Blog Archives

A Patriotic Perspective Against the Pledge

7/29/2018

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
— “The Pledge of Allegiance,” September 9, 1892

With Independence Day just a few weeks ago and all the statist fervor that’s displayed annually around the holiday, I’m reminded of why I don’t say “The Pledge of Allegiance.” Let’s begin with the sordid inception of this American ritual.

The Pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a 19th-century Christian socialist and member of the Boston-born movement known as the Nationalist Club. The organization urged for the nationalization of private property and exponential growth in social services, especially public education.

So, what we’re talking about here is not the kind of nationalism that seeks political independence for a regional people who share a distinct culture, language, and religion. Rather, this was more about “economic democracy.” In other words, socialism.

Enter Francis’ cousin, Edward Bellamy, a then-famous author of socialist-utopian novels. Edward’s “Looking Backward” was the third best-selling book of the day and greatly influenced none other than progressive public-school advocate, John Dewey. The book also inspired the proliferation of more Nationalist Clubs, where Bellamyites would gather to study Marxism and disseminate anti-capitalist ideas.

The blue-blood’s brand of nationalism coursed its way through the veins of America’s body politic and into many cities beyond Boston. The movement found common cause with reformers of the era, such as the People’s Party, the Social Labor Party, and the Social Democratic Party. And at the club’s height, there were chapters as far away as Washington, D.C., Chicago, Canada, California, and New Zealand.

Back to Francis: in the late 1880s, he was fired from his New England pastoral job for incessantly preaching that Jesus was a socialist. But he went on to become the founding vice president of the Society of Christian Socialists and a frequent contributor to its circular, “The Dawn.”

Francis was then hired by “The Youth’s Companion” (YC), a leading children’s publication that also featured works by Americana greats, like Jack London, Mark Twain, and Booker T. Washington. As content creators in the magazine’s premium department, Francis and James B. Upham began a promotion in 1888 that solicited subscriptions from public schools with the bonus of receiving a U.S. flag.

Up until this point, flying the stars and stripes wasn’t a common custom most anywhere. Remember, this was prior to the country’s ascent into foreign-adventurism during the Spanish-American War and subsequent role as global-policeman via propaganda pushed during both world wars.

But despite 20-plus years of Reconstruction, people still largely identified with their community, state, or region at this time. It’s not that folks weren’t proud of their home, it’s just that their home wasn’t the “nation.”

Plus, Unionism wasn’t (and I would argue, still isn’t among loud and proud Dixie natives) the instinct of most homegrown Americans, so shows of patriotism weren’t really necessary. Hell, Congress didn’t proclaim the 4th of July an official holiday until 1870, and Southern cities, like battle-worn Vicksburg, Miss., didn’t even celebrate it till the early 1900s.

But in just a few short years of YC’s promotion, approximately 26,000 flags had moved into public schools through this ingenious marketing concept. As with most business strategies, though, demand began to stagnate. So in 1892, Upham had another grand idea: increase magazine sales and the numbers of flags into schools by couching the promotion as a way to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus coming to the Americas.

A new flag pledge was published in the September 8 issue of YC. Students were encouraged to memorize and recite it, as well as participate in a novel flag-raising ceremony to observe the upcoming Columbus Day in October.

Francis spoke at a national meeting of school superintendents in support of the gimmick, er, I mean, patriotic program. Of course, the educrats were seduced by the campaign and happily obliged at utilizing government education to work the Pledge into the consciousness of the masses.

“Our public school system is what makes this Nation superior to all other Nations,” Sherman Hoar, U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts, told Francis in support of the pledge campaign. Pompous populism was at a fever pitch.

The National Education Association became a sponsor, and U.S. Congress and President Benjamin Harrison also participated in the excitement, making a national proclamation about the Columbus Day pledge-and-flag event. And so was born a new American covenant.

Interestingly, the pledge was originally recited while raising a stiff right hand upward. Due to its similarities to the Nazi salute, this practice was discontinued during WWII and replaced with placing right hand over heart. At the urging of the Knights of Columbus, “Under God” was added by Congress and President Dwight Eisenhower in 1954 as a stance against the threat of atheist communism. Oh the irony.

So, controversies over the Pledge’s words have become an all-encompassing straw man: while leftists fight to have the Pledge taken out of schools (even though they’re the ones who put it there), godly limited-government folks think they’re being both patriotic and faithful in promoting the Pledge’s public prominence (even though it’s a socialist screed). The discombobulation is baffling.

