CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE: Using blacks in the Culture War Confederate American Pride

Back to Articles Index

Re: Southron Blacks
by Frank Conner



It is always fascinating to see what each new day will bring. In a recent message, Mr. Jimmy Shirley said he has not read my book, "The South Under Siege 1830-2000," but he cited the following passage from it:

"Given the circumstances, if we use one black spokesman, we immediately shift the attack spotlight from our enemies back to ourselves. The public will receive two messages about us loud and clear, no matter what our black spokesman actually says: first, that we do not have enough confidence in the rightness of our own cause to promote it ourselves, and therefore we believe that we must use this black spokesman to validate our cause to the community. And, second, that we are afraid of the black activist, and we are hoping that this black spokesman will protect us against them and their name-calling. Having received these subliminal messages which say that we believe the blacks are more powerful and righteous than we are, the public will rightly repudiate us for hiding behind the blacks. Our enemies will spot our weakness (ie.,our defensiveness), and promptly go on the attack, and eat us for breakfast. And the event will mark the sudden and total failure of our ideological revolutionary war against liberalism."

Then Mr. Shirley said that he disagreed with the passage, arguing basically that we who would defend our Confederate heritage are badly outnumbered, that our enemies are winning their war against us, that outstanding black men like H.K. Edgerton have done far more to support our cause than have most of the whites who claim to defend it, and that we should accept gratefully all of the help we can get from such black men.

The arguments which Mr. Shirley brings are all true on their face. And I have great respect for H.K. Edgerton and his deeds in support of our cause--which far outweigh my own. And had I written only that passage, I would have to retract it in the face of Mr. Shirley's arguments. But what I did write was a book. That book tells the history of the devastating culture-war which various groups of Northern liberals (later abetted by Scalawag liberals) have been waging against the conservative Christian white South from the 1830s to the present. The book describes a plan whereby the conservative Southerners could lawfully counterattack the liberals and win the culture war, using the resources and institutions available to them now, IF the conservative Southerners have not been brainwashed and guilt-tripped too badly by academia and the media over the past 50 years, and they still have the necessary combination of brains and balls and determination. And within the context of that plan which I propose, the hard truths which I identified in the passage from my book that was cited above remain valid, and I stand by them. If we Southern whites want to win the culture war being waged to destroy our heritage, our culture, and ourselves as a people, then we ourselves will have to carry that fight.

Why is that (other than for the reasons which I identified in the passage cited above)? Because of the basic nature of the culture war. In the 1830s, a group of Northern liberals--most notably the Transcendentalists, who insisted they were not secular humanists, but who nonetheless parroted the poisonous preachments of Jean Jacques Rousseau--began demanding social reforms in the US so massive that they could only have been enforced by a totalitarian-socialist government. But the US was a Christian nation, and Christianity does not support totalitarian socialism. So Christianity would have to go. But it was then too strong for the New England Transcendentalists--led by ex-Congregationalist ministers who were no longer Christians--to attack head-on. They decided to make an end run around Christianity.

At that time, the South--in the Second Great Awakening--was becoming the Bible Belt. Strong regional differences--both social and economic--had sprung up between the North and the South, causing powerful regional hatreds to seethe just beneath the surface. If the liberals could manipulate these regional hatreds to cast the Southerners as an evil, immoral people in the eyes of the North, then in the process of discrediting the South, they could also discredit Southern Christianity. This would give them the lever with which to discredit Christianity in the rest of the US and replace it with secular humanism (under another name) as the official religion of the US (which, incidentally, is happening today).

As their main weapon against the South, the liberals chose race relations. Arbitrarily, they declared slavery--as practiced by the Southerners--to be a sin of such magnitude as to approach Original Sin. But they did not condemn as sinners any of the Northern capitalists who had built great fortunes upon the slave trade. The Transcendentalists got away with this ridiculous attack solely because they constituted some of the most eloquent men in the North--men such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. By judicious use of the media and the pulpit, they aroused such furies in both regions as later to enable the North to wage the War of Northern Aggression against the South for purely-economic reasons. The Transcendentalists claimed they were attacking the South in the media only to benefit the blacks. But at the conclusion of the war, when the Transcendentalists were actually in a position to benefit the blacks, they dropped the blacks like a hot potato.

My book points out the steady recurrence of that same trend from then until now. Other groups of Northern liberals attacked the white Southerners over their relations with the blacks after the war, and during post-Reconstruction, and during the 20th century, always lying about the way the Southern whites treated the blacks, and about the way the white Northerners themselves treated the blacks. (The book goers into considerable detail over those lies and distortions about race relations, because that is the heart of the liberals' attacks against us and our heritage in the culture war.) And each time the liberals wielded the blacks as a bludgeon against the white South and beat it into submission, immediately thereafter the liberals dumped the blacks. When you study those trends, and you separate the liberals' rhetoric from their actions, it becomes impossible to conclude that the liberals view the blacks as anything but a convenient weapon with which to attack the white South. The goal of the liberals all along has been to claim the moral high-ground and then discredit the South, and with it, Southern Christianity. And as the liberals are finally succeeding at discrediting the Bible Belt, then with each passing year they are finding it increasingly easy to discredit and suppress Christianity across the rest of the US. All you have to do to keep track of that process is to read the newspapers each day.

