Stirring the Pot

Well, it certainly seems as if my post on the Southern Nationalist Network’s support of the “flagging” protest of certain Confederate heritage advocates against the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts has aroused controversy in some corners.  The Southern Nationalist Network itself has decided that I’m a “Leftist” as well as an “anti-nationalist … of the forced-Unionist variety,” which, on the face of it, seems quite an accomplishment.  The SNN seems particularly upset that I quoted what it believes in, including the argument that southerners are of European descent, which by definition excludes African Americans.  It claims that quoting what it says constitutes an accusation of racism … a term I never employed, but one that seems much on its mind.  Moreover, it seems I’ve overlooked something the SNN sees as true:

They are offended that we openly condemn the un-natural socialist pipe-dream of equality, which, as the Left has proven time and time again over the last century, can only be achieved by battering people down to the same common denomination. No two people or groups of people are equal. Even a child can see this, but it is apparently forbidden to utter such a truth in the politically-correct modern America.

I believe I pointed out that the SNN and its followers believe in inequality.

By the way, among the commenters cheering on the SNN was our good friend Connie Chastain: the SNN links to her blog as well.  The other comments are pretty funny.

Elsewhere I’ve been dismissed as an “abolitionist” (as if calling for the abolition of slavery was a bad thing) and a “genuine racist” because I don’t see white southerners as a distinct ethnic group.  I don’t.  Geographical proximity does not define ethnicity, as anyone who pays attention to the world around them can attest.  Moreover, I see a lot of diversity among southerners, period, by region, race, and origin.  I see a lot of diversity among white southerners, including the men and women who were once my students at South Carolina’s Wofford College and who continue to keep in contact with me.  I don’t think they would care to be associated with the views of the SNN … nor with the views of another one of my critics, one Hunter Wallace, who runs Occidental Dissent.

Mr. Wallace is upset with me because I don’t see things the way he does.  How does he see things?  Glad you asked …

So, Negroes can be “African-Americans,” but we would prefer to withdraw our claim to be “Americans,” and organize ourselves into a separate and autonomous White ethnostate called the “Republic of Dixie,” which would be constructed around a Serbian or Hungarian definition of citizenship.

A “White ethnostate”?  Tell us more …

The Supreme Court had ruled in the Dred Scott decision in 1857 that the Negro wasn’t an American. Confederate commissioners lobbied the Border States to secede from the Union on the basis that the Republican Party supported miscegenation and racial equality. Alexander Stephens also made it perfectly clear that the Confederacy was the first government in the history of the world to be based on the principle of racial inequality.

Well, he’s got a point there … right, Confederate heritage advocates?

But wait, there’s more …

Negroes are “African-Americans,” the responsibility of the United States which armed them to destroy the Confederacy, a White Man’s Country, where they were never regarded as citizens. Upon the dissolution of the United States, “African-Americans” will remain the responsibility of Washington, which can resettle them somewhere else in its vast dominions.

Really?  What else?  Perhaps it’s Mr. Wallace’s declaration of that “great physical, philosophical, and moral truth that the Negro is not the equal of the White man.”

And so there you have it.  And, like the head of the flaggers, Mr. Wallace was also interviewed by SNN, and you can listen to both podcasts courtesy of SNN.

I haven’t seen the flaggers object to SNN’s position, and I await to hear what they have to say about Mr. Wallace’s views.  After all, they aren’t shy about attacking that which they don’t like.

47 thoughts on “Stirring the Pot

  1. Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 6:23 pm

    Oh, yes, there is the expected outburst by Connie Chastain …

    Case in point — Crossroads has a very recent post titled “Who Supports “Flagging” the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts?” and in which Professor Simpson engages in one of his favorite pasttimes — tarring people with the racist brush, in this case, the VMFA flaggers. I cannot convey to you how much I despise phony racism smears, particularly of good people like CC Lesters, Susan Frise Hathaway and others….

    Now, how did I tar the SNN with the “racist brush”? By mentioning that the flaggers were endorsed by SNN? By quoting Ms. Chastain’s good friend Dr. Hill? By mentioning that Ms. Chastain’s own blog heads the link list at SNN? By pointing to a flagger podcast with SNN? How is any of that racist?