The terminology of the now-lionized Pledge echoed the sentiments that was – and still is – the vanguard of New England meddlesomeness, which spread like wildfire throughout the Progressive Era. It ramped up in the late 1800s and hammered home the wrath of Reconstruction, planting the creeping seeds of post-modern socialism that slowly but surely befell 20th-century America and is today in despondent, dark bloom.

“Republic … is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove,” Francis explained of the terms he used in crafting the Pledge. “To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as [Daniel] Webster and [Abraham] Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches.”

He also wanted the political vow to be “an intensive communing with salient points of our national history … [including] the meaning of the Civil War” and viewed his Pledge as an “inoculation” against radicalism. And as a puritanical populist who once ran for New York governor on the Prohibition Party ticket, you know the “virus” of subversion to which he was referring was states’ rights.

There’s a reason “Happy Secession Day” was trending on social media this 4th of July: many people are coming to realize that Revolutionary colonists fought to break from the British by severing their relationship with the crown. Indeed, These United States were born of divisibility.

Secession, not oneness, is our heritage, no matter what progressive pundits or public-school propagandists say. Questioning “the republic” and “the flag for which it stands” is as American as apple pie; it is truly in line with our founding as a people of freedom and faith. Our legacy is not that of soulless automatons and empire worshippers.

“I believe a man is happier, and happy in a richer way, if he has ‘the freeborn mind,'” C.S. Lewis said. “For independence allows an education not controlled by Government; and in adult life it is the man who needs and asks nothing of Government who can criticize its acts and snap his fingers at its ideology.”

Now I know Lewis is a Brit, but I think it’s important to have a strong Christian counterpoint to Francis’ social-gospel message. Lewis may have been a mutton-and-turnip-eating Irishman, but he surely had his Anglican finger on the pulse of what it means to be faithful and free-thinking – an often difficult task for some Christians to accomplish, much less one who adheres to the tenets of socialism and its imperial aims.

Government that’s smaller and closer to home is always better for liberty, and Dixie has been living under an antithetical system for way too long a time. As an unReconstructed Southerner, I see the Pledge’s “one nation” and “indivisibility” mantras as simply reinforcing the central authoritarianism which my Confederate ancestors fought against.

Take the experience of Francis Key Howard, grandson of Francis Scott Key, author of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Key composed what came to be the lyrics of America’s national anthem when witnessing the U.S. flag waving in Baltimore harbor after the British bombardment of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812.

Fast forward not even 50 years to the War of North Aggression, when Howard was arrested without warrant in accordance with the federal government’s policy of jailing dissenters of Lincoln’s wartime policies. Howard’s crime? He had written an editorial condemning Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, implementation of martial law in Baltimore, and imprisonment of the city’s mayor, its police commissioners, the entire city council, and a sitting U.S. Congressman – all without charge.

By imprisoning so many of his political enemies, Lincoln prevented Marylanders from ever having a vote on secession. After all, people can’t challenge the unrestrained power of the nation-state and its usurpation of authority, if their leaders are all locked away.

Howard was originally held at at Fort McHenry, precisely where Key had experienced his pivotal patriotic moment and penned the reverent words honoring the flag and fortitude of his young, struggling country. Obviously, Howard wasn’t feeling the same warm-and-fuzzy sentiments as did his grandfather.

“The flag which then he [Key] so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed.”
— Francis Key Howard, 1861

To me, the Pledge is either a socially sanctioned habit that few question at best, or a forced loyalty oath of subordination at worst. Why vow allegiance to something hellbent on crushing self-determination, promoting tyranny, and propping up oligarchs who pay for their socialist schemes on my dime just because it’s the status quo? It’s all just a bit too totalitarian for this rebel.

But I’m not a barbarian, for goodness sake. I respect my family and friends who do participate in the Pledge. After all, I know they see it as a simple act of publicly displaying love of country. But I also see my small resistance as patriotic.

There’s a line in an old Ani DiFranco song that goes, “I am a patriot. I have been fighting the good fight.” I, too, am fighting the good fight for a homeland where “liberty and justice for all” (not special rights for some) and a republic that embraces (not crushes) divisibility can again take root, and against the reconstructed socialism that has foisted ruination and colonization upon my nation: the South.

