Confederate Society
by Al Benson Jr.

I have been watching this game of minorities and others being “offended” at just about anything and everything anyone else says or does. It has gotten beyond being ludicrous so we need to stop and take a good look at it and where it is headed.

The “I’m Offended” game, or maybe agenda would be a more correct term, seems to do one thing–it limits freedom of expression and action. For fear of “offending” someone you dare not say this or do that, and so if you follow this to its logical conclusion you end up saying nothing, doing nothing and thinking nothing. Such inaction on the part of most people makes totalitarians, whether they be Democrats, Republicans or Communists deliriously happy.

Lots of folks have started to notice this trend (agenda) of late.  I read a quote just last week that said: “My freedom ends where your feelings begin.” That’s a very accurate statement. The man who said it understands what’s going on. I read another one this week where the man said: “I’m offended by all those folks being offended over nothing.” That one is also on target.

There are so many out there now that are “offended” by so much that if everyone gives in to their list of pet grievances society will come to a screeching halt. Could that possibly be the name of the game?

They had a major flap at Yale recently over, guess what, Halloween costumes! An article on  for November 10th said: “Halloween is more than a week in the past,  but students at Yale University are having a tough time moving on. Angry that school administrators did not take their concerns about offensive costuming seriously enough, a group of minority students met with Yale president Peter  Salovey last week to have their say. Salovery, it seems, was moved by what he heard.” What politically correct, blubbering sycophant who runs any kind of school in today’s offended world wouldn’t  be “moved” when students came to him with this kind of frippery? It gives him a chance to buddy with the plebes as if he really cared about their concerns.

It seems that some of these students are finding life on the campus of Yale “profoundly difficult.” It actually got to the point where the Intellectual Affairs Committee sent out an email requesting that students not wear “culturally unaware and insensitive costumes.” The article stated: “Apparently we’ve reached that point in history where one can take a joke.” Oh, you better believe you’ve reached it. We have arrived at the point where no one can say or even think anything that some minority group will not find offensive and jump all over your case about. There is absolutely NO humor in these people whatever. They are deadly serious.

You have to understand that this “I’m offended” agenda is another phase of Cultural Marxism. That’s all it is.  It restricts people’s liberty to laugh, or kid, and if the truth were known, much of it is not all that offensive, no matter what they say.  And I have noticed that these people who are waiting in line to “be offended” at the drop of a hat seem to have no problem at all offending white Christians, or any real Christians for that matter. They are literally standing in line to have their shot at putting Christians and their beliefs down. Haven’t noticed that? Maybe you just haven’t been paying attention. White Christians especially are the one group that it’s perfectly okay to offend, particularly if they are from the South. In fact, its’ open season on them.  Anything goes–and unfortunately, most of them don’t have sense enough to realize it yet. They’ve been kept too busy not trying to “offend” every other group around–even to the point where a lesbian “bishop” in some church in Sweden has had the cross removed from her church lest it “offend” the Muslims! You would not believe how much of this crap goes on and how much the Christians play into it unknowingly. Not much spiritual discernment left in this day and apostate age. We are so busy trying not to “offend” rank unbelievers that we can’t be bothered to stand up and defend what we are supposed to believe. After all, that might “offend” someone!

Now I am not advocating that we go out of our way to try to offend anyone, but let’s face it, Christians, just by being Christians are going to “offend” lots of folks. The truth always offends those who don’t want to believe it. If the truth offends you, I’m sorry, that’s tough. Jesus said in Matthew 11:6 “…blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me.” Maybe Christians need to be more concerned in making sure they are not offended by Jesus and His teaching than they need to be concerned that they might offend some pagan who doesn’t want the truth anyway.

We have, this past summer, had a concentrated campaign of ethnic and cultural cleansing here in the South that has been the most dramatic I can recall in my lifetime. And you can tell that those people who want to trash our culture, want to get rid of our flags, statues, monuments, even park and street names (it all has to go, immediately if not sooner) are playing for keeps. I don’t think most Southern folks realize the intensity of the hatred those people have for us and our history, faith and culture. Everything we believe and do is “offensive” to minorities and therefore, we must stop it all, right now.

I wonder, has anyone bothered to put forth the possibility that what they are trying to do to our history, faith, and culture just might be offensive to us? Oh, that’s not even a concern. Our right to exist ends where their injured feelings begin and we need to be on “stools of everlasting repentance” forever.

After all, the Cultural Marxists are only trying to obliterate  our faith, history, and culture–why should we be offended at that? I’ll tell you something–you’d better learn to be offended by it, otherwise they just may pull it off! Where will you be then?

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again–you had better learn how to resist these people because that’s the only thing they understand–and if you don’t do it they will just run over you as if you were so much “collateral” damage. And, as for these folks that are “offended” by everything from soup to nuts, start telling them to be thankful they still have the right to be “offended.” It’s one of the few rights they still have. And if this “gentleman”  they helped put into the White House has his way they won’t have that long!