    If Ms. Chastain thinks Dr. Hill uttered racist sentiments, or that the SNN is a racist organization, and that in so mentioning the SNN’s support of the flagger movement that I’ve somehow associated that movement with a group she deems racist, well, them, she’ll have to explain why she likes Dr. Hill, why he endorses her writings, why her blog is at the lead of the SNN link list, and so on. They all seem to keep company rather well.

    But I didn’t use the term racist. She did.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 1, 2012 / 3:09 pm

      Apparently Ms. Chastain says that to associate her with Dr. Hill or his views (including the one that only people of European descent are southerners) by calling him “a good friend” is to smear her. It’s a “lie” to call them friends.

      But she doesn’t repudiate Dr. Hill’s definition of southerner. She just wants it to be understood that the good doctor is her “very, *very* good acquaintance.” As for Dr. Hill, he says that Ms. Chastain is “a woman I’ve admired for some time now (Connie, I’m probably getting you in deeper trouble . . .). But she is correct; we are more good acquaintances than good friends.” That says that they are more acquaintances than friends, but doesn’t exactly reject the term “friends,” now, does it? So is Ms. Chastain calling her “very, *very* good acquaintance” (wink, wink) a liar? So it seems.

      Let them squabble over the exact nature of their relationship.

      So Ms. Chastain is really upset with me because she’s simply a “very, *very* good acquaintance: with Dr. Hill … but she expresses no objections to the sentiments of Dr. Hill, SNN, or the folks at Occidental Dissent. Interesting.

  2. James F. Epperson December 29, 2011 / 6:30 pm

    The racism is so obvious as to be almost unbelievable. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, there shouldn’t be a problem calling it a duck.

    • Shao Ping December 29, 2011 / 7:19 pm

      Agreed. Not sure why one would be chary about labeling them racist. They are awfully willing to call us (flattering myself by including me in with Brooks and the rest of the regular, non-Confederate commentators) racists.

  3. Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 6:44 pm

    You’re a historical revisionist.
    That’s enough reason for me.
    I suppose you keep good company with McPhereson, Ambrose, Lowen and Zimmerman…
    So far you’ve done a nice job on trying to keep the topic and sub topics objective.
    Problem is, it is mainly subjective… Everyone applies their own understandings to what they read in order to understand it from their POV. History was not made by one person’s POV, nor can it be understood and related as such. No, not even by a dozen people…. You’ve gotta walk in the other person’s shoes before you can begin to feel his feet hurt and know his travels..

    Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 6, 2012 / 7:12 pm

      Why don’t you post under your name, Mr. Manning?

      Why Tim Manning thinks “Mike Lamb” is a good cover is curious to me.

  4. Michael December 29, 2011 / 6:51 pm

    I’m flattered that you would be so preoccupied with my website as to attack it with two hit pieces in a single day. I should note that I’ve also interviewed a Puerto Rican nationalist. I’m waiting for your hit piece where you attack me for this and label me a mulatto nationalist or something of the like for interviewing him. I’ve interviewed an anarchist before – when are you going to write a hit piece on how I’m an anarchist? I’ve interviewed a member of the Choctaw nation – what about that hit piece? You could even include quotes where you note how your Union heroes preached genocide against the Indians. Just a suggestion.

    I should also point out that I’m not “upset” with you quoting me or the website. Quote away. Perhaps it will give you ammo for another of the dust-collecting pieces of imperialist propaganda you seem to enjoy cranking out.

    Also, should you be interested, I would like to invite you on my podcast. I’d love to get your take on self-determination, nationality, the state and equality/inequality.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 7:15 pm

      It appears you have no issue with how I have represented your views. However, it is Ms. Chastain who suggests that by mentioning your support of the flagging of the VMFA that I am associating that protest with racism. You might want to take that up with her.