As author Edward Abbey once wrote: “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” I am that kind of patriot. Deo vindice.

Liked it? Take a second to support Dissident Mama on Patreon!
Original blog posted at Dissident Mama.

White Christians Should Feel Guilty

7/14/2018

“In my experience, it’s too simplistic (and unfair) to blame one group of people for our collective failure to evangelize,” said Pastor J.D. Greear, who last month was elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Yet that’s exactly what he and the other race-hustlers do: blame white Christians and their “inertia” and “privilege” for the plummeting numbers within Southern Baptist churches.

“In the Christian obsessed with ‘social justice,’ it isn’t easy to discern whether charity is flourishing or faith is expiring.”
— Nicolás Gómez Dávila, Colombian writer

I referenced much of the SBC’s heterodoxy in a previous blog. But the “white people got work to do” slogan is a guilt-inducing, group-think bludgeon and has become an idol in much of mainline American Christianity. The “people of color are perpetual victims” mantra is a near sacrament that must be bowed down to, or else.

Just ask James Edwards, host of The Political Cesspool. He’s long been warring rhetorically on social media and on his radio show with prominent Southern Baptist pastor Dwight McKissic and other SBC bigwigs.

The self-described paleo-conservative has become a lightning rod for interviewing controversial personalities, and defending such unpopular notions as private-property rights, secession, political decentralization, and military non-interventionism. Gasp!

But what was Edwards’ unforgivable “sin?” He believes in white pride, advocates for the white family, and is unapologetically pro-Southern. You know, cultural Kryptonite in these enlightened times.

Now, some or all of that might not be your cup of tea, but are any legitimate reasons to “disfellowship” Edwards and his entire congregation “without even so much as a phone call to my pastor or anyone else in our church,” he wrote? The political purge was carried out covertly, without discussion, deliberation, or even an SBC vote, which is further explained by the hateful and divisive Southern Poverty Law Center

Edwards is not nor has he ever been a member of the Klan, as some assert. But with plenty of establishment Christian leaders, such as McKissic, joining with and promoting the Leninist-Marxist Black Lives Matter movement, would these Evangelicals even have a leg to stand on if Edwards was a Klansman? I think not.

After all, BLM’s “Blacktivism” is geared toward “freedom and justice for Black people” and seeks empowerment for the “global Black family,” yet curiously aims to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family.” Huh, double-standard much?

For a people who incessantly talk of their quest for Christian “authenticity,” evangeleftists sure do like to pray at the altar of forced “diversity.” What can be any more artificial than racial (and gender) quotas, like the ones McKissic and Greear have endorsed for the SBC?

Belarus’s Ministry of Internal Affairs said it well when criticizing Britain for raising a rainbow flag over its embassy: “The essence of fake is always the same — the devaluation of truth.”

It’s counterfeit virtue, and it seems abundantly clear that in-group preference is okay for everyone, except white folks. It’s like Jim Crow, although not in a legal sense. Rather, this caste system creates supra-rights for aggrieved minorities and special untouchable classes as defined by the pulpit. Some must follow the man-made laws, while others get a pass.

The feel-good words used by the churched inquisition may sound nice, but here’s their true meaning.

• “inclusion” = excluding certain points of view
• “diversity” = anti-whiteness and infantilizing “people of color”
• “racial reconciliation” = pushing white guilt and self-hatred
• “social justice” = covetousness and cultural Marxism
• “unity” = submit or be deemed unworthy of salvation

But what is racism? Here’s what Merriam-Webster says.

Other dictionaries echo the same refrain: racism must require a sense of superiority of one race over another. It doesn’t mention pride, preference, stereotyping, or even power, as the leftists say it must have in order to be legit. According to the true definition, one must lack personal humility and possess utter disdain for specific others in a broad-brush way for racism to exist.

“Liberals are skilled at using orthodox language to mean something else.”
— Professor Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Yet, some Christians do mental gymnastics to remake the word in their own progressive image. The cultural-Marxist zealots with Reclaiming Jesus – which includes Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry (known for his pedestrian royal-wedding sermon) and Jesus-was-a-socialist guru Tony Campolo of Red Letter Christians – talk out of both sides of their mouth, just like Greear and McKissic.

They say “no oppression based on race” can be inline with Christianity and that “any doctrines or political strategies that use racist resentments, fears, or language must be named as public sin.” But that’s exactly what they foment with their “racial reconciliation” ideology.