By Thomas DiLorenzo

Re-posted from Lew with permission from our friend Dr. DiLorenzo

On October 10 the online History News Network expressed its disapproval (yet again) of a statement that Ron Paul made several years ago regarding the American “Civil War.”  In a television interview Ron Paul expressed disagreement with the new, politically-correct legend that slavery was the one and only cause of the Civil War.  The long-simmering conflict over states’ rights versus consolidation and nationalism was the main problem, he said.  So the History News Network highlighted an article by one Dale Schlundt, an adjunct professor at Northwest Vista College, on “Why People Like Ron Paul Falsely Believe Slavery Wasn’t the Cause of the Civil War.”  Schlundt is very upset that someone with such a large audience and who allegedly “did not study the Civil War in depth” would say such a thing.  He says that he starts each semester of his history class with a video of Ron Paul’s television interview on the subject, and then spends considerable class time belly-aching about it.

Of course, the reason why “people like Ron Paul” believe that there were multiple causes of the “Civil War,” as with all other wars in human history, is that they have studied the subject in depth, unlike Dale Schlundt, and do not rely simply on the latest politically-correct platitudes.  For example, they are familiar with the book, The Causes of the Civil War by Kenneth Stampp, a former president of the American Historical Association. This widely-useduniversity-level textbook discusses dozens of causes of the war, which is why the title of the book includes the word “Causes,” not “Cause.”  Dale Schlundt is apparently oblivious to this scholarship.

“People like Ron Paul” are also aware of the fact Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. Congress very clearly stated that ending slavery was not the purpose of the war.  The U.S. Congress, which was almost totally comprised of Northerners in July of 1861, issued its “War Aims Resolution” that stated:

That this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the States [meaning slavery], but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln assured the world that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”  He then quoted the Republican Party Platform of 1860, which also pledged the Party’s everlasting support of Southern slavery:  “Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions [i.e., slavery] according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend . . .”  Dale Schlundt is also apparently oblivious to the words of Lincoln’s first inaugural address, unlike “people like Ron Paul.”

Also in his first inaugural address, near the end, Lincoln expressed the strongest support for the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had just passed the Northern-controlled House and Senate, which stated that “No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof [i.e., slavery], including that of persons held to labor or service [i.e., slaves] by the laws of said State.”  Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois ratified the Corwin Amendment before the war broke out.

In the same speech in which Lincoln advocated the enshrinement of slavery explicitly in the Constitution, he threatened “invasion” and “bloodshed” (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the new Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the rate of federal taxation just two days earlier in legislation signed by President James Buchanan.  “There will be no invasion of any state,” he said, as long as they pay up.  They did not, so Lincoln did what he threatened to do and waged total war on his own country over tax collection. 

In his article Schlundt does not say that Lincoln waged war on his own citizens to free the slaves; he says that the sole cause of the war was the dispute over the extension of slavery into the new territories.  Lincoln and the Republican Party were indeed opposed to that, citing two reasons:  1) They wanted to preserve the territories as the exclusive domain of “free white labor” to use Lincoln’s exact words; and 2) to reduce the congressional representation of the Democratic Party, since at that time every five slaves counted as three persons in the census for the purpose of determining how many congressional representatives each state would have.  Even so, the salient point here is that by seceding from the union the Southern states abandoned any possibility of bringing slaves into the territories of the now-foreign government of the United States.  So Dale Schlundt’s slavery-as-the-sole-cause-of-the-Civil-War theory comes down to this:  The South wanted to bring slaves into the new territories, so their strategy to achieve that goal was to secede, after which it would have been impossible to bring slaves into the U.S. government’s territories.  This, he says, is what should be taught to college students about the war, not the words and actions of Lincoln and the rest of the U.S. government at the time.

Nor should students be exposed to the letter that Lincoln wrote to newspaperman Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, on August 22, 1862, stating that “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and not either to save or destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

“People like Ron Paul” also know that, early in the war, when two of Lincoln’s military commanders unilaterally issued local emancipation proclamations Lincoln rescinded them and reprimanded the commanders.  They know that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to “rebel territory,” where the U.S. government had no ability whatsoever to free anyone, while explicitly exempting parts of the South such as much of Louisiana, where the U.S. Army was in control.  The slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and West Virginia, all a part of the Northern Union, were also exempted.

“People like Ron Paul” also know that Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation a “war measure” that he hoped would lead to slave insurrections, although it did not, and that it would have become void had the war ended at that time.  People like Dale Schlundt, on the other hand, are either ignorant of these plain historical facts, or they dishonestly hide them from their students.

“People like Ron Paul” also understand that secession does not necessitate war.  The issue of why the Southern states seceded is entirely separate from the question of why there was a war.  Lincoln himself was very clear on why there was a war:  By his actions he proved that his war aim was to destroy the voluntary union of the founding fathers and replace it with a coerced, Soviet-style union held together by mass murder, mayhem, the bombing and burning of entire cities, the rape, pillage, and plunder of the civilian population, and everlasting threats of doing the same should any state in the future contemplate leaving Lincoln’s “mystical” union.

When people like Ron Paul cite the decades-long conflict over states’ rights versus nationalism as a cause of the war, they are saying that the Southern states, like the New England Federalists before them, believed that the union was voluntary and that they had a right of freedom of association and of secession.  The Republican Party, on the other hand, insisted that the union was never voluntary, and was a one-way venus flytrap from which no state, and no citizen, could ever escape for any reason. Lincoln’s regime “proved” its theory of the union to be “correct” at the cost of as many as 850,000 dead Americans according to the latest research.