Getting blood from a stone

“You have no reason to be ashamed of your Confederate dead. See to it that they have no reason to be ashamed of you.”

— Robert Lewis Dabney

Earlier this month, you may have heard about a woman from Upstate New York who could lose her multiracial child in a custody battle with the girl’s father because the mother has a Confederate Battle Flag painted on a rock alongside her driveway.

The story itself is already one of tragedy. This 7-year-old has a broken home and is exhibiting “behavioral issues, including ‘kicking, spitting, hitting and swearing a lot.’” The parents, who were never married, do not have an amicable relationship, so the child has become their battlefield. Even though they have joint custody, the mother is seeking to cut in half the father’s already-limited time with the girl.

My guess is that the father is using the Battle Flag because he’s desperate to get a leg up in the case, since family courts are overwhelmingly anti-male. And the mother is being told that she must “encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed-race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance.” (Read: white bad, black good.)

Gasp, look at the hate symbol hanging in that girl’s bedroom! Better call CPS. Oh, never mind, that’s me and my cousin Matt in the early ’80s.

I don’t know these people or all the details of this complicated situation, but what I do know is that the 5-0 ruling against the mother due to her flag-adorned stone should worry us all, especially those of us who have Battle Flag rocks of our own (see mine at top).

Attorney Michael Stutman sees the case as “a rather astonishing extension of wokeness” in that “someone’s political viewpoint” can now be seen as reflecting “on their fitness as a parent.” He added, “It is one of the clearest infringements on someone’s free speech by the state to have a court threaten to restrict a parents’ rights to their child based upon … the propriety of a person’s political beliefs.”

That “we have to stamp out ‘hate whenever we see it, even on private property” is a “very dangerous precedent,” explains historian Brion McClanahan. But what concerns me most is that we, as in Southerners and our anti-leftist allies, have allowed the denigration of Confederate symbols even to get to this point. Cultural Marxists are going to try to destroy truth, beauty, and goodness; it’s what they do. But we don’t have to give an inch. Ever.

Even the child’s attorney who “wondered whether the ruling could make political views more of a target in family court … [and said he thinks] ‘this thing opens a door to litigating … someone’s personal opinions,’” also “recognized the court’s concern for the Confederate flag’s presence.” This is how indoctrinated in their anti-Southern malevolence even semi-common-sense people have become.

Sure, it doesn’t hurt that this story is playing out in New York, where back in December Gov. Andrew Cuomo outlawed the public-property sale and display of Confederate flags and other “abhorrent symbols” like the “Nazi swastika.” But would “the nationwide push-back against Confederate symbols” even be a thing if “conservatives” hadn’t hopped on the neo-Bolshevik bandwagon? I think not.

Even in the most recent edition of Confederate Veteran magazine, a 24-year-old who joined the Sons of Confederate Veterans in late 2018 suggested in a letter to the editor that the organization should redesign their Battle-Flag logo in an effort to “change the narrative” and increase recruitment among young Confederate descendants. “‘Cancel culture’ has targeted no symbol like the Southern Cross,” he wrote.

And that is why I am wanting to get a Battle Flag tattoo, not necessarily the one above, but just a simple, reverent piece of art. Honestly, I can’t find one that hits the mark; most are way too ostentatious for my tastes.

Now, bear in mind, I’ve made it nearly 50 years ink-free. Sure, I had quite a few piercings back in the wild ’90s, but I never did get a tat one promise to my parents that I actually kept.

But the contrarian in me is half-seriously considering the idea of ringing in my half-century of life this summer with some cool rebel ink. And because I’m not supposed to even admit the thought of wanting to get a Southern branding these “daze,” well, of course it makes me want to do it all the more.

These feelings are reminiscent of when my family and I fled Evangelicalism, slamming the door on the self-loathing, self-promoting Southern Protestants who hate the South, and subsequently hate my children, my husband, and me. I toyed with the notion of visiting one final Sunday while wearing the above t-shirt. I mean, this was 2016, so I figured what’s the worst that could happen. Sure, I’d surely get a few politically correct glares, but at least the congregation serves up some dank coffee. Ultimately, I decided to leave well enough alone.

I also deliberated buying and donning the above dress if I had gone to my 30-year high school reunion in the fall of 2019. Alas, I could not bring myself to attend the event at my formerly Dixie-proud alma mater, which is now a progressive breeding ground in a city that doesn’t feel too much like home, even if it was to make a rebel stand.

“Those contemplating getting a tattoo should ask themselves why they want one in the first place, and they should ask whether this is really something that pleases God,” advises Fr. John Whiteford. On one hand, I do believe the Battle Flag in both its roots and its modern meaning fits that bill.

It was not only the the symbol of the fighting citizen-soldiers in their defense of home and resistance to centralization, but it has come to represent the last stand of Western civilization. Dixie defenders of yore powerfully and selflessly fought to “defend beliefs that were not concocted yesterday,” as Russell Kirk described the War for Southern Independence and the traditional descendants it bore.

And we rebels of today still rail against the imperial “indivisible” Union and the rootless nihilism it produces. The war may look different, but the battlefields are still the same: faith and family.

But since the main impetus for my potential tattoo is about triggering my enemies, I’m still on the fence about it. Is it a pride thing, as in haughty in the eyes of the Lord? Or would getting tattooed be a tiny act of remaining faithful to the discharge of my duty?

Would it be bending to a fashion that I have so long resisted, and I, just another sellout to postmodernity? Or would it be a real act of defiance in that I’d be forever memorializing the Civil War dead, which is a “Southern, Christian tradition“?

After all, Memorial Day has Confederate origins, no matter what ahistorical lies the Lincolnians and their globohomer comrades try to sell you. Both Southern widows who began Decoration Day in 1866 and those of us who reflect today on Confederate sacrifice see fallen Dixians as “martyrs for religion, as well as for liberty … [and their] solemn obligation to maintain the Christianity which sustained them amid the privations of a soldier’s life and the anguish of a soldier’s death.”

Hmmm, I’m still not sure what to do. Please let me know what you think in the comments.

But in the meantime, I will keep my own rebel rock just where it is in my yard. My mother in-law gave us that unique stepping stone, which was hand-painted by one of her Appalachian-artisan friends.

Interestingly, while it was in the back of our van, we attended a Divine Liturgy at a Tennessee parish, where it was sprinkled with Holy water. The Orthodox priest happened to do a car blessing that day, so our family’s special piece of slate really ain’t going anywhere now. Like it or walk on by, haters!

But really, none of this is about putting a rock, a tattoo, a t-shirt, or a dress above the welfare of children. In fact, it’s precisely about putting our progeny first. It’s about taking a stand for love.

They say you can’t get blood from a stone, but maybe this time you can. Happy Memorial Day, y’all.