      • Michael December 29, 2011 / 8:31 pm

        By not putting the quotes you used in context they could be easily mis-understood. For example, my opposition to equality could be mis-understood as advocating a state policy of slavery, which is not a policy I support. I simply recognise the fact that no two people or groups of people have equal talents or abilities. And I oppose any attempt by government to interfere in society in order to promote equality by holding one group back or artificially elevating a group.

        Also, you took Dr Hill’s statement about the European origin of my ethnic/cultural group and wrote that it explicitly excludes Blacks. You mentioned this more than once, playing up the Black racial angle. Obviously it excludes everyone not of our ethnic/cultural group, which means probably 99% of the world’s population. If one talks about the Swedish ethnic/cultural group it excludes my people and everyone who is not Swedish. The same is true of the Cherokee, the Gullah, Yankees, Germans, Spanish, etc. This is the nature of ethnic/national groups. This is what it means to be a true nation rather than a universalist collection of people from all over the world. I firmly reject the American-style universalism and egalitarianism you promote, just as I reject the US Empire as the ultimate expression of those values, constant warmongering around the planet and a host of other evils.

        It’s an anti-imperialist nationalism that I support and one which promotes the right of self-determination for all ethnic/cultural/national groups. On this and on the issue of the state (an institute which by definition is founded upon property rights violations) I would obviously disagree with Hunter Wallace, as I disagree on certain issues with many of the guests on my podcasts. I’m not sure from your posts if you realise that just because you interview people and may agree with them on one thing it doesn’t necessarily mean you endorse everything else they believe in. I would think this would be obvious, but perhaps not.

        My invitation to you to appear on the SNN podcast stands. I would love to question a forced-Unionist such as yourself on equality/inequality, the state, self-determination. I’d love to know how you can idolise people who promoted ethnic cleansing and waged a war of genocide against my people.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 8:45 pm

          Having provided links to the statements in question allows readers to see them in context, which answers your concern. I’ve already posted Dr. Hill’s speech, and so what he said can be understood free of spin … including yours. So you’ve uncovered no evidence of misrepresentation, and you make no such claims.

          Given that you misrepresent (or simply assume) my views on a number of questions, I have no interest in rewarding your behavior with an interview.

          • Michael December 29, 2011 / 8:58 pm

            Do I misrepresent your opposition to self-determination? You celebrate the violent suppression of the South’s attempt at self-determination. Do I misrepresent you support for Leftist universalism? You promote a civic “nationalism” rather than traditional nationalism and regularly attack people from the Left on race. Do I misrepresent you on imperialism? The same Union army you celebrate which waged a war of genocide against my people then proceeded to wage a war of genocide against the Plains Indians. And it went on to wage an imperialist war against the Philippines and numerous other nations. You have challenged none of my statements about you. If you are not opposed to self-determination, if you don’t support Leftist universalism and if you oppose imperialism then let’s hear about it. And while you are making racial accusations, go ahead and take down the picture of all those racists from the top of your site. That would only be consistent, right?

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 9:07 pm

            I’m simply not going to waste my time replying to your misrepresentations and fictions about me. You’ve offered your opinions about my views but offered no proof. I’ll leave it at that.

        • Corey Meyer December 29, 2011 / 9:04 pm


          I am going to assume that the anti-imperialist nationalism you support would be that of a reformed Confederacy…or a free south, one that looks like the old south..yes I have read and listen to much of what “Dr.” Hill has said. How can you with a straight face claim that this new south would give self-determination to all ethnic/cultural/national groups when “Dr”. Hill has said just the opposite…that is it for White Southerners and that those who do not meet that standard will have to follow or get out. And what about the old south do you find the “Self-determination for all ethnic/cultural/national groups.” in?

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:15 pm

      I’m flattered that you continue to dedicate posts to me. But you have far to go before you are Connie Chastain.

  5. Corey Meyer December 29, 2011 / 7:41 pm

    Is it me or does anyone else find the irony in a southern secessionist, Michael Cushman of SNN, dicussing Southern Nationalism…I thought secessionists hated nationalism?

