8 thoughts on “Talking Points: Defending the Confederate Flag

  1. Neil Hamilton June 11, 2012 / 5:50 am

    Professor Simpson,

    It appears to me a desperate attempt to educate the faithful, to get the script right, and that the gene pool is getting smaller and smaller.


  2. Siege of Petersburg Online - Brett S. June 11, 2012 / 8:13 am

    I’m confused. Is the Confederate States of America still a country? Are all “Southerners” white? The linked blog entry appears to answer “Yes” to both questions.

  3. Mark June 11, 2012 / 8:56 am

    I agree with Neil and Siege. Also, anyone advancing a “cultural genocide” point should be made to specify what the culture is, or at least what is unique about it. No one should be allowed to argue about something that isn’t specified to some degree if there isn’t some presumed shared understanding.

  4. Margaret D. Blough June 11, 2012 / 10:00 am

    It’s so much easier to win an argument when you can control what your opponent “says”.

  5. Rob Baker June 11, 2012 / 11:57 am

    The example argument is rather interesting. Person A is depicted as a person without talking points but simply rants. Person B describes the term anti-racist as anti-white….

    My favorite part is near the end:

    Remember, we are making points, not arguing. Arguing is a waste of time.

    We are staying on a consistent message, not spitting out facts and history.

    We are always on the offense and never on defense. Once you go on defense you lose.

    What points were being made and how are those points valid?

    “We are staying on a consistent message, not spitting out facts and history.” Well that’s true. Hardly any history actually gets used by these people.

    • Brooks D. Simpson June 11, 2012 / 12:03 pm

      Lee liked to go on the offensive, too. It proved costly against an able opponent.

      It’s not clear what the point is of “making points.” It’s not as if these are suggestions for blogging, where there is a third party reading the exchange.

      And yes, as we’ve seen, “heritage” isn’t history. I’ve heard it’s “inherited,” so I guess you can’t have southern heritage unless you are from the South, which will make some wannabes very, very angry. Does that mean it’s in the blood, the DNA? That might lead to some interesting revelations. Ask the descendants of Sally Hemings.

      • Rob Baker June 11, 2012 / 12:07 pm

        It seems like the Southern Heritage folks should study Longstreet more. Than again, he’s not canon.

        You’re exactly right on the “making points.” Apparently in every hypothetical situation, there is a one on one exchange.

        Lol. I’d imagine that the religious aspects of the “Lost Cause” might be a little too much for Jefferson’s liking. I wonder if Hemming’s descendants “inherited” that genetically.

  6. Hunter Wallace June 11, 2012 / 1:37 pm

    FYI, it is an application of what is known as “The Mantra,” which is a meme that is being spread around the internet: “Anti-racism is anti-white.” The Mantra is basically an attempt to distill the WN message into a memorable slogan that can gain traction through repetition.

    Liberals will dismiss the Mantra without realizing its potency: we live a country saturated with commercial advertising, where candidates like Mitt Romney “carpetbomb” their competition with simplistic television ads, and where the average person really does think in terms of slogans and ten second campaign pitches and in terms of what other people are saying.

    What’s more, there are polls showing that White racial attitudes are changing, particularly in the South and West: starting in the mid-2000s, the White majority now considers anti-White bias a greater problem than anti-black racism.

    The Mantra is tapping into the growth of “anti-anti racism.” Liberals will again scoff at the notion that there is such a thing as “anti-anti racism,” and that it is growing in leaps and bounds among the White majority, but it was on full display in March and April when the MSM was blowing up the Trayvon Martin case.

    WNs are having a lot of success defining “anti-racism” as the problem and liberals and the media as “anti-white.” The conservative base increasingly sounds indistinguishable from WNs on the issue.

    The typical conservative would now wholeheartedly agree with the typical racialist that academia, the media, and the Democratic Party is anti-white, anti-conservative, anti-Christian, and anti-Southern.

    The only difference is that the typical WN would explain this in terms of Jewish influence: Jews control Hollywood, the liberal media, and finance the Democratic Party while defining it ideologically through their dominance of the liberal punditry.

    The Mantra is not bad for an opening line because most White conservatives are already convinced that the American elite or “the political class” is anti-white and consciously promotes blacks and other races over Whites in the name of “social justice.”

    The typical Southern conservative can also see that Southerners are denigrated in movies like Django Unchained and Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. Liberals don’t have any objection to bigotry, racism, stereotypes, prejudice, profiling or intolerance so long as it is anti-white or anti-Southern.

    What if … Jews were portrayed as a nation of bloodsucking vampires? Liberals would be outraged because for all their insincere professions of “equality” there is a well known hierarchy of groups in terms of moral status on the Left.

    “Anti-racism is anti-white” only makes explicit a widespread perception in White America.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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