Over The Rainbow

The Rainbow Queen says the League is "radicalizing"
The Rainbow Queen says the League is “radicalizing”

Alabama

In recent years, the League of the South has shed the albatross of its fair weather friends, and has transformed itself into the only organization in existence that unflinchingly stands for the survival, well-being, and independence of the Southern people.

The League is becoming a younger and more aggressive ethnonationalist organization. The upcoming immigration protest in Uvalda, Georgia, which follows on the heels of another recent protest in Stark, Florida, is a sign of this new activist direction.

Connie Chastain has resurfaced from over the rainbow to write an article about the “radicalization” of the League of the South:

“When I started attending League of the South conferences and events in the early 2000s, the saying was, “When the League was founded in 1994, you could have held meetings of Southern nationalists in a telephone booth.”

When the League of the South was founded in 1994, it was largely composed of academics, many of whom turned out to be fair weather friends who were easily cowed into submission by accusations of “racism.” I wasn’t involved with the League in those days. I was 14 years old at the time.

“By the time I became aware of the League some seven or eight years later, its membership was reportedly in the tens of thousands.

That was back in the days when League spokesmen said things like, “Southerners are a people, not a race,” and League policy was guided by both traditional and Christian principles. There was tremendous respect for our Southern ancestors, particularly those who fought, suffered so much, and died for the cause of independence.

This pleased me because I considered myself to be both a heritage advocate and a Southern nationalist.”

During the Clinton administration, thousands of disgruntled Southern conservatives joined the League of the South, but when George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, and especially after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, these “American patriots” abandoned the League in droves because it was “unpatriotic” to support Southern secession while “America was under attack” by Muslims.

“I became a member of the League twice, but even when I wasn’t, I supported it and defended it from gratuitous attack. I rejected claims that the League was a “racist hate group” because the accusers always labeled as “racist” things that I did not define that way at all.”

Connie Chastain was a member of the League of the South twice. She ceased to be a member long before I became involved with the group.

“Over the past year or two, though, there have been indicators that the League is changing — radicalizing. It appears to have abandoned the counsel of wise elders to increasingly embrace the untried ideas of a younger folks.”

By “radicalizing,” Connie means that lots of young people are joining the League of the South who have little patience for the Rainbow Confederate nonsense of the Baby Boomer generation.

“I’m not one to automatically distrust or reject new ideas. I like innovation. But not to the extent of throwing out the proven, the reliable, the steadfast, as if it is so much trash, and embracing new ideas that are untried and whose effectiveness cannot be known.

The Rainbow Confederates are not proven, reliable, or steadfast: quite the opposite, they foolishly abandoned the League to “Take Back America” with George W. Bush, they piss all over themselves whenever leftists call them names, and they are the only generation in Southern history that failed to preserve our heritage.

“The indifference to tradition is seen in the development of a “Southern nationalist flag” (a black saltaire on a white field) to use in demonstrations and protests. The disapproval of this gratuitous change seems to be wide and spreading, particularly among those who have deep respect for Confederate soldiers and their flag.”

When the Confederacy was born in 1861, dozens if not hundreds of new flags appeared after secession and during the course of the war. New flags were created that were based on older symbols. That’s the difference between a living organic tradition, which is serviceable to the present generation, and something that is dead and belongs behind a display in a museum.

“Michael Cushman of the Southern Nationalist Network, who has led the push for the new flag. reported on Facebook that there has been “push back” against it. He linked to a blog post by white nationalist Brad “Hunter Wallace” Griffin attempting to generate approval for the new flag by trashing good, decent people who oppose it with the label “Confederate Cryptkeepers.

That term now joins the infamous definitionless term, Rainbow Confederates, in the arsenal of insults these people gratuitously use against good, decent Southerners.”

There is clearly a difference between people who are “advocating a restoration of a more healthy and sustainable way of life,” who can be described as nationalists, and those who are wedded to “the anachronistic fetishization of bygone nations, defunct oligarchies, and obsolete behavioral patterns.”

As a Southern Nationalist, I also believe in preserving our Confederate heritage, but I believe we are engaged in a modern struggle over a different set of issues and that our survival as a distinct people and culture is on the line. I’m more concerned about the quality of the public schools in my community, the availability of jobs, and the type of people controlling my government than Confederate monuments.