    • Michael December 29, 2011 / 9:24 pm

      Corey, I spoke of my own views, not any one else’s views. However, you are misrepresenting Dr Hill’s position. And by putting his title in quotations are you trying to cast doubt upon his PhD? If you doubt his credentials why don’t you call up the university from which he graduated? As for the old South, I was not alive then. It was a different era. The South certainly had a moral right to secede (as did the Colonies from the UK), though I would agree with you that slavery was immoral. At the same time, the US invasion of the South was immoral. And most of the actions taken by the US government of that era (and our own) are immoral. In my view, de-centralisation and secession is a good thing in that it breaks up large states. The more de-centralisation, the better. If some part of my own State wanted to secede I would wish them the best. We don’t have to live under the same government to be South Carolinians. One day I would like the see the complete abolition of the institution of the state since it is an immoral institution.

      I’d also like to point out that the nationalism I support is anti-statist. It’s not ironic that a Southern secessionist would be a nationalist if nationalism is understood classically, meaning that it refers to the nation of people, not any government. I would recommend Dr Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book “Democracy – The God that Failed” for more on this.

      I see you attacked me on your own site today, Corey. I have refrained from attacking you, but whatever floats your boat. I see that you also lied about what Dr Hill said in his video. I was there in person at that conference and I recorded and posted the video and Dr Hill did not call for anyone to be assassinated. I see you gloated about how the video was flagged based on these false claims. It’s hard to believe that folks like y’all, forced Unionists who violently oppose self-determination and are willing to resort to such tactics as I just wrote about, claim the moral high ground. lol In fact, it’s comical.

  6. Al Mackey December 29, 2011 / 10:49 pm

    After reading the SNN’s statements, all I have to say is:

    • Corey Meyer December 30, 2011 / 9:46 am


      He said the Sec. of the Treasury and the head of the Fed should “Decorate Lamp Posts”…what about that sounds like they should be hanging Christmas decorations?

  7. palmetto December 30, 2011 / 7:09 am


    You have very simply stated the facts, and the others on this blog are sidestepping the issues and fear to respond.

    Mr. Simpson’s best response was:

    “I’m simply not going to waste my time replying to your misrepresentations and fictions about me”

    The truth is that your representations have been dead on. He cannot refute them. He holds in high regard those racist Union warmongers that needlessly burned, pillaged and raped Black and White Southerners alike.

    If he thinks it important that the Black Southern Flaggers know of your site, he should work to introduce them to it (I bet they already know of it).

    He should speak to HK Edgerton or watch his youtube videos regarding the flag and see if HK would consider removing himself from a flagging demonstration.

    In the end, it is useless to try to convince Yankee Imperialists of the Southern way of thinking. We will never win them over, because they aren’t from here, don’t feel part of the land and her people. They can’t help it though. With Yankee blood, cold winters and not being raised up on Sweet Tea, Grits, BBQ and Hash, what would one expect.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 8:37 am

      Generally speaking, one has to prove one’s accusations, and SNN did not. It seems you are fine with embracing the exclusion of blacks from the term “southerner.” What other forms of genocide do you support?

  8. Chad December 30, 2011 / 8:03 am

    I would have to say the Southern Nationalist has made all his points clear, and you others guys have just called him names, and said you will not waste your time? why? You have no means to prove him wrong, that is why.

    I agree with him on most of what he said, a nation is not a government, it is a people…

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 8:35 am

      I’m sure that you find SNN’s explanations satisfactory to you. Thank you for admitting that you recognize only whites as southerners, and exclude African Americans from their homeland in America. Apparently that’s an acceptable form of genocide for you.

      • palmetto December 30, 2011 / 10:37 am

        Genocide??? Where the heck did that come from? WOW! Do you equate not calling Blacks “Southerners” with Genocide? Wow. Now that is how revisionist history is written.

        Now, I don’t speak for SNN, but I myself do not exclude Blacks from being Southerners. I was born and raised in the South, and have lived here all my life (minus one year in Switzerland). Blacks are definitely Southerners (those born and raised here) and I grew up with many good Southern Black friends (who by the way shun the use of “african American” as they say they have never been to Africa and it demeans there native status here.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:16 pm

          Then you disagree with Dr. Hill, who says the only southerners are of European dissent. I suggest you take this point up with him and the League of the South.