The ongoing culture-war has always been specifically a race war waged by the liberals against the Southern whites; and most people intuitively understand that. So against THAT background, whenever we use a black man as the spokesman to defend our cause, he will inevitably trigger the powerful adverse reactions that I identified in the paragraph which Mr. Shirley cited above and disagreed with. If we merely want to fight just to be fighting, then the considerations I raised in that paragraph are unimportant, and can be ignored. But if we want to fight to win the culture war, then we ignore those considerations at our peril.

However, important though those racial considerations are in creating the proper public image for ourselves, they represent only a minor aspect of the culture war.

A key point in my book is that when we compare the resources which our liberal enemies can bring to bear against us in the culture war, with the resources at our disposal, it becomes apparent that we cannot possibly win the culture war by fighting a defensive campaign (the kind that most Southerners want to fight). Yet the only kind of fighting that we have done so far in this culture war has been of a defensive nature, and we have done precious little of that. So we are rapidly losing the culture war.

In fact, when we analyze the truly-aggressive nature of our liberal enemies, and the invaluable fighting-experience they have amassed while waging their culture war against us for so long, and the fact that they can (and do) use virtually the entire education-establishment to attack us, along with the black civil-rights organizations, and the most-powerful propaganda machine the world has ever seen (the liberal news-and-entertainment media in the US), and--increasingly--the resources of government at all levels, along with their access to virtually-unlimited funds from the supercapitalists in this country--when we add up all those advantages, the liberals would seem unbeatable.

But the liberals also have an Achilles' heel of such awesome self-destructive power as to render them fatally vulnerable IF the conservative South will generate a few leaders who will lead us in counterattacking the liberals where they are weak. Their Achilles' heel is the basic nature of liberalism (secular humanism) itself. It is a golden promise which initially sweeps away everything in its path: give the government increasing power over the citizenry--leading inevitably to totalitarian socialism--and the resulting Big Government will solve all of the nation's important social and economic problems. But the US put liberalism into practice as its official policy in 1933, and has pumped up the size and power of the federal government steadily ever since, and liberalism has failed to solve our problems. It cannot solve them, because it is a religion which (unlike Christianity) flies in the face of human nature. The public has gradually gotten the message from its own direct observations that liberalism is a complete failure. The Democrats and the Republicans and the liberal media favor liberalism, and rely heavily upon inertia to help them keep it operating; but a shrewdly-run guerrilla campaign against it, run (lawfully) by Southern conservatives, could ignite the tinderbox of negative public-opinion to discredit and topple it. In other words, switch from trying to fight a defensive war to fighting an offensive war. Then we could win the culture war. My book proposes one plan for doing so.

My book--and the views from it expressed here--certainly will not please everyone who reads this. Today's Southerners increasingly are people who were raised by their parents to pay lip service to their Confederate heritage, but at the same time to live largely by the beliefs and rules of liberalism; so they are by nature conflicted people, and the last thing they want to do is acknowledge that internal conflict to themselves. In addition, a number of the people in the Southern-heritage movement are appeasers, who have convinced themselves that if they go all-out to show the liberals what nice people they are and how friendly they are toward the blacks, the liberals will then stop attacking our heritage. The appeasers know little or nothing about the true nature and goals of liberalism and its culture war against us, or they would realize that they cannot appease the liberals, and are simply helping them to destroy our heritage faster. There is also a large number of Southern conservatives among us who are so afraid of change that--although they are willing to fight--they would rather lose the culture war by continuing to employ tactics which have proved ineffectual, rather than have to learn a new strategy and new tactics which would enable them to win the culture war. None of the aforementioned people want to know about anything that I have to say, and I understand that. I have read Mr. Shirley's previous writings, and I do not include him in any of those (large) groups.

My book attempts to deal honestly with the important subjects regarding the culture war and our response to it. In that process, it punches holes in some of the South's hitherto most-sacred cows. It is probably one of the most politically-incorrect responsible books in print. It is only intended for those among us who know at least something about what our Southern heritage actually is (the commonly-held beliefs, values, philosophy, culture, and way of life that our Confederate ancestors fought and died to preserve), and why that heritage is so superior to what the Southerners of today live by; for those among us who have confidence in the formidable innate character, intelligence, and determination of the conservative Southerner once he has figured out what is really happening to him; and for those among us who understand what is at stake in this culture war, and how close we are to losing it by default, and that the key to winning it lies in studying our liberal opponents closely and identifying their strengths and weaknesses. In short, my book is intended for those who seek to defeat our liberal enemies in order to win the culture war.

My 752-page book takes a long time to read, because it necessarily covers a lot of ground (I spent seven years full-time researching and writing it). For those who wish to buy it, the book is available through some Confederate booksellers (such as Dixie Depot); or directly by credit card from its website, ; or by check or money order from Collards Publishing Co., P.O. Box 71996, Newnan, Georgia 30271. My price is $34.95 to everyone in the US outside of Georgia, and $37.40 (including sales tax) to residents of Georgia. I pay the postage.

My book is the only one out there which deals in detail with the nature, history, strategy, and tactics of the culture war that is being waged successfully to destroy our culture and destroy us as a people. I urge anyone who wishes to contest specific passages from the book to read the entire book carefully before doing so.

Frank Conner

Counter installed 23 January 2007