Source: Dissident Mama – Getting blood from a stone

Episode 236 – Jarhead (1:44:00)

We are doing a Memorial Day themed episode with a review of Jarhead with Scott Spaulding, otherwise known as MDVet4 of the Why I Am Anti-War Podcast.

This is an extra-long episode but it goes quick and is a great discussion.

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here, and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Continue reading “Episode 236 – Jarhead (1:44:00)”

Rec baseball is a metaphor for (covid-crazy) life

“Baseball is nothing more than another classroom in the educational process,” opined late Texas Longhorns baseball coach Augie Garrido. “Really, baseball is a metaphor for life.”

This is a common refrain among those passionate about the intricate but simple beauty of baseball. Some see batters as a metaphor for finding your way back home, like “Odysseus, the Prodigal Son, [or] the Children of Israel,” while others see hitters who are “going to miss the ball more often than they hit it” as a metaphor for how to “psychologically handle failure.”

However, most Americans are absolutely not “adept at picking themselves up … as baseball players do” when anything fails, much less something huge like draconian reconstruction of every level of society per the “public health” cabal. They simply go along with the program because they like the path of least resistance. Compliance over nonconformity is their mantra. False prosperity over principle is their arc toward mythical enlightenment. Virtue signaling over virtue is the dogma. The last 14 months have proved that.

After bouncing back from our mental malaise brought on by the wu-flu propaganda, my husband and I have worked diligently since May 2020 to bring a sense of normality to our kids’ turned-upside-down lives, carving out “safe (as in safe from the tyranny) spaces” at both church and homeschool co-op. We’ve taken them maskless and jabless to multiple battlefields, beach outings, the outdoor gun range, heritage and nature jaunts in the mountains, family and historic cemeteries, political rallies in Raleigh, and amusements like bowling, go-karts, and water parks in the open states of South Carolina and Georgia.

We’ve hung out with family in both highly mandated Virginia and North Carolina, played wide open with friends, and even hosted for our neighbors a beyond “capacity limit” piano recital at our house, all sans mask and in defiance of social-distancing “regulation.” A good time was had by all. Shhhh, don’t tell the “Be a good neighbor, wear a mask/get the vax” bullies.

But large recreational activities, such as attending a live musical performance or a minor-league baseball game, seeing a movie, or some other typically boy-friendly adventures (like playing laser tag or paint ball) were all deemed a no-no here locally, even in many of the open states closest to us. This doesn’t seem like a big deal to the covid true-believers, but kids have needlessly suffered in dealing with the fallout of mandates surrounding a virus that kills less than 1% of the population and a very specific subset at that (typically unhealthy seniors who live in nursing homes).

Youth depression has skyrocketed, and there have been more covid suicides than covid deaths in kids because the mob has decreed that young, healthy people must act like old, sickly seniors, or really more like lepers. According to the scientism zealots, “Fun was so 2019.”

“Oh poor baby. Doesn’t have his high school football. Boo hoo,” tease the Twitter totalitarians, who fancy themselves the caring kind. “Get over it, Johnny. People are dying.” They cringe-post being triggered when driving past a field filled with maskless kids playing soccer. “I just want to freak out!” they admit, only to be enabled by heart emojis from the other meddling malcontents. “Unfun is the new normal!”

There’s the wind up. Eye on the ball, buddy.

Then any “uptick” in cases (a dubious number if there ever was one) is predictably blamed on youth sports, even though many kids, like my ice-hockey-playing neighbor, has had to mask during practices and games both last year and this year. Another neighbor’s youth soccer team didn’t lose the masks, but with a wink-wink, were not told to pull them back up from their chins till about half way through this spring season. And of course most leagues were outright canceled in last spring.

“Be thankful for what you get, Junior,” snidely chirp the members of the Church of Covid. “After all, this is about staying home and saving lives, remember? Stop being so selfish, boys and girls … or non-binary, non-geriatric clumps of cells. Whatever is your “gender preference,” you bes’ march in lockstep!”

Combine all that with the MLB’s increasing wokeness (from LGBT to BLM to outright leftist political activism) and their ridiculous cardboard-cutout fans from 2020, and my sons’ favorite Houston Astros cheating and their favorite player George Springer abandoning Texas for Canada, well, let’s just say I was losing loyalty to a sport that seems more and more to disappoint my baseball-loving family.

So, I was incensed when I received this email from my eldest son’s rec baseball league on April 8:

Effective immediately ALL players and coaches are required to wear a (COVID) mask in the dugout or any time they are within 6 feet of a non-family member.
Spectators should abide by the same guidelines and keep a personal distance of 6 feet from other fans and wear a mask around any non-family members.
It is imperative that we maintain these standards for the safety of everyone and health of our Spring season.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support.

And the head coach followed up with this on April 9:

Everyone should have received a message this evening from SRA regarding mask wearing in the dugouts and around non-family members. I implore everyone to heed this request and maintain all necessary precautions. Besides just following the prescribed guidelines for our mutual safety, let’s also be mindful of potential outside perceptions if DHHS folks were to pay us a visit. With all the time and work we have into this so far, I really want to see these boys continue to play the entire season.

Mama bear was roaring, but my husband talked me down. “Let him decide, honey,” my reasonable better half advised. “He’s 13, and if he wants to play ball that much, he’ll wear a mask. Plus, they’re only requiring it in the dugout. But hell if I’m wearing one while watching the game.”

My son decided he would take a mask, but only wear it if his coach requested it. Fair enough. But by the third inning of that first game after the dreaded email, the masks were all but gone, in the dugout and on the field. And the bleachers and surrounding fan areas were virtually maskless (as they had been up to that point of the season) from the get-go of the game, and nobody said a damn word!

The delightful season of fellowship and distraction from the elite-designed madness ended with a real nail-biter. Our team, the Red Sox, took an early lead, got behind by quite a few points, but then rallied in the 6th inning to tie it up. So, the teams went two extra innings, with the Sox losing in a dramatic final play of this two-and-a-half-hour saga. It was truly some of the best baseball I’ve ever seen. Sit and spin, MLB!

Lead off the bag there, bro, and get ready to seize the moment for a steal.

Right before the trophies were handed out, the president of the league walked unmasked onto the field and spoke directly to the crowd: parents, players, siblings, grandparents, friends, and even dogs. Heart in hand, he told us how the CDC had been constantly breathing down his neck, how he’d been in battles for months with local, state, and fed bureaucrats who were trying to squash the games, and how the season almost didn’t even happen at all. He explained how much he appreciated us all staying vigilant for the love of the game.

So, I decided to send this dogged dissident a message of my own.

