Welcome to Southern Nationalist Network

Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

SNN & the I-95 Confederate flag

August 26, 2013
By

News that a giant Confederate flag which will soon fly beside I-95 just south of Richmond, Virginia has delighted many Southerners who are used to hearing of the South’s symbols, songs and flags being under attack in Progressive USA. It has also sparked a backlash from anti-Southern elements, mostly Northern transplants, who are raising money to put up an anti-Confederate billboard near the flag. Now SNN has been brought into the fray. In a recent article for the Chesterfield Observer news editor Michael Buettner quotes from Southern heritage activist and organiser Susan Hathaway’s appearance on the SNN podcast:

Opponents of the display of the flag in general consider it a symbol of slavery and racism, while supporters, including [Susan] Hathaway, say it’s simply a way of honoring ancestors who fought for a cause they believed in.

Hathaway founded the Virginia Flaggers in response to the removal of Confederate battle flags from a memorial in Richmond after control of the property passed to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. The group has been staging “flaggings” at the museum regularly for the past couple of years.

In a 2011 interview with the Southern Nationalist Network, a neo-secessionist website, Hathaway said community reaction to the group’s Richmond flaggings “is quite mixed. We get everything from the middle finger and obscenities to congratulations and ‘Keep up the good work.’”

Notice that SNN is described not as a Southern nationalist website or even a secessionist website but as a ‘neo-secessionist’ website. Why the ‘neo’? What is new or old about the concept of independence? Does Buettner describe George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as ‘paleo-secessionists’? Does he describe the Parti Quebecois, Scottish National Party, Vlaams Belang, Lega Nord and other pro-independence parties and organisations around the world as ‘neo-secessionist’? It’s highly doubtful. This is more than likely an attempt to smear SNN and Southern nationalists. In the rhetoric of radical Left-wing groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center terms such as ’neo-secessionist’ and ‘neo-Confederate’ are thrown around haphazardly along with terms such as ‘racist’, ‘terrorist’, ‘neo-Nazi’ and ‘extremist’. These are part of their everyday vocabulary in describing those who do not go along with the anti-Southern and anti-White agenda of the US Left.

Also see: Large Confederate flag to be raised near Richmond, VA and Richmond Councilman Baliles proposes anti-Southern billboard near I-95 flag

Tags: , , ,

  • Harold Crews

    Buettner appears to be a neo-idiot and a neo-communist and a neo-Yankee. Just my personal opinion anyway.

    • Michael

      lol… I like that, Harold. Turnabout is fair play.

    • Virginian Secessionist

      I think we should neo-slap the neo-prefix onto as many neo-words as we can. This will neo-reinforce the neo-worthlessness of the neo-idiot neo-agenda. Granted, the neo-idiots are doing a neo-good job of neo-ruining the neo-term already. But we can neo-certainly lend some neo-help…

      • Virginian Secessionist

        And of course, only do this when reacting to their accusations of being neo-this, neo-that. I am not advocating total chaos by doing this at all conceivable instances of communication.

      • fburg22

        Your right on neo-friend!

  • notyranny

    Keep the faith, attack the attackers, use their tactics against them.

  • Brett Hillman

    My favorite philosopher – Ludwig Wittgenstein – was convinced that the whole of philosophy is full of fundamental confusions arising from a failure to recognize that any given sign can be used to symbolize many different things. Some terminological clarification: according to him a symbol is a unit of meaning (something that can convey thoughts, ideas and emotions), while a sign is merely the physical manifestation of the symbol (mere marks on a piece of paper). It turns out that not only philosophy, but life in general is full of such confusions.

    Quoting from Wittgenstein’s magnum opus a.ka. the Tractatus Philosophico-Logicus:

    3.32 The sign is the part of the symbol perceptible by the senses.

    3.321 Two different symbols can therefore have the sign (the written sign or the sound sign) in common—they then signify in different ways.

    3.322 It can never indicate the common characteristic of two objects that we symbolize them with the same signs but by different methods of symbolizing. For the sign is arbitrary. We could therefore equally well choose two different signs and where then would be what was common in the symbolization.

    3.323 In the language of everyday life it very often happens that the same word signifies in two different ways—and therefore belongs to two different symbols—or that two words, which signify in different ways, are apparently applied in the same way in the proposition.
    Thus the word “is” appears as the copula, as the sign of equality, and as the expression of existence; “to exist” as an intransitive verb like “to go”; “identical” as an adjective; we speak of something but also of the fact of something happening.
    (In the proposition “Green is green”—where the first word is a proper name and the last an adjective—these words have not merely different meanings but they are different symbols.)

    3.324 Thus there easily arise the most fundamental confusions (of which the whole of philosophy is full).

    A very good example of such a sign is the Swastika, which has two very distinct symbolizations. On the one hand Hitler used this sign as a symbol of Nazi ideology (and his followers continue to use this sign as a symbol of neo-Nazi ideology). But on the other hand this sign was used in ancient India as a symbol of well-being (and it continues to see widespread use in modern India even today). Nobody would go to India today and accuse people of propagating neo-Nazi ideology just because they happen to use a sign that the Nazis also use, because it is understood that these are two completely different symbols (even though they share the same physical manifestation).

    Perhaps there are similar considerations that apply to the CBF.



Images

SNN