League of the South

[The House of Petain]

A dumb idea.

The civil war is over. The South shall not rise again, at least not as an independent confederacy or even a country. You're part of the Union. Get over it.

[Distruzio]

A dumb idea.

The civil war is over.

The LoS is not agitating for a resurgence of war.

The South shall not rise again, at least not as an independent confederacy or even a country. You're part of the Union. Get over it.

Of course the South shall not rise again. The Union will, instead, fall. Anyone who believes otherwise is a deluded nitwit and deserves ridicule.

[Distruzio]

I know quite a few members and have been asked to start a chapter near UGA. I yet refuse to do so, but I'm touched they ask.

Understandable. Refusing to do so is the right move, though. Secession will only make things better if the secessionist movement is not dominated by racists.

I first discovered LOS a couple years ago, and I don't remember their site having so much racist schlock back then. Am I imagining it or have they gotten worse?

That's strange, I've noticed quite the opposite. When I was first made aware of the LoS, I was in middle school (long long ago during the 90s when the internet was in its infancy). The "racist schlock" was incredibly repugnant. Over the years, the racists have, in fact, been phased out. I have noticed an increase in pro-white rhetoric these last few months, but that is not the same thing as the racism that many critiques within this thread have called to mind. The LoS isn't claiming superiority of whites over racial minorities. They assert the dominating influence of traditionally white (european) culture on the history of America and lament the receding of that domination. That just isn't the same thing as a bunch of hicks burning black men in effigy, is it?

[Stedicules]

I was in the OBX the other day with my Afghani boyfriend and I got dirty looks from everyone there.

The South is just plain hateful. This organization is no doubt the same way.

[SD_Film Artists]

Got as far as this:

"Today, the descendants of European-American whites behave as a shamed and defeated people. Not only do they refuse to proclaim the God-ordained superiority of their own civilization and its venerable institutions; they also refuse to defend the very ethnic and racial particularities that gave form and definition to that civilization. "White" has become a dirty word, and few whites can even use the term now without wincing and casting furtive glances to and fro."

Yeah, I say that we let these people succeed. Let them have their own country in the South. Way South. I'm thinking Antarctica.

On a side note: Does anyone else find it ironic that those who preach the loudest about the doom of White Civilization tend to be the most uncivilized White people?

I'm not suprised at all, as it's always the same with Neo-confederates; covering up the racism and religious fundamentialism with happy buzz-words.

As for Antartica; that's fine, but just keep them off the British and Aussie parts- We don't want to know what a joint Argentine-Confederate lobby group looks like.

[Old Tyrannia]

I was in the OBX the other day with my Afghani boyfriend and I got dirty looks from everyone there.

The South is just plain hateful. This organization is no doubt the same way.

Way to make sweeping generalizations. Because everyone in the South is a hateful bigot, right?

[Revolutopia]

I was in the OBX the other day with my Afghani boyfriend and I got dirty looks from everyone there.

The South is just plain hateful. This organization is no doubt the same way.

Way to make sweeping generalizations. Because everyone in the South is a hateful bigot, right?

Yes, because they all stereotype and anyone that stereotypes an entire group of people is a hateful bigot.
sacrasm

[Stedicules]

I was in the OBX the other day with my Afghani boyfriend and I got dirty looks from everyone there.

The South is just plain hateful. This organization is no doubt the same way.

Way to make sweeping generalizations. Because everyone in the South is a hateful bigot, right?

I was given dirty looks by everyone in the OBX.

so yes.

[Old Tyrannia]

Way to make sweeping generalizations. Because everyone in the South is a hateful bigot, right?

I was given dirty looks by everyone in the OBX.

so yes.

What's the OBX?

[SD_Film Artists]

Heaven forbid they have more then one Black or Hispanic in their cast.

I don't care what race the cast is. If PC never came about, people wouldn't now have to actually take race into account when they hire their cast.

"Oh no, I might get accused of discrimination if I don't include enough characters that are of X race".

"Positive discrimination" especially in TV/Films can smack of tokenism*, but it's still much better than having racism continue.

[Wu Wei Shan]

Heaven forbid they have more then one Black or Hispanic in their cast.

I don't care what race the cast is. If PC never came about, people wouldn't now have to actually take race into account when they hire their cast.

"Oh no, I might get accused of discrimination if I don't include enough characters that are of X race".