They continue, “We reject white supremacy and commit ourselves to help dismantle the systems and structures that perpetuate white preference and advantage … one that goes back to the foundation of our nation and lingers on.” Oh yeah, and “silence is complicity.” Spiritual extortion, nice touch.

To them, “Racial justice and healing are biblical and theological issues.” Of course this means all penance for sinful whites, all absolution for sinless blacks. No appreciation for white Christians, except for those “allies” who hate their own whiteness, and no level of pandering to blacks is off limits. “We give thanks for the prophetic role of the historic black churches in America when they have called for a more faithful gospel.”

So black Christians are by default prophets and better Christians than those white evil-doers? Allegedly “pro-black” policies are seemingly “central to the mission of the body of Christ in the world,” but dissenting white brothers and sisters – and black conservative Christians, like pastors Voddie Baucham, Jr., and Darrell Harrison – are apostates. Sounds more like Black Liberation Theology to me.

This double-speak is what gives evangeleftists cover in pushing the political stunt known as MLK50, a virtual veneration by a slew of pastors and opinion-makers who call Martin Luther King, Jr. “the greatest American ever to have lived.” This past spring, the event raised money for minority-student college scholarships, while they preached of white guilt, institutional racism, and King’s faith and civil-rights works.

“Racial unity is a Gospel issue,” the conference website claimed in fashionable form. Oh, the bravery. Oh, the leadership. Oh, the irony. Gag.

But no mention that King denied some extremely important Christian essentials: the Virgin birth, that Christ was the Son of God, the physical resurrection of Christ, and the inerrancy of Holy Scriptures. Check out his own words if you don’t believe me. Somehow those aren’t anti-Gospel issues. Um-kay.

Theologian Robert Gagnon called the Christian hypocrisy at MLK50 “propaganda” and a “perfunctory whitewash.” His critique of the “foreordained” message of King’s near sainthood and his insistence that King never repented earned Gagnon some Baptist heat. Thankfully, he refused to bend the truth, despite the bullies’ best efforts.

Even Orthodoxy is not immune, although I do think people with varying views can (and often do) get along much more fluidly within the ancient faith. Liturgy, apostolic traditions, and church history help in keeping some of that animosity in check.

There is true unity in the chalice. Orthodoxy is “diverse” in that universal sense, but some over-“educated” Western Christians still do try their best to homogenize some of the non-dogmatic faith issues.

“Orthodoxy rejects the teaching that churches or countries should be divided along racial lines,” wrote Father Peter Jon Gillquist in reference to his kicking Matthew Heimbach out of communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church Archdiocese of North America. “He must submit to period of formal penance in order to be received back into the Orthodox communion.”

See, Heimbach is co-founder of the now-defunct Traditionalist Youth Network, a ethno-nationalist movement. He’s a proponent of right-socialism, of which I’m no fan. Then again, there are plenty of left-socialists and nation-statists who are members in good standing within the Orthodox Church, yet no one seems to care two whits about their politics.

Liberals of all stripes are never banished from the Church; the example is only made of “neo-Nazis.” Of course, today that job-killing, church-expelling, friend-losing designation includes Heimbach, perhaps rightly so. But tomorrow it could include me, or you, or any conservative because it is the left who creates and then sticks individuals in these ever-broadening categories.

In defending Father Gillquist, Father Ernesto Obregon basically made analogous Heimbach’s unpopular activism with the horrific sin of pedophilia. Could you imagine any priest doing that with a black nationalist, a feminist, or a gay man?

The inconsistencies and contradictions among American Christians abound. For instance, Heimbach is said to support a “separationist ideology,” but BLM isn’t? C’mon.

Is it simply that the marginalization of non-leftist white folks is kosher? Could there actually be something that I like to call “Marxist privilege” within the Church, which pushes double-standards depending not upon soteriology and ecclesiology, but rather upon political correctness?

“He must formally reject violence, hate speech, and the heresy of Phyletism,” Gillquist continued. Media darlings BLM and Antifa are built upon brutality and fear, and encourage people to “punch a Nazi,” meaning anyone with whom they disagree. Feminism advocates for women to kill their children. All are inherently violent groups, yet plenty of Christians support these ideological movements with seemingly no repercussions.

