The Chastain Debate: Perish The South Rather Than a Principle

After 13 years of failure, Connie Chastain is ready to guide us to victory

Alabama

“Perish the colonies, rather than sacrifice one iota of our principles.”
– Maximillien Robespierre

I’m not sure how many OD readers saw the 400+ comment exchange with Connie Chastain of “180 Degrees True South” on the League of the South Facebook group.

The thread has since been pulled. Chastain has returned to her own hermetically sealed echo chamber on Facebook where she has surrounded herself with anti-Southern liberal trolls like Ray O’Hara, Neil Hamilton, Rob Baker, Corey Meyer, and Eric Jacobsen.

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed seeing muddleheaded Baby Boomer liberalism and anti-racism attempt to take on authentic and principled Southern conservatism and nationalism.

The debate was an excellent illustration of how muddleheadedness naturally degenerates into liberalism. We saw how the rotten fruit of liberal conclusions are derived from the bud of liberal premises.

By the end of the debate, Chastain was reduced to squawking about how blacks had been oppressed, how their present condition was a result of oppression, and finally how the South was unjust and immoral until it was redeemed by the noble Yankees who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There is nothing “Southern” about the substance of Chastain’s political views. For all her talk about “Southern heritage,” her modern liberal and anti-racist values – which are descended from the Black Republicans, not the Confederates – make her uncomfortable with defending that heritage.

These people don’t subscribe to the principles of our ancestors. They reject those principles and the culture that was built and sustained upon them for generations. That’s why they alone are unable to defend Southern heritage from criticism.

It is like celebrating Christmas without understanding the meaning of Christmas. In much the same way, you have Baby Boomers who dress up like Confederate soldiers, although they reject everything the Confederacy was based upon, and say things that would have shocked the men who wore that uniform.

In the early twentieth century, Thomas Dixon, Ben Tillman, and Margaret Mitchell won the culture war. They had no problem defending their culture because they still believed in the foundations of Southern culture.

Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens wrote memoirs about their war experience. They never attempted to justify the Confederacy on the basis of marvels like “Black Confederates” and “Heritage Not Hate.”

We lost the War Between the States, but we didn’t lose the South. Defeated on the battlefield, the ex-Confederates preserved their culture and refused to be defeated where it really counts, which is to say, in their hearts and minds.

It wasn’t until the Baby Boomer generation that we lost the culture war. A generation of White Southerners inwardly died and bought into the noxious principles of the Civil Rights Movement. The inevitable result has been the physical outward death of the South.

The logic of anti-racism, multiculturalism, and political correctness is creating a new South: one where Whites are being pushed into minority status, where the past is wicked and illegitimate, where aliens are establishing their dominance and elbowing us out of our own territory.

It is people like Connie Chastain who have created this world. It reflects their values and their mindset and their genius. They see BRA as moral and legitimate and Jim Crow as immoral and illegitimate.

These people have thrown away the birthright of future generations of White Southerners out of their sick and unnatural love of the pitiful Negro. To quote Thomas Jefferson, they have become the murderers of their own children.

The shameful condition of the South is a monument to their unbelievable folly. It will stay that way until their Radical values are finally condemned and rejected.

Note: I’ve put together a selection of videos for any scalawags reading this website who may wish to patronize the “180 Degrees True South.” The music complements the substance of the discussions that go on there.

Glory, Glory, Hallelujah! Connie is marching on!



About Hunter Wallace 9599 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

20 Comments

  1. I am shocked by the attitudes of many of the commentators. They need to return to the rocks they climbed out from under. I feel as if I’m reading the 2012 version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Hopefully, these idiots represent a small fraction of humanity.

    They wonder why we wonder if they’re Testosterone-deficient, or homos, or both, when all they can do is obsess over “attitudes,” “feelings,” the secret depths of our psyches, etc.

    Hey Chuck, my attitude is FUCK YOU. I mean, you did bring the subject up, right? You expressed interest, right? So there it is. My attitude is F-U-C-K Y-O-U.

    Now, can we get back to discussing the matter at hand, like grown men? Or do you want to discuss my “attitude” some more?

  2. While contemporary supporters of the old Confederacy often point out that racism was as widespread and intense in the North as in the slave-holding South, and this is largely true, what is shocking

    This is Mr. Ferguson’s revised opening sentence. I advised him in a comment that his original was not, in fact, a sentence. I suppose it must have irritated him, because he didn’t approve it, but he did reformulate the opening conglomeration of words into a sentence. A shitty one, but a sentence nonetheless.

    Congratulations Mr. Ferguson, you’re improving.