Dear Eric,

I just wanted to let you know that the past two seasons of baseball have been such a bright light for our family in this sometimes very dark world, especially during the fall of 2020 when it was one of the few consistently “normal” activities we did. Our longtime homeschool co-op and our church were/are both steadfastly anti-mask and the like, but were kind of “underground,” in that they’re both pretty small and already filled with like-minded people who kept hush-hush about lacking governmental and social compliance.

But rec baseball was one of the more “mainstream” activities we did heck, it was probably one of the ONLY large group activities that was available to us at all last fall beyond church and co-op yet it was always so enjoyable and NOT crazy! Attending those chilly fall games became a highlight of late 2020 for my entire family, and it made us all feel so human again. I’m not one to have always been itching to get to every, single game; I mean, sometimes a mama has other stuff to tend to. But you couldn’t have dragged me away from those games! That entire season was such a hopeful and happy thing that I could kick myself for not letting you know till now.

Thus, hearing your speech at the 15U championship game last night (my son was #2 on the Red Sox) inspired me to reach out to you and say “THANK YOU!” Not only was this season as stupendous as was the fall (and honestly even better because the level of playing and amped-up skill!) but it makes it even more special knowing how much you had to fight for us: the league, the kids, the love of the game, and for families, for community, and for sanity!

My 12-year-old twins, who were on the fence about continuing to play competitive baseball (and then covid tyranny pushed them over into the we’re-done/disillusionment camp) have now decided to sign up for the 2021 fall season. And that’s because YOU made rec baseball available to their brother and our entire crew without mandate hassles and all the rest of it. In other words, you made it fun, and as we know, FUN has been in short supply for more than a year. Anyway, God bless you, good sir. Whatever you’re doing, please keep doing it. And please know that there’s a family of 5 out here who has your back the CDC and the haters be damned!

Sprint and slide. Home plate is within your reach – a journey well done.

Mask mandates are lightening up here in North Carolina, but they’re not going away forever. They’ll probably be back in full swing during flu season in the fall and winter, and they may never go away depending on the establishment, business, or corporate model (i.e., airlines and hospitals) or a government building (that would depend on the community, though, since my local suburban/rural post office and ABC store don’t require masks, or at least don’t enforce them, whereas many locations in the city still do).

And if it’s not masks, it’ll be “vaccine passports,” or another round of lockdowns, or something else stupid and dangerous to both the social fabric and the individual. And this is where baseball comes in.

Baseball is indeed an endeavor of focus, patience, and determination. It is a journey to get from home, around the bases, and back again. It is a competition against the odds and a sport best played at the local level, for the most famous are a farce and the best paid are part of the problem.

Eye on the ball, hitters. Cut it straight. Step toward the plate. Hustle to the base.

Relax, pitchers. Get it over the plate. Don’t aim it; pitch it. Focus on your form.

Call the pop flies, outfielders. Get that glove dirty, infielders.

Never give up. It’s about the individual and the team.

With baseball, anything’s possible. Yes, there are rules, and many I’m admittedly still learning, even though my kids have played rec ball for 10 years. But there’s so much freedom within those carefully guarded parameters that help the game function properly while also providing order. Rec baseball is almost ironic in its opposition to covid hysteria, which only creates chaos and fosters abnormality. Like all things woke, they make it up as they go along the polar opposite of how baseball works. Take note, class.

That’s what it’s all about: you win some, you lose some, you work hard and play hard, but no matter what, it’s all about doing everything for God’s glory, whether that’s rec baseball or anything else. And if enough people in any one area just refuse to be coerced by the globohomers, no matter who they are, life would be more about living and less about simply existing. That’s the power of saying no to the nonsensical political theater and saying yes to putting your children’s well-being (both physical and mental) hell, the health of society at-large above the fashions of the day.

As it turns out, there are still a few Americans, at least in my neck of the woods, who understand the metaphor. They get the lesson and have embraced the classroom.

And like the great Yogi Berra said, “Little League baseball is a very good thing because it keeps the parents off the streets.” So there’s always that, too! Stay tough and stick together, y’all, ’cause it ain’t over till it’s over.

Source: Dissident Mama – Rec baseball is a metaphor for (covid-crazy) life

Nonsense on Stilts: Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

By Paul C. Graham

ON NOVEMBER 19, 1863, ABRAHAM LINCOLN delivered his most revered oration at the dedication of the Soldiers National Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. As a work of English prose, The Gettysburg Address has few equals in the American literary canon. Eloquent and succinct, it has inspired Americans with almost religious awe for generations. It is one of the few instances of American oratory that has achieved a status akin to holy writ. It has become a kind of Nicene Creed that defines American orthodoxy. It is what “real Americans” believe about their historical origins, their foundational ideals, and their collective mission.

As the sesquicentennial of the Gettysburg Address came and went—some no score and almost seven years ago, that is, in 2013—a throng of articles, editorials, and commentaries poured forth from news outlets in praise of Lincoln’s oration that reminded us of the significant influence that these words have played and continue to play on the American psyche.

On the big day, the 13th of November in the year of our Lord 2,013, thousands gathered at the Soldier’s National Cemetery at Gettysburg, to remember, to commemorate, and to celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s most celebrated oration, The Gettysburg Address. Lincoln’s address was hailed not only for its eloquence, but for “inspirational” qualities, qualities which invigorated “national ideals” and provided Americans (including you and I, I reckon) a definition of “what a nation should be.” (Why, thank you, Mr. Lincoln!)

Keynote speaker James McPherson, the (in)famous Civil War historian and presiding high priest of the event, praised Lincoln’s oratorical achievement in which he claimed, among other things, “weaved together themes of past, present, and future; continent, nation, and battlefield; and birth, death and rebirth.”

The event was preceded by a quasi-religious orgy of praise and adulation in the media. Articles and editorials from news outlets from across the fruited plains joined in the chorus in praise of Lincoln’s address. One newspaper in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, even apologised over an editorial written by a staff member in 1863 who was critical of Lincoln’s address. This despite the fact that the reporter was actually there.

Apparently the staff of the 21st century of-this no- account newspaper thought themselves a better judge of Lincoln’s creation myth—mystically summoned from I-know-not-where—than the reporter on the scene who—like any other person of his time that knew even a scintilla of history as it related to America’s origins and form of government— was not duped by the pretty, albeit, scandalous words.

Their reason for this 150-year-old retraction?

Well, the man who actually attended the event and heard the address from Lincoln’s own lips was—as you may have already guessed —on the “wrong side of history”! (I could spend hours on what is wrong with the notion of history having sides, but one hopes that such a statement self-evidently crazy and a product of a “special” way of thinking.)

(If you think this kind of hindsight apology on the part of a newspaper is unique, the UK paper The Guardian apologised a couple of weeks ago—07 May 2021, to be exact—for supporting the Confederacy during the War and saying bad things about Mr. Lincoln. I guess they know better than those who lived at that time too! Seems rather arrogant, not to mention audacious, to me.)