And “hate speech” is a post-modern invention. The offense and acceptable parameters of discourse are always defined by the person making the allegation, and the assertion is never targeted at people of color or leftists high on the caste.

The Christian clamor about being “intentional” and “finding connection” is constant. Those noble works can be showered upon gang members, heroine dealers, parents who give their kids hormone-blockers, illegal immigrants, corrupt lawyers, lying reporters, thieving politicians, pro-abortion activists, or pretty much any fallen soul – other than deplorables. Nope, no “children of God” mercies for them.

And then there’s “phyletism.” Now I’m a newly chrismated Orthodox, but from what I know, this controversy had to do with Bulgarians wanting Bulgarian-only parishes in Constantinople. In fact, the word, which was coined by the Great pan-Orthodox Synod that met in Constantinople in 1872, was synonymous with “ecclesiastical racism.”

“We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ,” wrote the Synod. Yet, it’s not deemed heretical to have national or cultural loyalty outside the Church. There is a Greek Orthodox Church after all.

After Charlottesville, even the Assembly of Canonical Bishops of the USA went so far as to equate phyletism with “all forms of xenophobia and chauvinism” (whatever that means in modern newspeak), but clarified that the “promotion of racial or national supremacy and ethnic bias or dissension in the Church of Christ is to be censured as contrary to the sacred teachings.” Yet, they went on to to appeal to the “leaders of our great nation.” Odd.

My patron saint, Ilia the Righteous (mentioned in my last blog), sought national independence for Georgians from the Russians and autocephaly of the Georgian Church. He worked to out those who dishonored the Georgian nation, and its language, faith, and culture.

So, was Ilia a xenophobe because he vociferously dissented against Russian invasion? Was he a chauvinist because he had Georgian pride? Was he ethnically biased because he championed for a specific people-group? And what the heck codifies “dissension in the Church?” Well, what’s certain is that it’s always one-sided and never, ever broaches the poison of progressivism.

I’m just not convinced that the newfangled Americanized definition of racism is dogma or is even a Gospel issue. The political correctness and presentism weighing down the once simple-to-understand concept make it superficial, convoluted, and subjective.

You can say that the Gospel can heal true racism and, thus, promote more unity among folks as a result of Jesus’ love and grace. But heresy? Eh, not so sure.

If a puritanical progressive “blames himself for what is wrong, he thereby stakes out a claim to be the one who must rectify it. A guilt trip is an ego trip.”
— Historian Forrest McDonald

What I am convinced of is that there’s a double-dealing deception going down. Some sincere people may have consumed so much leftist Kool-Aid flowing forth from the pulpit that their seemingly good intentions have blinded them.

Some may even understand the hypocrisy and its dangerous ramifications, but are too scared to speak up or resist. Others are just trying to navigate the PC landscape as best they can, and are willing to bend principle and throw people under the bus for political expediency. It’s waaaaaaaay easier to be an “ally” than it is to be dissident.

But there are some who aim to co-opt something good (in this case, Jesus Christ) and destroy the institution (the Church) from within. The people orchestrating this madness veiled as Christian spirituality don’t simply have selective outrage. Rather, they fully grasp the agenda and are using scapegoating to gain power, curry favor with the mob, and propel the scheme to its nihilistic ends.

Hey white Christians. I know you’re already beaten up for just being white and having mythical “privilege.” For being a “white supremacist” simply by virtue of not being black, or for voting for Trump (although the stats really do betray the latter deceitful media narrative).

Or for not being sensitive of your role in “colonial oppression” or your complicity in “systemic racism.” For not spitting on your ancestors' graves hard enough or for never doing enough to further “racial reconciliation.” Your sin is worse and your judgement greater than all else. To the periphery, crackers!

Don’t the people being played know they’ll never be given mercy by the power-hungry race pimps or naive men of the cloth? It’s too risky. There is no grace for whitey, if he upsets the conformist apple cart, either real or imagined, voluntarily or involuntarily. The social-justice establishment is using the weakness, contriteness, charity, selfishness, and/or ignorance of the altruistic white masses to pull a fast one.

I mean, if you can’t stop falling in line with the dictates of leftism – the very ideology which threatens the salvation of individual souls at the behest of the cultural-Marxist collective and seeks to annihilate faith and family – you should feel guilty as hell. Wake up and stop being such brainwashed automatons, y’all.

Liked it? Take a second to support Dissident Mama on Patreon!
Original blog posted at Dissident Mama.