          Do it for your friends and demonstrate your devotion to their friendship with you.

      • OneWayRawk December 30, 2011 / 12:24 pm

        It’s funny how Pro-Union folks are always making this a race issue. Nobody has said that ONLY white folks are southerners. It’s called twisting words and making something out of nothing. Whites and Blacks are all Southerners….as long as you are born in the South. That sounds simple to understand.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:18 pm

          I suggest you take this up with Dr. Hill and the League of the South, for Dr. Hill limits his use of the term “southerner” to people of European dissent. I assume you know that Africa is not part of Europe.

  9. Bill Newcomer December 30, 2011 / 8:40 am

    What I appreciate about this exchange is how in my mind it vindicates my Great-grandfather’s service in the US Army from 1862 – 1865…..

  10. OneWayRawk December 30, 2011 / 8:51 am

    Michael, I was reading your conversation with Mr. Simpson and you did an awesome job. Mr. Simpson you answered the usual Yankee way. You respond with a sentence or two and talk about how you are not going to waste your time talking to Michael…but you have that time to write a blog him. You know deep down that you don’t stand a chance on a one on one conversation on this subject and that’s why you don’t want to have a conversation with him or to do a Podcast with Michael—-You would look just foolish. I believe that’s the last thing that you wants your students to find as well over the internet…I think it’s all about your reputation that you are trying to uphold. You rather throw bombs and hide then stand face to face like a Man.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:22 pm

      Michael’s written two blog entries about me … but, unlike you, at least he affixes his name to his comments. Why so afraid? After all, you are all about being “face to face like a man.”

      I guess we now know you’re not a man. Of course, I think women can stand toe-to-toe as well, but I guess you don’t think they are capable of it. Otherwise you would not use gender to define your case.

      I wonder who else wore masks in defense of southern white (supremacist) values.

    • Denise Barber December 31, 2011 / 10:03 am

      When they say things like “I won’t waste my time” – that means “Fail”. They can’t answer. Simpson can’t answer because he’s an academic. He’d be tarred and feathered, screechingly denounced, and carried “out of town” on a rail, if he tells the truth.

      I give him a kinda sorta credit, because he cannot force himself to tell outright lies. (Vestigial Whiteness). But the credit is swept away his cowardice.

      Time and tide is on our side. Race Uber Alles. Simpson will find that he will be swept away from everything he thinks he has, when he ceases to serve is purpose. Non-Whites do NOT extend the same tolerance, courtesy, and concern that Whites have extended to them, once they are in power. Simpson will discover this, apace.

      • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2011 / 10:39 am

        I’m sure you feel that way.

        Just to note …. you say that “time and tide” are on the side of white supremacists in one sentence, then speak of the triumph of non-whites in the next sentence. Do you actually read what you write, or is this simply an example of your form of logic and quality of mind?

        Does anyone else note that the people who are so quick to go on the attack here in defense of Confederate heritage and southern nationalism have left Ms. Barber alone? You would think that those people who are so sensitive about racism would rush to denounce her.

        I wonder why they don’t. Then again, Ms. Chastain embraces John C. Hall’s posts, and she’s quick to decry bigotry. Guess she doesn’t find bigotry in Ms. Barber’s posts … or Mr. Hall’s, either.

  11. Denise Barber December 30, 2011 / 4:29 pm

    Massa Simpson,

    Your min objection to White People Who Know They Are White (with what-ever boutique designation one assigns, or self-assigns – White Nationalist, White Advocate, Race Realist, Racist, Redneck, Klan Kracker, EvilWhiteKnaaazeeesWhoWanttoSmokeSixMillionJews) – your main beef seems to revolve around what you term the exclusion of Negroes.

    I want to understand you,your point of view…your experiences….the deepest recesses of you compassionate soul, and in order to help me do this, would you please be so kind as to explain what’s so great about Negroes? Why are you so obsessed with having them around? What’s so great about them?

    What is it about Negroes, that moves you so?