Oh no, I might get accused of being a racist jerk if I join the hordes complaining about political correctness.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Understandable. Refusing to do so is the right move, though. Secession will only make things better if the secessionist movement is not dominated by racists.

I first discovered LOS a couple years ago, and I don't remember their site having so much racist schlock back then. Am I imagining it or have they gotten worse?

That's strange, I've noticed quite the opposite. When I was first made aware of the LoS, I was in middle school (long long ago during the 90s when the internet was in its infancy). The "racist schlock" was incredibly repugnant. Over the years, the racists have, in fact, been phased out. I have noticed an increase in pro-white rhetoric these last few months,

That's what I was referring to. I did not see the site back in the 90s, so I don't know what was there back then, but when I first saw it in 2009 or 2010 I did not notice such an abundance of pro-white rhetoric.

but that is not the same thing as the racism that many critiques within this thread have called to mind. The LoS isn't claiming superiority of whites over racial minorities. They assert the dominating influence of traditionally white (european) culture on the history of America and lament the receding of that domination. That just isn't the same thing as a bunch of hicks burning black men in effigy, is it?

No, writing a bunch of pro-white crap on the internet is not the same as burning black men in effigy, but it still reflects racist attitudes, just in a more sanitized way. It's still a problem, even if they have cleaned it up to be less inflammatory.

[Distruzio]

Why is it a problem?

[Avenio]

No, writing a bunch of pro-white crap on the internet is not the same as burning black men in effigy, but it still reflects racist attitudes, just in a more sanitized way. It's still a problem, even if they have cleaned it up to be less inflammatory.

IMO, it's even more of a problem if it's been sanitized, because it signifies that the racists in the organization realize that people find it offensive, and rather than causing them to re-think their beliefs, they just present it in a covert way so as to make it more appetizing - which is much more insidious.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Why is it a problem?

Because those kinds of attitudes will still encourage people to discriminate against people that don't look white. People judge each other by their looks all the time. That's just a fact of human psychology no matter how much we try not to. If your goal is to have a "white" or "Celtic" culture, then people that don't look white will be seen as suspicious.

If they want to protect the culture without promoting racism, they need to define in non-racial terms what specific cultural values they want to protect. Literacy? Civility? Tasty Carolina BBQ? Whatever culture they are trying to preserve, they need to define it by its traditions, not by race.

[Jinos]

Their masters were lucky to not be hanged as traitors. Given the legacy that followed, it is clear that we were far to merciful with them.

Should we have been 'unmerciful' with the factory owners, as well, who treated their immigrant workers as slaves and paid them less (including the slaves' housing, food, clothing, medicine, etc.)?

Only a Confederate apologist could actually make that comparison. While the working conditions of factories were down right criminally negligent, it's ignorant to compare that to the whip driving slavers of the South.

Because I mean, those factory workers obviously were being forced to work at gunpoint and had no life beyond working their machines

[Nazi Flower Power]

No, writing a bunch of pro-white crap on the internet is not the same as burning black men in effigy, but it still reflects racist attitudes, just in a more sanitized way. It's still a problem, even if they have cleaned it up to be less inflammatory.

IMO, it's even more of a problem if it's been sanitized, because it signifies that the racists in the organization realize that people find it offensive, and rather than causing them to re-think their beliefs, they just present it in a covert way so as to make it more appetizing - which is much more insidious.

I wouldn't say it's more of a problem. Harder to fight maybe, but you get fewer lynchings from undercover racists and fewer lynchings is a good thing.

[Distruzio]

Why is it a problem?

Because those kinds of attitudes will still encourage people to discriminate against people that don't look white. People judge each other by their looks all the time. That's just a fact of human psychology no matter how much we try not to. If your goal is to have a "white" or "Celtic" culture, then people that don't look white will be seen as suspicious.

If they want to protect the culture without promoting racism, they need to define in non-racial terms what specific cultural values they want to protect. Literacy? Civility? Tasty Carolina BBQ? Whatever culture they are trying to preserve, they need to define it by its traditions, not by race.

I agree entirely.

[Tmutarakhan]

Over the years, the racists have, in fact, been phased out.

No, in fact, it's still the same people. It is just that the Internet has forced them to be more PR savvy about how they come across to people outside the local region.

[Avenio]

IMO, it's even more of a problem if it's been sanitized, because it signifies that the racists in the organization realize that people find it offensive, and rather than causing them to re-think their beliefs, they just present it in a covert way so as to make it more appetizing - which is much more insidious.