Is it any wonder I use a pseudonym?

7/7/2018

I’m often asked why I use a pen name. I could tell you that it’s because it’s kinda cool to be in the company of other great writers who used pseudonyms, like O. Henry, Tennessee Williams, and Dr. Seuss. But honestly, it’s because I’m an anti-leftist writer, and the left is treacherous and unhinged as hell.

I’m a freedom fighter who lives in an un-free world. I’m a paleoconservative trapped in a progressive state. I’m a Southern-without-apology blogger trying to survive in the loony land of Lincolnianism. I’m a truth-seeker who dwells in a culture of lies.

I wouldn’t have to use a pen name in a normal world. Well, normal ain’t what we got, y’all.
As a former feminist-atheist-socialist, I understand the threat that is cultural Marxism. I mean, I did minor in women’s studies … before it was called “gender studies.” I understand leftist language, and I know how the left thinks, and it’s some dark stuff, y’all.

In fact, just saying “cultural Marxism” is considered racist language by the modern, seething left. It’s among a slew of verbiage considered racist “dog whistles,” including Bolshevik, urban, cosmopolitan, bankers, and others gems not yet determined by the totalitarian thought police. Thus, if you use these terms, you’re not worthy of conversation, or an opinion, or even existence. Punch a Nazi, am I right?

I’m trying to put up a little firewall between my family and the crazies, so that Antifa and BLM thugs (or left-leaning libertarians like the ones who made this bingo board) don’t come to my house and throw a brick through my window – or worse – due to my “unacceptable” views. Considering the zealotry of the illogical left, I’m surprised more politically incorrect writers don’t use pseudonyms.

Yes, yes. There are indeed liberal folks who do want to dialog, but they’re truly the tiny exception, not the overwhelming rule. Otherwise, I would use my real name, as well as invite folks who disagree with me over to my house for a beer summit. Alas, that is not the case.

As a journalist (and a media consumer with a modicum of intelligence), I see that the people who pull these systemic strings are bad dudes. It’s a machine buttressed by naive do-gooders, sycophantic virtue signalers, self-serving opportunists, and downright monstrous mobs.

I’m here to question the message. I’m here to poke holes in the cabal. And the only way to maintain integrity as a writer is to seek and tell the truth. Be bold but loving.

As anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows, though, pursuing truth is dangerous business. The Founding Fathers did, and that’s why many of them chose to use pen names leading up to and even after the Revolution.

I began this adventure known as Dissident Mama in December 2016. Remember those days? They almost seem wide-eyed innocent in comparison to the highly charged political heat and social unrest that has occurred since then.

Just check out last weekend’s street-fighting clash in Portland between Patriot Prayer and Antifa. As anyone with a clue is finally admitting, civil war is here. And as the left admits, “This is just the beginning.”

Back when I started blogging, the divider in-chief Obama was still in office, and perhaps leftists were taking a brief respite, exhausted from the brutality they dished out to Trump supporters and upon private property leading up to the election. Maybe the haters were in shock, still reeling because Trump had just upset the new-world pecking order of Hillary’s globalist-feminist ascent into the Oval Office.

But after Trump’s inauguration, leftist fury was unleashed. The barbarians were well-rested and frothing at the gate, calling for social and physical savagery, and often making it happen and without much repercussion. And then by August, well, the nihilistic mob was unabated and anarcho-tyranny was in full inglorious swing. Charlottesville was the pinnacle of the leftist feeding frenzy.

See, the progressives had worked tirelessly for 150 years to finally get to the point of being able to decree who is and isn’t acceptable. Sure, you can have “respectable” talks with war mongers, imperial murderers, race baiters, anti-white haters, thieves, infanticide supporters, hormone-replacement-therapy child abusers, anti-Christian tyrants, and communists, but a right-leaning person? Nah.

Unite the Right was a critical mass. Pro-monument Southerners, states-rights folks, free-speech activists, paleocons, limited-government types, and alt-righters of various stripes all gathered together to stand against the agreed-upon tyranny of cultural Marxism.

This was not supposed to happen. Why hadn’t these people been properly indoctrinated in K-12 and college? How could so many people be red-pilled, apparently resistant to the establishment media’s constant brainwashing? Why wasn’t everyone buying into the dehumanization of non-leftists and the constant social-justice propaganda?