Not to be outdone in the sesquicentennial celebration, the Public Broadcast System (PBS) trotted out their fundraising ace in the hole, Ken Burns of PBS’s “The Civil War” fame, for a new “documentary” called “The Address.” PBS described the production is described as

…a 90-minute feature length documentary … [that] tells the story of a tiny [government indoctrination camp—Just kidding—sort of …] school in Putney, Vermont, the Greenwood School, where each year the students are encouraged to practice, memorise, and recite the Gettysburg Address. In its exploration of the Greenwood School, the film also unlocks the history, context and importance of President Lincoln’s most powerful address.

To build momentum for the new documentary and get folks involved, people all over the country—all over the “nation,” in their words—were encouraged to memorise the Gettysburg Address and upload a video of them reciting it. I counted 1342 uploaded videos on the web site.

You might recognise the names of a few of the participants:

Presidents Jimmy “P-Nut” Carter, King Bush the First, Little Bush (AKA “Shrub”), and Barry Obama(lama-ding-dong). Other participants included the always charming and lovely Nancy Pelosi of the US House of non-Representatives; the always insightful and impartial Wolf Blitser of CNN, financial hot dog Warren Buffet; the heretofore missing in action queen of 70s comedy Carol Burnett, philanthropist nerd Bill “The Vaxinator” Gates, Whoopi “WTF” Goldberg of the always entertaining and informative daytime drama, The View, Jimmy “I always look stoned” Kimmel of Late Night fame, Newswoman (we think) and political commentator Rachel Maddow, America’s favourite Irish-Americans, Conan O’Brien and Bill O’Reilly and the New England financial guru and home décor diva Martha Stewart.

With this cast of characters endorsing the project—many, many illustrious names having been omitted to save space—you might ask:

“Who are you, Graham, to analyse or criticise Lincoln’s ‘inspirational’ address when so many luminaries, including experts, politicians, reporters, newscasters, performing artists, and giants of industry and finance clearly reverence the address and believe in the veracity of its contents?”

Well, friends, I will freely admit it—I’m nobody much compared to those hot shots; but I do like consistency.

To be honest, nothing would please me better to be wrong about where I’m about to take you, but I sincerely believe that truth is good and desirable for its own sake—even if it flips the American Creation Myth on its head and makes the stable of intellectual heavyweights enumerated above look a little less wise (to put it politely) …

I will be the first to admit that the words of the Gettysburg Address are pretty, indeed, lofty, stirring, enchanting—even mesmerising—but such considerations only address questions of FORM and not SUBSTANCE.

The question that was never raised—at least in anything I read or saw—during the anniversary of Lincoln’s speech and its aftermath was whether or not the pretty words were TRUE.

Now that I’ve burdened you with way too much in the way of prefatory remarks, let’s get into the meat and potatoes, so to speak, of the topic at hand by taking a line-by-line look at the text of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:

(Ok. Deep breath. Here we go!)

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation …”

As much as Lincoln may have wished it to be the case, no new nation was brought forth on the American continent “four score and seven years” before his speech.

In 1776, thirteen English colonies, with thirteen different governing bodies (out of 20 English colonies on the continent and many others in the Caribbean), collectively declared the reasons why they thought it necessary to secede from their mother country. They were “held together” by common practical interest, nothing more. It was mutually beneficial to unite for the purposes of defence against an aggressor that meant to subjugate and deny them the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to which they had come to enjoy over the course of many, many years. The colonists were not inventing something new; they were protecting something old, namely, self-government and their inherited rights as Englishmen.

There was no formal agreement binding those particular colonies together in 1776.

The Articles of Confederation would not be ratified by all of the colonies (now independent States), until 1781. But since that document expressly declared that each State retained (not gained) its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence,” one would be hard-pressed to call this union of States a “nation,” in either the ancient or modern sense of the word.

The United States Constitution—which terminated the compact created by the Articles—would not go into effect until the summer of 1788, when 11 of the 13 States ratified it, although only 9 States were required to make the document binding on those States so ratifying. (They didn’t pull the proverbial trigger until they got New York and Virginia signed-up, so they waited on them; hence, 11 before it was formally established.)

If this created a nation—one and indivisible, as they say—then the States that ratified it were ignorant of this crucial detail and would not have adopted it if they thought that it did.

What was the status of States, one wonders, that had not yet ratified the document at the time it was formally adopted?

Of course, they either remained under the Articles, or they carried on “unattached” until they were. They were most certainly not part of nation created in 1776 and from which there was no escape—never ever—regardless of the reason.

Who would sign up for such a horror without a gun in their mouth or bayonet in their breast? Seriously. Who would?

“Let us free ourselves from the British Empire, guys, and make an indivisible nation! Yea!”

Sure, man. Totally believable.

Given the foregoing, this leads us to the obvious and irrefutable conclusion that since there was no nation in 1776, 1781 or 1788, there was no “nation” when Lincoln’s speech was delivered in 1863 (or today, for that matter).

There had been a voluntary union of States created by the US Constitution, but by 1861 this political arrangement—like the union created by the Articles of Confederation—had been terminated by the solemn conventions of eleven sovereign States.

The only thing that had occurred “four score and seven years” before Lincoln’s address was that thirteen independent political societies seceded from a government that they viewed as hostile to their way of life. Nothing more.

“Conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…”

This reference to “the equality of men” in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, takes a five-word phrase out of a document of over 1300 words and imbues it with meaning which cannot be derived from either the document itself or the historical context in which it was written.

The notion of equality expressed by Mr. Jefferson has nothing to do with the modern doctrine of egalitarianism (i.e., the belief in the absolute political, social, and/or economic equality of all persons as an end to be realised), but is rooted in social contract theory, a popular political theory of the time; primarily, but not exclusively inspired by (if not copied from) the works of John Locke. Although an overview of this theory and how it is utilised in the Declaration is outside the scope of this article (although I will be addressing it in elsewhere in this book), we are certainly justified in saying that the specificity with which Jefferson justifies the separation of the American colonies from the King’s rule does not lend itself to interpret the proposition “all men are created equal” as a general or universal self-evident truth (whatever that might mean), but rather one situated in a specific set of circumstances and between specific parties.

Lincoln, of course, was not trying to convey anything that had to do with the actual meaning or intent of the author of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln evokes the language of the Declaration of Independence to give his imaginary nation an air of legitimacy.

Since there was no nation conceived in the manner put forth by Lincoln—the proposition to which it was said to be dedicated is a moot point.


Author Aside

Even though the proposition to which the so-called nations is, in fact, a moot point, the meaning of the word “proposition” ought to be defined so as to better understand the claim being made by Lincoln. This being the case, I would like to say a few words about the word “proposition” and how been employed traditionally philosophers and logicians over the ages. A proposition, simply put, is a statement with a truth value, i.e., a statement that is either true or false.