I wouldn't say it's more of a problem. Harder to fight maybe, but you get fewer lynchings from undercover racists and fewer lynchings is a good thing.

True. Probably better to say 'more of a problem these days'.

[Distruzio]

Over the years, the racists have, in fact, been phased out.

No, in fact, it's still the same people. It is just that the Internet has forced them to be more PR savvy about how they come across to people outside the local region.

While it is true that they've learned to curb their rhetoric, the elements that wished to continue the racist agitation have, indeed, been phased out of positions of leadership. The LoS is no longer a racist organization although there are racists within its ranks. The LoS is an Anglo European organization. It is not anti not-white people organization. I agree that they should simply drop the race talk altogether, but I'm not them. And they aren't necessarily racist.

[R Ev0lution]

The LoS isn't claiming superiority of whites over racial minorities. They assert the dominating influence of traditionally white (european) culture on the history of America and lament the receding of that domination. That just isn't the same thing as a bunch of hicks burning black men in effigy, is it?

As a third-year student in U.S. History, I can definitively say that the influence of white individuals on American history is still remembered quite clearly.

I can also tell you that the definition of "white" has changed on more than one occasion since the signing of the Constitution.

[SD_Film Artists]

No, in fact, it's still the same people. It is just that the Internet has forced them to be more PR savvy about how they come across to people outside the local region.

While it is true that they've learned to curb their rhetoric, the elements that wished to continue the racist agitation have, indeed, been phased out of positions of leadership. The LoS is no longer a racist organization although there are racists within its ranks. The LoS is an Anglo European organization. It is not anti not-white people organization. I agree that they should simply drop the race talk altogether, but I'm not them. And they aren't necessarily racist.

If they aren't racist, then what do they want? And if anything they've learned to use their rhetoric even more, as "a land of God and pride in our heritage" is just a way of covering up "a land without homosexuals, athiests and non-whites" (Not that pride in anglo-european heritage is racist per se..)

[The USOT]

Perhaps we should stop treating "civilized" as a term of approval, and instead realize that the only difference between the civilized and the savage is which group the speaker identifies with.

Well if you want to go all relativist in an esoteric sort of way, sure.

Though I think we can agree that the difference between Sweden and the Yemen is about as clear as anything to be found in the Social Sciences, and that there are qualities of discourse, education, and thinking regarding public welfare that contribute to this difference (among others, of course.) Thus, I define civilized by a measure of its consequences. Those modes of thinking that are productive to the general good.

But thats incredibly vague.
Caesars legion from Fallout for instance would define much of modern education, free choice and consumerism as antithetical to being civilised and "humanity"
As the wiki describes

The ultimate goal of the Legion is to unite humanity. They see democratic societies as tools that the rich and powerful used to keep the majority of humanity in a state of constant irresponsibility. By keeping the people addicted to consumerism, they could effectively drain citizens of their wealth whilst rendering them ineffective. This not only partially explains the Legion's disdain of alcohol and chemical stimulants, as well as pointless luxuries, it also explains why they see the majority of people as "animals", and are so quick to use violence against them. To them, "animals" are any creatures that live only to survive. Humanity, in their eyes, is defined instead by the ability to override the fear of death and the base instinct to survive. Those who are able to face death head-on can more easily sacrifice themselves in pursuit of a greater societal goal.

Whilst I disagree with thier sentiments (despite finding it very interesting), its defining people through arbitrary means to be "more human" is similiar to us defining people through arbitrary means to be "more civilised".

[Distruzio]

While it is true that they've learned to curb their rhetoric, the elements that wished to continue the racist agitation have, indeed, been phased out of positions of leadership. The LoS is no longer a racist organization although there are racists within its ranks. The LoS is an Anglo European organization. It is not anti not-white people organization. I agree that they should simply drop the race talk altogether, but I'm not them. And they aren't necessarily racist.

If they aren't racist, then what do they want? And if anything they've learned to use their rhetoric even more, as "a land of God and pride in our heritage" is just a way of covering up "a land without homosexuals, athiests and non-whites" (Not that pride in anglo-european heritage is racist per se..)

They want secession, of course. And yes, they are hostile to homosexuality - which is another line that I refuse to cross even though I agree that the South should be independent of the Union. For me, southern homosexuals are southern first. Their sexual orientation comes second to their affection for the South land. The LoS unnecessarily marginalizes.themselves by adopting such a position.