That’s why the governments of Charlottesville and Virginia and their police henchmen gave cover to and protected the aggressive tactics of domestic terrorists, allowing them to encircle and trap Unite the Right folks, fostering and igniting the very violence the “authorities” are supposed to keep at bay. They doubled-down and then shifted the blame.
This allowed the treasonous media spread the “Nazi” propaganda oh so gleefully. It’s tragically effective in winning over the hearts and minds of the unwashed masses. They painted as victims savage leftists, enabling the blood-thirsty agitators to get rich and get off Scot-free with their fictional sob stories.

Same formula worked for the swarms of rioters who toppled a Confederate monument or a vandal who was “adding context” in her own way, both as authorities watched: those whipper-snapper “peace activists” get off with a talking-to. Aw, they’re just passionate idealists fighting for “justice,” don’t ya know?

Meanwhile, race-baiting opportunists are endlessly celebrated, alleged “white supremacists” get convicted of “hate crimes” for using self-defense, some even getting up to 10 years in prison. Others get doxxed and lose their white-collar jobs at politically correct corporations. Some just commit suicide.

And then the sainthood of Heather Heyer rolls on. (Could I actually say that Hunter Wallace deserves a Pulitzer for his research and reporting on these two fifth-column media hoaxes and not get lynched by the anarcho-tyrants if I didn’t use a pen name?)

How can James Fields, a white man, be charged with “one count of a hate crime act resulting in the death of Heather Heyer,” a white woman? And “one count of racially motivated violent interference with a federally protected activity,” when it was Unite the Right who had the proper rally permit, not the leftist hordes.

When the DOJ implies in no mistaken terms that Fields is a “white supremacist,” yet fanatical cultural Marxists are “a racially and ethnically diverse crowd … chanting and carrying signs promoting equality and protesting against racial and other forms of discrimination,” is it any mystery as to why I use a pen name? Facts, evidence, and rule of law seem not to matter anymore.

The calculated lies are unquestionably believed that even a little ol’ Southern gal like me isn’t safe from the progressive tarring and feathering, whether figurative or literal. It’s guilty until proven innocent. Unless, of course, you can’t even get a fair shake in the court of public opinion, much less in civil and criminal court. You’re guilty … ’cause the left says so.

Charlottesville was supposed to teach these deplorables a lesson. And it did to a degree. Rally organizers are being sued for the violence that unfolded at the hands of police-backed Antifa during their lawful event. The left has extremely deep pockets and powerful allies.

The push-back has been severe. The rhetoric vitriolic. The misinformation malignant. So much so that many alt-righters have given up on activism.

Having long been banned from Facebook and Twitter, some stick to making fun of the left on alternative media, like 4Chan and /pol/, while progressives continue to completely control the mainstream media, establishment social media, and the narrative. Some alt-right podcasters are even being sued to disclose the identities of their supporters and listeners.

I’m no ethno-nationalist or member of the Trad Workers Party. Hell, some alt-righters are atheist Yankees who push for forced collectivism and increased centralization, and dismiss all women's voices as a reaction to the scourge of feminism. Way too statist for my blood.

I’m anathema to some movements within this thing called the “alt-right.” I believe in God and family, decentralization and private property, self-determination and localism. But when thought crimes rule the day, that should scare every person who seeks liberty, no matter who is espousing the opinion. No one is immune, no matter how puritanical.

Citizen journalists Faith Goldy has been assaulted by Antifa, Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone have been banned from Great Britain, and Tommy Robinson has been jailed for 13 months for simply speaking out against out of control immigration and the deculturization of the UK. Borders equal racism, the overlords say.

If those folks are too dissident for you, what about school teachers who feel they must disguise their voice when speaking out against children being used as anti-gun political pawns? Or James Damore being fired from Google for sharing an opinion based on beliefs that were commonly held just 20 years ago?

Or what about you, when you feel you can’t speak your mind freely due the mounting pressures of self-censorship? When you don’t say what you believe because you fear the voracious consequences of the thought police?

And what about people with political power? We know Congressman Steve Scalise got shot while playing baseball, and Senator Rand Paul got beaten up on his own front lawn.

Recently, Sarah Sanders’ family was flash protested against after leaving the Red Hen, Pam Bondi was spat upon in a movie theater, and left-wing “activists” mobbed the homes of Kirstjen Nielsen and Stephen Miller – all actions for which the left makes excuses or supports outright.