    Please detail, using real world data, what Negroes as a whole, add to the mix. Please detail, using real world data, and the past 200 years of recorded, verifiable, real world history, how masses of Negroes improve a civilization? Can you provide a cost/benefit anaylsis of Negroes, vs. No Negroes?

    We can.

    Thank you.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:24 pm

      My goodness, Denise, I don’t have to make a case about your views on race (or religion). You’re doing just fine on your own.

      But I can see why you don’t like me, and I’m fine with that.

      • Denise Barber December 31, 2011 / 9:53 am

        You are not complying with my request. I asked you to tell me what’s so wonderful about Negroes? Why are you, an alleged White man, taking up for the inclusion of Negroes?

        Why is is not taken as a matter of course that the be all and end all of every group, activity, and institution MUST include Negroes?
        I am White. I care about my OWN people. I love what MY people are, and what they do. I am not responsible for any othe member of any other Race, and iI am fed up, to ALL TIME, with being held responsible for the care and feeding of a member of any other Race, o any-one I do not choose to care for.

        I know there are “nice” decent Blacks – and if they are functioning adults, they are bloody well responsible for themselves. They are not my concern nor my responsibility. I wish Negroes well, if they do lead responsible, productive, and decent lives, but, I am, for the most part, simply not interested in them at all.

        However, as a Race, I regard the introduction of Negroes as an ecological, social, and genetic disaster. They DESTROY Civilization. 200 years of recorded history backs me up. My beliefs are drawn FROM 200 years of recorded Western history.

        I asked YOU why you are so dedicated to the premise that the inclusion of Negroes is the be all and and all of all things.

        You are attempting to evade an explanation. Therefore, I can only conclude that you know that my position is accurate – and cannot bear to admit this, as any concesssion to reality may cause a loss of your cushy gig, and status among your peer group.


        • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2011 / 9:59 am

          You are free to conclude whatever you want, Ms. Barber. I reject and repudiate your ugly racism and your bigotry. Interesting that some other people on here cheering you on don’t, which serves a purpose.

          Thanks for posting. Good bye.

          • James F. Epperson December 31, 2011 / 2:25 pm


            I thought that sort of thinking died out in 1945 or so. Guess not 😦

          • Rob Baker January 1, 2012 / 12:47 pm

            That’s horrid.

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 1, 2012 / 3:17 pm

            Note the silence of Connie Chastain about Ms. Barber.

            You would think that anyone who wants to disassociate the cause of Confederate heritage from charges of racism would deplore Ms. Barber’s sentiments. Yet Ms. Chastain and her buddies from the SHPG who frequent here and post have fallen silent in this case. I wonder why.

    • Bill Newcomer January 3, 2012 / 5:34 pm

      The worth of those you call “Negro” comes from the same place all people of every shade of skin color get thier worth; they as every other human being ever born, were created in the image of God. The worth of a human being is not calculated on the basis of some utilitarian cost/benifit analysis made by self-serving fintite persons such as you. Don’t like my bringing the “God” word into the discusson? Sorry, but I make no apology for doing so..

  12. Marc Ferguson December 30, 2011 / 5:01 pm

    “Elsewhere I’ve been dismissed as an “abolitionist” (as if calling for the abolition of slavery was a bad thing) and a “genuine racist” because I don’t see white southerners as a distinct ethnic group.”

    Well we know that Northerners were the most racist whites during the 19th c., more so than Southern slaveowners, so this makes perfect sense.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:25 pm

      I think we see that a lot of people replying think they “know” a lot of things, and it’s interesting to hear them out.

  13. Al Mackey December 30, 2011 / 7:11 pm

    I’m reminded of the joking question, is the plural of “ignoramus” “ignoramuses” or “ignorami?” Who knew it was actually “southern nationalists?” 🙂

  14. Jacks Smirking Revenge January 1, 2012 / 4:49 am

    Regardless of race issues it was the 14th amenent that created African Americans. The question is: who becomes responsible for African Americans once the federal government collapses under economic pressure?

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 1, 2012 / 3:19 pm

      Actually, the Fourteenth Amendment defined national citizenship for all Americans covered by it, including European Americans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s