  3. Mr. Ferguson, in pursuit of furthering your remedial education, I refer you to Strunk & White.

    Oh, and some advice from me: concision helps.

  4. Take it easy on Fergie, he is after all a professor of history. It’s not like he chose his major because he liked a challenge.

    Hey, he could have done worse though. He could have majored in African Studies.

  5. “but he did reformulate the opening conglomeration of words into a sentence.”

    Terrifying, isn’t it, Svig, that an “Adjunct” ostensibly teaching history at American International College in Springfield, Massachusetts (cost of attendance: $41,386 per annum) is so cognitively impaired that he cannot form a coherent sentence on first try.

    When this higher education bubble finally pops it will be the stuff of legends, right up there with the Tulip Mania of 1637.

  6. Take it easy on Fergie, he is after all a professor of history. It’s not like he chose his major because he liked a challenge.

    Lol, my thoughts exactly. Poor historians – they want a credential that means something, too! “Trained historian” – is that like a “trained artist,” or a “trained basketweaver,” or even a “trained seal”?

    Terrifying, isn’t it

    Yes it is, Barb. His second try is pretty terrifying, too. “Trained writer,” he ain’t.

  7. History is a liberal art.

    It is impossible to separate history from values and perspective. The past is always seen through the prism of the present. It is such a culturally sensitive field that it is more important to fence off than even natural sciences like physics.

  8. “barb says:
    March 21, 2012 at 3:30 am
    .

    When this higher education bubble finally pops it will be the stuff of legends, right up there with the Tulip Mania of 1637.”

    I love you Barb! You have just proven the intelletual superiority of We Virulent Racists, over the Libtard Eunichs.

    Marcie and his BF Chuck wil have to “look up” that Tulip reference.

  9. Lol, my thoughts exactly. Poor historians – they want a credential that means something, too! “Trained historian” – is that like a “trained artist,” or a “trained basketweaver,” or even a “trained seal”?
    ——————————————

    He certainly is a well trained historian, isn’t he? They’ve got him sitting and staying and everything. Fergie is the kind of ‘man’ who feels guilty using a urinal because women are unable to stand erect and pee.

  10. My point was not to bash the study of history, btw. Just to point and laugh at the credentialist “trained historians” and their status-jockeying.

    The study of history belongs to mankind, not “trained historians.”

  11. You “people” should stop embarrassing yourselves. Racism, and mockery, are ugly, and this is one of the ugliest internet sites around. It pollutes the web.

  12. Marcie!!!! What original and devastating commentary you offer! We are awed and humbled by your searing insight.

    Are you on Twitter, angel drawers? I want to worship you on the T. Please let us know. I won’t draw breathe, until your next deathless post!

    XXXXXXOOOOOOXXXXXX
    Denise!

  13. Fergie’s not onthe T. What will I do? How can I sit at the feet of the Master, so to speak, and get imbued with his Eternal and Godlike visionary declamations, n’ sheeyit?

    I am bereft.

    I will cry myself to sleep, every single night, I will, I swear I will…….sigh.

    Fate is so cru-el!

  14. “Marc Ferguson says:
    May 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm
    Morons!”

    You are starting to come around, perhaps, my Heart’s Darling? I know you’re fighting your own ….aaahhhh…..swelling Racialist White Pride, with ev-wee iddy widdy bitty wit of your carefully cultivated “outrage” – Faux Moral Variation – but it’s not working, is it Pwecious? You’re fighting your deepest instincts, Angel – don’t fight.

    Give in.

    Don’t hate us cause we’re beautiful. LOVE us cause we’re beautiful.

    Kisses ‘n hugs!

  15. Anti-racism is ugly. It is based on the false theory of racial equality. See Detroit, Haiti, Zimbabwe.

    It’s based in part on the false theory of racial equality. But it’s a glaring betrayal of cultural bias to assume that it’s only ever so. One can certainly be an anti-racist while disavowing the (cockamamie) theory of racial equality. See your old pal Robert Lindsay, for example.

    On the other hand, one can quite easily be “racist” (prefer one’s own) even in the case that (or cases in which) racial equality is a fact (or close enough to a fact), or in cases in which one’s race is objectively inferior. For example, by virtually every measure by which whites are judged superior to blacks, japs are superior to my kind, and often rather obviously so, but so what? I don’t feel a tenth of the warmth towards them as I do towards my own. Or perhaps a better example is the anglo-saxon types that formed and still dominate (as I understand it) the South; I feel relatively much more warmly towards them (you) than I do japs, but still I’d take my own any day.

Comments are closed.