maher and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) discuss his presidential campaign and the Pope’s recent comments on climate change.

Oh my, did Maher just use the Ron Paul card? I know many people felt Paul was the right guy, no matter how much I proved he is just another shill for Big Money and Big Military. The rhetoric is about the same between Paul and Sanders (although Sanders is on the climate change bandwagon). But then Maher and Sanders use the Pope and Catholics to entice a semblance of acceptability from the Christians. Maher hates Christians, but doesn’t mind trying to use them for this purpose.

Thank goodness we have the Jews everywhere to tell us how good this Jew is for this country. What would we do without them?

Basically, he may be the least despicable asshole of the group that are being given to us to “choose” from on the “left” side. Many people know Hillary would be a wretched choice and every Republican, thus far, is as bad or much worse. So, comparing him to the “right” will make him a shoo-in.

One thing you should remember about this “Socialist” who tries to explain away what Jewish Socialism is truly about: he will be a Jew dedicated to Israel’s interests over ANYTHING and EVERYTHING else.

Frank F. Rosenblatt (chief of Staff of the Jewish Bureau of Philanthropic Research in 1918) declared that;

the birth of the Jewish Socialist Federation of America in 1912 must be recognized as the most important landmark in the history of the Jewish Socialist movement in this country.

It is perhaps significant that Mr. Rosenblatt specifically uses the phrase “Jewish Socialist movement” and not merely the “Socialist movement”. We learn that the Jewish Socialist Federation was an outgrowth of the Jewish Socialist Agitation Bureau organized about 1905 in support of the unsuccessful communist revolution of that year in Russia. It was organized at a time when the little noticed Second Communist Convention storm was throwing ideological waves against the Jews throughout the world. The tidal wave had actually started in Basle, Switzerland when Theodor Herzl had called for the mobilization of the “Jewish Nation.


Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the right hand panel of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

Comment Policy:

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post. 1st time commenters must receive Admin approval, but have free reign after that.


All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

The Gay Supreme Klan

 

Solve This Riddle

KKKSupremesblackbox

Burning-Rainbow-Flagrainbowcovenant2

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the right hand panel of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

Comment Policy:

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post. 1st time commenters must receive Admin approval, but have free reign after that.


All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com