“What time is it?” is not a proposition. It is a question, and as such, does not have a truth value—it cannot said to be true and it cannot be said to be false.

“It is 3:33pm,” on the other hand, Is a proposition. It does have a truth value. It is either 3:33pm or it is not 3:33pm. We have to check our watch, clock, or mobile device to determine it truth or falsity. Exclaimations are another example of non-propositional language. “Wow!” is neither true or false. With me so far?

There are, however, different kinds or classes of propositions, but they can all be placed in one of these three categories:

• TAUTOLOGIES, or statements that, by their very construction, are always true. For example, “Either it is raining outside, or it is not raining outside.” We don’t need to look out the window to know that this proposition is true

• CONTRADICTIONS, or statement that, by their very construction, always false. For example, “It is raining outside and it is not raining outside.” Once again, we do not need to look out the window to determine that such a proposition is false

• DESCRIPTIVE, or statements that can be either true, or false, but not both. For example, “It is raining outside.” One does have to look outside to determine whether this proposition is true or false.

Of these three kinds of propositions, only the first two, tautologies and contradictions, are self-evidently true or self-evidently false, that is, undeniably true or false without reference to anything outside of the structure of the proposition. The third , descriptive propositions, are not self-evident. It requires something more, usually observation, to determine whether it is true or false.

It is Lincoln, not Jefferson, that employs the term “proposition” and as a lawyer—a successful one at that—he knew what this meant.

This being the case, should be obvious that the proposition “All men are created equal” is not a tautology, neither is it a contradiction and, therefore, is a descriptive statement, a statement that requires us to look outside of what it says in order to determination whether or not it is true or false.

Setting aside the notion of “created” in the proposition “all men are CREATED equal” for the time being, how might we determine if men are in fact equal—the descriptive character not being obvious from the proposition itself.

When I look out into the world, I see people who look different, have different levels of intelligence, some are better at some things than others… We have people who are healthy and people who are sick, rich people, poor people, and people somewhere between the two; I see people with different beliefs, values, wants, desires, needs, etc.

I, for example, am not very good at sports. A lot of my friends are. They are better at sports than I am. This being the case, at least with regards to our sporting abilities, we are not equal.

I think it is safe to say that we are not born equal—either in ability or circumstance—but maybe it is the “created” bit that should be our focus, even though, admittedly, it is not something that can be pursued scientifically or even by casual everyday observation.

This puts the proposition that “all men are created equal” into a religious or mystical understanding of this descriptive statement, which could easily open thousands of interpretations—perhaps self-evident according to a kind of faith, but in such a case, it would be self-evidently understood in different ways by different people under shifting sets of circumstances. In fact, an understanding in this light, could justify all kind of claims which may or may not have merit or improve the state of mankind—it would depend on who was evoking the mystical proposition and what they hoped to accomplish with it.

This is important only insofar people believe these united States are a NATION dedicated to a PROPOSITION. People don’t dedicate themselves to propositions, generally speaking, but ideologies often do. If a government, believing itself to rule a nation dedicated to a proposition, we can expect that they will use their authority and means to make men equal, as they happen to define it, and we will be the Guinee pigs in their various experiments trying to bring about this unnatural state of affairs. By this I mean only that decisions will be made not on how people actually ARE, but how they believe they OUGHT to be. Ought is tricky and belongs to the field of ethics or moral philosophy. Ought requires a metaphysical foundation. Ought takes us away from a proposition demonstrably true or false, and lead us down a path of chaos, confusion, and everything that goes with it. Ought has to be enforced if it is to be realised. This should make just about anyone who has interacted with the government at any level a little uneasy.

It is for this reason that it is my opinion that even if we were a nation (which we are not) dedicated to a proposition (which we are not), it is a bad idea for a nation, any nation, to dedicate themselves to a proposition, any proposition. Nothing good has ever come from such a thing and nothing ever will if history or human experience born out over time and sifted out over multiple generations, is any kind of guide. When someone or a collection of someones with money, power, and a standing army think that people over which they claim to rule ought to be a certain way and not another regardless of their consent or will, look out!


“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure…”

Words matter. Ideas have consequences.

A “civil war,” by definition, is a war between two or more parties, each of whom are fighting to control a single government. Everyone knows this, yet the nationalist—heirs of Lincoln—refuse to concede this very basic and incontrovertible linguistic point.

The conflict over which Mr. Lincoln presided was not a war over who would govern the political cesspool on the banks of the Potomac River (Washington, DC), but rather—and this is the long and short of it—it was a war for independence (that is, government by the consent of the governed) on one side and a war of invasion, conquest, and subjugation on the other.

(This fact, in my opinion, is the “Rosetta Stone”—the key—that unlocks all subsequent interpretations of American History—including the one invented by Lincoln.)

Because there was never a nation conceived in the way described by Lincoln, or dedicated to any abstract proposition such as equality, there was no legal or moral justification for Lincoln’s invasion of the Southern States. (Period. Full Stop.)

If the political entity created by the U.S. Constitution actually made a nation, then it could not logically be broken-up. A nation, by definition is one thing. However, the Constitution did not create a nation; it created a union. A union, by contrast is not one thing, but a plurality—two or more existing parties joined together by contract or agreement for specific purposes. By falsely describing the American union as a nation, Mr. Lincoln could call the conflict a civil war without credulity and rhetorically justify holding it together by force. This reasoning, however brilliant, was patently false then and is patently false today.

“… We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live… The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced… [and] gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain …“

After recounting the mythological birth of Lincoln’s nation, we must take courage as we look at the consequences of this false rendering of history. Its legacy is blood, rivers of blood—blood not shed to save a nation, but rather to create one by force of arms. Lincoln’s words are not only untrue, they also make a mockery of the dead that he “memorialised” in his address.

There was no nation to save and, therefore, there is no unfinished work for “us” to continue—at least not any work that existed prior to the war.

Insofar as the War created a nation—albeit one born in blood and not in law, tradition, or unfettered consent of the governed—it also created a mission. But let us not allow ourselves to obscure the obvious: this mission is innovation; it is revolutionary and ingrained in a false understanding of what actual people, at some actual time, actually said and actually did during the period under discussion.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of 1776 or the union that was created by either the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution.

Once a swindle of this magnitude is accomplished, the guilty party is obliged to cover up the crime or suffer the consequences. The Gettysburg Address is certainly among the most eloquent alibis in history.

As much as we may whence at the implication of such an assertion, we must not look the other way. The Union soldiers—note the absence of “national” in this appellation applied to the US military throughout the war—under Lincoln’s command were not holy warriors fighting for either a nation or a proposition, they were victims of ambition and revolution instigated by the head of a new sectional political party—the Republicans.