 “Griffin, btw, has asked the burning question on his blog, “Can Christianity Save us?’ and by “us” he means the white race. I guess he doesn’t know that the purpose of Christianity is to save souls, not races, which, one supposes, makes it irrelevant to him….. “

In “Can Christianity Save Us?,” I was clearly defending Christianity from the charge that our religion is responsible for our racial and cultural decline.

“I participated on the Facebook thread that reported the “push back” on the flag, which has now apparently been deleted, but it reinforced some insights I’ve only glimpsed in the past. The ridicule and derision aimed at “old” Southern nationalists by “new” ones are worthy of the most vociferous flogger.”

My friend Bill here in Eufaula was one of the founding members of the League of the South.

“What do they hope to gain by this practice, this tactic? Do they really expect to increase their numbers when prospective members see this sort of verbal abuse aimed at anyone who dares to deviate from the new dogma?”

We’re building a Southern Nationalist vanguard for a long term struggle for Southern independence. We don’t need people who are going to keep washing out over non-existent shacks and hovels in Lowndes County, AL.

“Basically, what you have here is people who claim to love the South and its people and want to see them free — or preserved, depending on who’s talkin’. But what they really love is whiteness, which includes a built-in aversion to non-whiteness … and any Southerners who don’t share their dedication to whiteness are heaped with scorn and derision.”

It’s true that we are dedicated to “whiteness.”

We are pro-Southern, pro-Christian, pro-White, and pro-independence. Your suggestion that blacks are our people would have been considered outrageous to previous generations. We are a proud European people.

“Gracious. I simply note that a lot of yankees are white…”

Connie Chastain is the proof that many Yankees actually would make better Southerners than some of the people who were born here.

“Judging by the comments I’ve received from time to time as my disapproval of the League’s radicalization has become known, I’m certainly not the only one dismayed by this change. These folks still support independence for the South, though. There have been suggestions that maybe it’s time for a new group, one that remains true to the League’s original, recently jettisoned ideals.”

There is already an online home for elderly, disgruntled Rainbow Confederates: the Southern Heritage Non-Preservation Group.

“Perhaps they’re right. It will be interesting to see if the aversion to these changes for change’s sake, this contempt for and derision of Southerners, produces more flight from the League, and whether a new movement or organization more attuned to true Southernism will emerge.”

The Rainbow Confederates are the ones who have broken with “true Southernism.” My racial views were mainstream in the South into the 1970s and 1980s.

“Is a return to League national conferences held in phone booths on the horizon? Since phone booths have pretty much disappeared since 1994, perhaps they’ll have to use a bus stop shelter.”

A phone booth would provide ample room for the number of people who are reading Connie Chastain’s website … except for today, she is experiencing a highly unusual spike in traffic because I have linked to her blog.

About Hunter Wallace 9509 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

5 Comments

  1. @G Prune
    Calling ourselves Pro White , Pro Southern or Pro Christian is important, because it makes any opposition to us, anti-White, anti-Southern, anti-Christian by default.

    A White can be anti-White. White anti-Whites are everywhere in politics and in every day life, demanding Whites be forcibly integrated with non-Whites. So what should we call a White that is AGAINST White survival? What should we call a White that is FOR White survival? In politics are they both simply “White”? Of course not.

    Calling one’s self Pro White is a tactic. If you want to win in politics, you must think of ways to put yourself in a stronger tactical position and your enemy in a weaker tactical position. Being against the Survival of a group is the weaker moral position. Being for the Survival of a group is the stronger moral position.

    So we take the moral high ground and tell the world what it is we stand for. We are Pro. We are for something and that is GOOD.

  2. “If there is media coverage, they will portray you as racist, white supremacists, and neo-confederates no matter what flags and symbols you do or don’t bring.”

    True. I can see the headlines now:

    “Southern protestors wave flags with diagonal cross; eerily reminiscent of the Confederate Battleflag.”

    “Protestors, waving confederatesque flags…”

  3. “If there is media coverage, they will portray you as racist, white supremacists, and neo-confederates no matter what flags and symbols you do or don’t bring.”

    You are right. The MSM really hates Whites and will attack any White, that represents our interests. It is time we pointed that out.

    As you see here, the AFP are holding up a sign that says, “Anti-White Media is Bad News”.

    http://theamericanfreedomparty.us/?p=10467

    The MSM can incite against Pro Whites all they like, but we’re pointing the finger of accusation right back at them. We’re going to make them feel the heat for a change.

Comments are closed.