Harassment of anyone thought to be an enemy of the left is being encouraged by a sitting congresswombat, er, I mean congresswoman Maxine Waters. (Hey now, calm down. I didn’t call her a monkey. My apologies to the wombat community.) Peter Fonda wants to throw Barron Trump in a “cage with pedophiles,” for goodness sake.

Could you imagine the reaction if a business owner denied service to new “democrat-socialist” darling, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Or spit on Keith Ellison? Or protested in Kamala Harris’ front yard or punched Cory Booker or shot any Democrat, especially an “aggrieved minority” with special status on the victim pyramid?

Double standards and demagoguery abound in our bipolar world. Not even Laura Ingalls Wilder is safe from the progressive purge, so you think I’d be? Yet another reason I use a pseudonym. Any dissent to the narrative is considered a threat, no matter how big or small. To the left, I’m Hitler. That’s how totalitarianism works. It’s about control.

Now, I’ll probably never get Internet-famous enough for any hysterical socialist to bother teaching me a censorship-obedience lesson in proper Maoist form. But being that I won’t submit to their absurd and ever-changing dictates, I didn’t want to take the chance.

Moreover, if the company where my husband works knew he was married to such a politically incorrect chick, he’d have to undergo sensitivity training at best or get canned at worst. Meanwhile, his corporation incessantly encourages participation in LGBT activism, promotes anti-white “diversity,” and pushes other liberal-conformity schemes. Peak capitalism, baby.

My pseudonym gives me an opportunity to not only express myself, but also to make friends with people, who may otherwise want to dissociate with me due to my “radical” worldview. I’m a fairly likable gal, so when liberals who’ve come to think I’m pretty cool find out about my blog, some get taken aback.

Our relationship might make them question the presumptions they have about “the right,” or “conservatives,” or “Trump voters,” or “proud-to-be-Southern people.” It’s actually a clever strategy that often opens people’s minds to deeper inquiry and nuance. It can also foster dialog and healthy debate that might not have otherwise occurred. Plus, I get to grow and learn from these interactions and relationships, as well.

If someone really wanted to find out who I was, it probably wouldn’t be that difficult. And I hope that if that ever happens, the people with whom I’ve built bridges will stand up and defend my humanity and my God-given right of freedom of conscience. However, I’m not so sure.

So using a pen name is a smart move for a domesticated homeschooling boymom like me. I want to promote peace, but also not be victimized by the madness. Prepare for the worst, pray for the best. I didn’t start this uncivilized conflict, but I will darn-tootin’ resist it as best I can, if only in my own small way.

I’m just a gal who understands that opinions shape culture. I simply want to speak truth, raise my sons, be a good wife, follow Jesus, and be left alone to live my life as I see fit. I aim to play the long game and live to fight another day. I don’t want to throw anyone under the bus, but I sure don’t want to get run over either.

My Orthodox patron saint is Ilia the Righteous of Georgia. He was a brave writer who voiced opposition to the Russification of the Georgian people, and their borders, language, culture, and Christianity. Due to his outspoken nature and strong stances, Ilia was assassinated by a band of militant “social democrats” in 1907. Sounds familiar, don’t it?

I do want to emulate Ilia’s unwavering Orthodox faith and his powerful prose, but I’d certainly like to avoid getting killed, if I can help it. Teeing off the left is and always has been risky, so is it any wonder I use a pseudonym? Yeah, I think I’ll just stick to letting Dissident Mama’s pen do the talking.

Liked it? Take a second to support Dissident Mama on Patreon!
Original blog posted at Dissident Mama.

Author

Truth warrior, Jesus follower, wife, and boymom. Apologetics practitioner for Orthodox Christianity, the Southern tradition, homeschooling, and freedom. Recovering feminist-socialist-atheist, graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and retired mainstream journalist turned domesticated belle and rabble-rousing rhetorician. A mama who’s adept at triggering leftits, so she’s going to bang as loudly as she can.

You can read more by DM at Dissident Mama and support her blogging efforts on Patreon or through PayPal.

Dissident Mama

A Patriotic Perspective Against the Pledge

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”— “The Pledge of Allegiance,” September 9, 1892

White Christians Should Feel Guilty

Is it any wonder I use a pseudonym?

Author

Archives

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
— “The Pledge of Allegiance,” September 9, 1892