Those men’s blood, those men who lay in the dark, dank earth as Lincoln spun his tale, was only shed in vain if we refuse to call their slaughter what it was, seek to prevent any such thing from happening again under such false pretences, and bravely cast the blame where it belongs!

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

These are, by far, the most audacious statements of the address!

A new birth of freedom for whom? A government of, by, and for what people?

He doesn’t say. It is such a sweeping and grand statement that just about anything could be read into it.

Well, almost anything. I don’t think that Self-government for the Southern people could be read into this speech. In fact, they would, in the name of self-government, be invaded, sacked, burned, pillaged, raped, and left in utter ruin because they had the temerity to assert the right to govern themselves as their fathers had done in 1776—without anyone’s permission, I might add.

* * *

American journalist, essayist, and magazine editor, H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) pointed out the absurdity of the doctrine expressed in the Gettysburg Address in a 1922 sketch on Lincoln. His words are as powerful now as they were then:

Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Let’s repeat that last sentence again: “The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.” Let that sink in for a moment …

Lincoln Historian and Pulitzer Prise winner Garry Wills called the Gettysburg Address “a giant, if benign, swindle.” (Emphasis added.) Lincoln’s words, although admittedly false, accomplished a great many things in Mr. Wills’s estimation. It (1) created a “different America” by (2) clearing “the infected atmosphere of American history” and (3) cleansing the Constitution. Best of all, for Mr. Wills, Lincoln’s words gave the American people (some of them, at least) (4) “a new past to live with that would change their future indefinitely …”

A new past! Goodness gracious!

The Gettysburg Address was certainly a “giant swindle,” as Wills observed, but it was most assuredly not “benign. It was and is a malignant and cancerous lie—a lie that cost untold numbers of lives, an unaccountable loss of blood and treasure, and worst of all, continues to spread a diseased understanding of America right down to our own day.

Generations of Americans have already and will continue to stumble under the weight of this falsehood. Coupled with the violence that enforced this view of history, it forever destroyed the America of the founding generation. While some believe this to be a fortunate outcome, it came at the expense of the ability of normal, rational thinking Americans to reasonably access where they are, how they got there, and—to paraphrase the immortal words of Rodney King—why we can’t “just get along.”

Admittedly, words can do a lot of things, but despite their many powers, words cannot transform a fib into a fact. They cannot change the past; cannot change the terms of a compact; and they most certainly cannot create a nation out of thin air!

Neither the court historians, nor the media, or even the might of the United States government can make the words of the Gettysburg Address correspond to reality. They can only perpetuate the lie; guard the lie; and ridicule those who attempt to expose the lie—if they are lucky!

The lie—at least until recently—seemed secure. Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, and a growing throng of strange post-modern ideologies are trying to replace this nationalist myth with another nationalist myth, equally flawed as it relates to what America is, including, of course, the proposition to which it is supposedly dedicated.

The 1619 Project, no less than former President Trump’s 1776 Report, both suffer from the same derangement—belief in the “Proposition Nation.”

Both are rooted in a falsification of the plain facts of history readily available to anyone with an internet connection or library card (if they have inner-library loan) and a little ambition.

Unlike other creation myths dismissed out of hand for not having enough evidence, the position I have attempted to articulated has the following items to clearly illustrate the nature of the Union created by the founders under the compact styled the “Constitution for the United States of America.”

(Note that it is not called the “Constitution for the United People of America,” or “Constitution for the United Administrative Political Subdivisions of America,” but the “Constitution for the United STATES of America.”)

In brief, this is what we got:

1. Notes on the Constitutional Conventions by actual participants (Which, of course, show how the framers of the Constitution understood the meaning of the document and the nature of the Union it proposed to establish)
2. The proceedings of the States’ ratification conventions (Which show how each of the ratifying States understood the nature of the proposed Union and the terms and conditions created by its adoption)
3. The Constitution itself (Which, you might at this point guess, says nothing about the creation of a national or centralised government, neither does it establish a national mission statement, including the proposition to which the non-nation is purportedly dedicated)
4. The writing of the proponents of the proposed Constitution, the Federalist (why they thought adoption was a good thing and how they argued it)
5. The writing of the opponents of the proposed Constitution, the Anti-Federalist (why they thought adoption was a bad thing and how they argued it)
6. Correspondences and other writings of the participants involved in both the creation and adoption of the Constitution
7. The newspapers and other publications of the time period in question
8. The arguments on the nature of the Union, for example, the famous Webster-Haynes debates and other debates recorded or written prior to the War to Prevent Southern Independence and/or
9. Other non-primary sources that straighten things right out by employing the kinds of documents I have just enumerated. I will mention two, although there are other worthy candidates for your consideration:

• Able Upshur’s A Brief Enquiry Into the True Nature And Character Of Our Federal Government
• Albert Taylor Bledsoe’s Is Davis a Traitor: Or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War

This is a lot of documentary evidence by any standard!

Given the forgoing, I can only conclude is that the Gettysburg Address is “nonsense on stilts” and a dangerous lie that has the power, clearly has the power, to alter one perception of reality—past, present, future—and not in a good way!

There are a few other points I hope you carry away with you after going through the position argued above—why I think it matters …

➊ Our understanding of where we are and how we got here cannot give us the bearings we need to chart a course for where we want to be if it is based on a falsehood. This applies to many things, including, but not limited to, the nationalist creation myth found in the Gettysburg Address.

➋ Words matter. Ideas have consequences. Sometimes bloody consequences.

➌ It is better to be right than to be wrong if it can be helped. The acquisition of knowledge breads confidence, poise, and the ability to clearly articulate your position without resorting to argument or the deployment of logical fallacies such as ad homimen attacks—one used ad nauseum by people who hate us.


➍ if we wish to see that the true history of our Confederate fathers is preserved for future generation, we must get the history of our Confederate fathers’ fathers exactly right.

When we do, it is plain to see and exhilarating to know—even in these dark days of cultural revolution and an unnatural hatred towards our people and our symbols—that THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!

When you get that bit right, everything else—especially history, politics, and never-ending noise and chaos coming from the media, especially as it relates to America, falls right into place!

I, for one, think this is a fine thing—an exceptionally fine thing indeed!

Philosopher, publisher, and writer Paul C. Graham graciously let me cross-publish this treatise. It has only been shared in part with the Wade Hampton SCV camp in Columbia, SC, and will most likely be included in whole in his forthcoming book “Southern Woke” comprised of his essays, speeches, observations, and aphorisms. To learn more about Graham, click here, and to download a free digital edition of his book “Confederaphobia,” click here.

Source: Dissident Mama – Nonsense on Stilts: Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

Episode 235 – The Animatrix (1:24:42)

We ready ourselves to unplug from the May-trix with the Afrolibertarian and a discussion on the Animatrix.

We will have approximately 3 minutes per animated short for discussion time – this oughta be good.

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here, and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Continue reading “Episode 235 – The Animatrix (1:24:42)”

Keep Asheville wearied, keep the rebel remnant weird

“Keep Asheville weird” has been the unofficial motto for this Western North Carolina city for as long as I can recall. But the once-quaint Blue Ridge town has become wearied. It’s tired and worn out in its progressive predictability.

This is really nothing new to Dixians who have been paying attention.

“Asheville is a tumour on the face of North Carolina.”

“I call it Trasheville.”

“A town full of fudge packers, smelly hippies, and dip shits.”

“Asheville is the western version of the People’s Republic of Chapel Hill.”

These comments came from a social-media post of mine after Asheville “apologized for its role in slavery and voted in favor of providing reparations to its African-American community” this past July. My friend William Estes’ family has been calling home that part of Southern Appalachia since the 1790s and his great-uncle designed the Buncombe County seal.

Below, he explains his theory as to why “The home of Zebulon Vance, Thomas Clingman, Thomas Wolfe, and Richard Weaver has been turned into a free-range lunatic asylum.”

The eco-hippies don’t even realize they’re mimicking the anti-industrial-capitalist, land-based, and localist worldview of those dreaded Confederate lost-causers when they preach and practice agrarianism. And evangeleftists don’t get that Southerners were good stewards well before the regulatory state pretended to be.
“Eat the rich”? Why, those would be the economic looters known as Yankees, y’all.

But Asheville has amped up its lunacy, building off last summer’s BLM-Antifa terrorism and its institutional enabling and systemic sponsorship. So on Monday, the city began disassembling the 75-foot obelisk honoring Zebulon B. Vance, who was born in nearby Weaverville. “The process could take from 10 days to a month, [a city spokesperson] said. The contractor will take possession of all the materials, including the blocks.”

You heard that right. Asheville City Council members didn’t vote 6-1 in March to simply remove the statue honoring this NC legislator, US congressman, US senator, and two-time governor of North Carolina that has been a downtown centerpiece since 1897. They’re disassembling it, as in taking it apart granite block by granite block, and giving it to some government-approved grifter.

Other materials the contractor will “take possession of” include the scaffolding, which was erected around the monument in July in order to hold up the “shroud” masking the statue from the sensitive but unseeing eyes of Asheville automatons. A strong wind, however, tore the opaque covering in September and the city never replaced the malevolent mantle.

“We’re all in this together,” parroted a banal borg to the local News 13 TV station. But are we? After all, “temporary site restoration” will will include “a $25,535 landscaping contract to MS Lean Landscaping, an Asheville African American-owned business.” Whipty-do!

That ain’t love or emancipation, and ain’t even Marxist economic theory. It’s what ya call woke mercantilism, but really it’s the same ol’ crony-capitalist looting and grifting the South’s been subjected to by its conquerors since April 1865. Free at last, my ass.

Notice another gem of unity in this article from the Asheville Citizen Times, in which the word “white” is not capitalized, but “Black” is. For good cultural-Marxist measure, “African American” is also used, but never is “European American.” Maybe it’s because this White reporter’s degrees are in political science and anthropology that he so willingly spoon-feeds progressive agitprop to the masses. Creepy.

My mother in-law and William discuss what it’s like to live among the hubristic hegemons and shallow charlatans who’ve invaded much of their ancestral homeland.

Even some Western NC natives, like Oralene Simmons, will sell out home for fame as a “racial justice activist.” Bending like a Bolshevik reed in the globohomo wind, she proclaimed that “with other cities and states taking down monuments and statues, I just felt that we were in line to go that way.” So stunning and brave!

Simmons, “who is Black” (reminded the Citizen Times‘ critical-race-theory correspondent just in case you couldn’t tell by her photo), co-chaired the Asheville-Buncombe County Vance Monument Task Force, which was formed after last spring’s BLM-Antifa riots and the anarcho-tyrants’ attempted “autonomous zone.” Way to fight for the civil rights of property owners and non-leftist residents, Oralene.

Southern-without-apology folks won’t take a knee? Well, we’ll just take their history and try to erase it from memory. Conservatives don’t want to “dismantle racism”? Hell, we’ll dismantle their heroes, denigrate their heritage, and spit on their ancestors. Kumbaya, comrades!

This purge has nothing to do with “a national reckoning on race,” as the corporate media is wont to recite, but everything to do with power. Funny thing is the leftists depend on the civil, governmental, and social systems created by White men for their shakedown.

They rely upon do-gooders white-knighting for their forever-oppressed and always-morphing intersectional minorities. Dare I say this altruism smacks of chivalry, which is an outgrowth of the “whiteness” and tradition the lefties hate so much.

They twist the Gospel that radicals say is borne of white supremacy, yet still use Christianity’s precepts as a means to coerce the clueless and punish dissenters. I say it’s time to turn the tables.

And by that, I don’t mean to abuse faith or roots. But let’s simply take the progressives at their own words.

“Let’s take this as a new time,” babbled the borg. Yes, let’s.

If these pompous presentists are either unwilling or unable to grasp the nuances and complexities of history, and they refuse to live and let live, let them have none of the benevolent benefits of the heritage they so loathe. Like I wrote in 2019, “Ingrates should get nothing.”

Ron Swanson, Vance’s TV character lookalike, handmade a city permit that read, “I can do what I want. -Ron.” Likewise, Vance was an ardent proponent of individual rights and his rallying cry, like that of all Confederates, was “Let us alone!”

For instance, we could pretend to play along with clown world and force the left’s hand by encouraging them to change the name of Asheville and Buncombe County, since both Samuel Ashe and Edward Buncombe were slave owners. Maybe it could come to be known as city “Xe” in county “They/Them.” Then again, those words are comprised of the alphabet of the Latins, an “old dead white men” culture if there ever was one, so maybe Asheville should be a grunt.

One cheeky lawyer admitted the anti-whiteness inconsistency with the city’s moniker, so he proposed keeping “Asheville,” but changing the namesake to that of black tennis legend, Arthur Ashe. You can’t make this stuff up.

Thinking this would help with the retarded rebranding, he even suggested repurposing the Vance Monument into a giant tennis racket. But too this would’ve brought about a few progressive pitfalls.

First, tennis was an invention of the French and was codified by the Brits, both of which are known in post-modern parlance as white colonial oppressors, so that’s a no go. (This reminds me of when some Richmonders were oohing and ahhing over blacktivist ballerinas in their tutus and pointe shoes raising black-power fists while on the vandalized and disgraced Lee Monument there in Virginia’s capital.)

(“How symbolic,” they screeched! Well, what it really symbolizes is legit cultural appropriation. After all, ballet was invented by the Italians and flourished under the French and Russians, all of whom are considered “white folk,” and icky Europeans no less. You bes’ give up tennis and ballet, intersectional allies!)

Second, if Arthur Ashe had really cared about “racial justice,” he would have used his fame to Africanize his name like black militants did during his day. Better peg Asheville “Muhammed-Ali-ville” or “Mumia-Abu-Jamal-boro.” Or better yet, let’s play it super-safe and call it “New Georgia,” in honor of George Floyd, of course. Now we’re talking.

If progressives “wish Western Civilization gone, then it should ALL be gone,” William commented. “They deserve nothing, not even its bones to squat and benefit from. You want a new civilization, build one from scratch. Destroying is easy, building is another thing entirely.”

According to the aforementioned Citizen Times story, “Repurposing the monument was not appropriate, Simmons said, because if it continued to stand, people would continue to reflect on Vance and his views.”

That’s what you call loyalty — something Southerners used to know a thing or two about. It’s time to get it back.

So, who was Vance, and why do the totalitarians want to cancel him so badly? In short, he was an “evil Confederate,” serving as NC’s wartime governor, company commander in the “Rough and Ready Guards,” and as colonel in the 26th NC infantry.

Oh, and did I mention that the Vance family owned slaves? Yep, that guy had “traitor” written all over him.

But what Vance was really a “traitor” to was invasion and coercion, and selling out your kith and kin. He “objected strenuously to the Confederate conscription and impressment of property laws, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, discrimination against North Carolinians in the appointment and promotion of commissioned officers, and the use of Virginia officers in the state.”

Vance was even a “staunch Unionist” but became a “diehard secessionist when his beloved home state was asked to supply troops to fight against neighboring South Carolina. It was 160 years ago today that he and all the other representatives at the NC Convention voted unanimously to secede from these United States. The date was May 20, 1861.

Post-bellum, Vance “opposed the protective tariff, the internal-revenue system, civil-service reform, and the repeal of the Sherman Silver Act” as a four-time elected US senator, although the “Radical Republicans refused to let him take his seat” during what would’ve been his first term in the early years of Reconstruction and all the disenfranchisement it entailed. “His name is not associated with any constructive legislation.” That’s my favorite kinda fed!

This is why Vance is so despised. His life is a reminder of resistance to centralization. Vance and his fellow Dixians’ cause was “the biggest and most authentic people’s movement in American history,” explains historian Clyde Wilson, and Tar Heels (the lion’s share of my paternal Confederate ancestors) were as central to the struggle as were any other brave and determined Rebs.

Political philosopher Richard Weaver, a native of Western NC and a descendant of the founders of Weaverville (where Vance was born), opined that “all questions resolve themselves ultimately into metaphysical problems.” Indeed, the Southern cultural genocide and its monument destruction isn’t about the rock or the obelisks themselves. It’s about ideas, and Asheville is void of any good ones. It’s about smashing beauty, and Asheville is ugly inside. It’s about elevating emptiness, and Asheville has that in spades.

Professor David Middleton wrote, “Weaver noted, the South — which once had been ‘in the curious position of having been right without realizing the grounds for its rightness’ but which nonetheless by this same unarticulated instinct for the permanent things had functioned as America’s ‘flywheel’ to check or urge on the country as a whole as it deviated from or approached traditional values.”

So, let the reprobates in Asheville and in other colonized cities littering the South be slaves to self, to the temporary and pedantic. Let them be not transcendent. Not interesting. Not enduring. Not deep. Let them be weary.

But the rebel remnant must be that flywheel again. We are the weird ones, who are “of strange or extraordinary character, odd, fantastic.” We Dixians are in opposition to all that is fashionable. We builders of lasting things have “weird” and God-honoring work to do. Let’s get to it.

Source: Dissident Mama – Keep Asheville wearied, keep the rebel remnant weird

Episode 234 – The Matrix: Revolutions (1:42:23)

About to throw down on some the Matrix: Revolutions with Mike C. of MechanicalDreamRevolution.

The human city of Zion defends itself against the massive invasion of the machines as Neo fights to end the war at another front – inside himself and finds his true purpose.

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here, and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Continue reading “Episode 234 – The Matrix: Revolutions (1:42:23)”

Dissident Mama, episode 36 – Electric Dinosaur

Ryan Randall, also known as Electric Dinosaur, is the writer and artist behind the Southern-without-apology comic book “Rebel Yell,” as well as “Gun on the Chickahominy,” a casual pixel-target game set during the War Between the States, which is due out May 21. This young and creative Southern son has already felt the burn of internet censorship, so let’s find out why some crowd-funding platforms and YouTube have their panties in such a progressive wad over his content and see what keeps Randall keepin’ on in these (sometimes) seemingly fruitless times with their never-ending woke battles. Let’s “exercise our imaginations,” shall we?!

Download this episode, watch our discussion on YouTube, or listen to the episode here 👇.

A few links pertaining to our conversation:

Rebel Yell, A Hero for Southerners” –  A 2019 interview with Randall by our compatriot Carolina Contrarian
• “Brother in Arms” – My essay about our mutual friend and graphic artist Matthew Silber
Good Reads – Reviews of issues 1-3 of “Rebel Yell”
Eric July on PC Comics” – Tom Woods Show interview
Mosby’s Confederacy” and “Ultimate General: Gettysburg” – Southern video games on Steam
What is Distributism?” – An explanation by Joseph Pearce of The Imaginative Conservative
• “DM Podcast, episode 29” – My interview with Dr. John Devanny

Source: Dissident Mama – Dissident Mama, episode 36 – Electric Dinosaur

Episode 233 – The Matrix: Reloaded (1:10:36)

Whoa….deja vu We are back in the Matrix, this time with Patrick MacFarlane of Liberty Weekly for the Matrix: Reloaded.

Freedom fighters Neo, Trinity and Morpheus continue to lead the revolt against the Machine Army, unleashing their arsenal of sentinels to destroy the last human civilization on Earth.

Most of you are here because of your disobedience.

The Matrix has you…

We will have much to discuss on this one.

Happy Mother’s Day.

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here, and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Continue reading “Episode 233 – The Matrix: Reloaded (1:10:36)”

Episode 232 – Desperado (1:11:45)

This is our Cinco de Mayo special where we review “Desperado” with Johnny Profita of Peddling Fiction who happens to be residing south of the border at this time.

Desperado is a 1995 American neo-Western action film written, produced, and directed by Robert Rodriguez. It is the second part of Rodriguez’s Mexico Trilogy. It stars Antonio Banderas as El Mariachi who seeks revenge on the drug lord who killed his lover.

This one is so good that Johnny chose to do this rather than watch a sunset bikini photoshoot on the beach. ¡Ándale, ándale!

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here, and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Continue reading “Episode 232 – Desperado (1:11:45)”