“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.
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.
So, people on social-media are just now losing their minds over the Obama-era policy of children of illegal aliens being separated from their parents when they break immigration law. (Yes, they’re “illegal” because they’re not complying with US immigration law, and they’re “alien” because they’re foreigners. These are both risks that people take upon themselves and, thus, there are consequences.)
You have libertarians freaking out that we even have a border. Christians are crying a river that the entire Third-World can’t just come to ‘Murica on refugee status (a topic I wrote about in a 3-part series last year). And leftists of every stripe claim that policing the Southern border and enforcing immigration law is “child abuse” and akin to a “crime against humanity.” “No human is illegal,” they say.
Funny that many of the same people orchestrating this “for the children” media frenzy have no compunction about giving young boys and girls hormone blockers to stop the natural onset of puberty. Hmm, that’s odd.
Funny too that some of the same folks who claim Trump is running “concentration camps” have no problem separating children from their parents via government-indoctrination centers known as compulsory K-12 public schooling. Interesting.
(Well, I suppose an estimated 1,000 hours a year per child spent in public schools – not counting school breakfast and after-school programs – would technically make these re-education camps, not concentration camps. But you get my point.)
Many of the same people screaming indignity have no compunction literally ripping the unborn from their mothers, yet promote the murderous separation of abortion. Or what about the shysters who have their kids hold “Babies need moms and dads” signs, yet encourage single-motherhood, fatherless homes, and government as sugar daddy? Peculiar, ain’t it?
Apparently, manufactured outrage is an easy sell these days. I mean, the child-parent separation that everyone from the Mennonites to the Methodists and Al Moehler to Metropolitan Tikhon is railing against is the exact thing that’d happen to my kids if I were to do something illegal. There’s always a higher bar for law-abiding citizens.
Hell, if I did something not illegal but deemed suspect by a random puritanical busybody, CPS would knock down my door, separate me from my kids, and keep them in custody till I could win them back, hopefully. Guilty until proven innocent for me.
Well, let me clarify my position. I am a Southern traditionalist and a secessionist. I don’t want to live in this Disunited Nation-State of Lincoln. If my ancestors had been victorious in their efforts of self-determination, you can bet my border would look a lot different and be much smaller than our current blob of a country. My “border” would actually be based on something tangible: shared language, faith, traditions, customs, and private property. That’s called culture, people.
I’d much prefer not to live under a central-authoritarian regime brimming with special “civil rights” for “protected” classes of people. This is what happens in a democracy.
As a liberty-lover, I don’t even believe in the existence of either DHS or HHS. They’re both freedom-infringing bureaucratic make-work.
See, I’m also an Orthodox Christian who thinks the most moral thing to do with this immigration is to stop supporting the very socialist policies that created this problem. Socialists create oppressive living conditions south of the border, and then Third-World socialists move here and beg for more socialism.
Homegrown socialists perpetuate social programs that lure socialists here and then call for more socialism to fix the chaos they created. It’s for the children, don’t ya know?
I don’t like subsidizing the extortion racket, the nihilistic demands of the mob, the corporate structure, and a government media which pushes fake “unity” and “indivisibility.” Yet, what they really do is work tirelessly to foster division, covetousness, greed, and discord, because it benefits the establishment and its minions.
The open-borders statists pushing this newfound crisis don’t care about the kids. What they’re seeking is to forever remake America in a progressive image as described above. It’s a ruse using children as political pawns and virtue-signalers as their willing puppets: just the fuel necessary to propel this social-justice machine forward.
I don’t want to live in this culture-less society that prides itself on multiculturalism (an oxymoron of epic proportions), forced diversity, “hate speech” laws (but only for some people), censorship, safe spaces, Yankee materialism, and emotivism, not logic, data, and facts. I don’t want to be a part of a system which says that advocating for my family is racist, while simultaneously promoting a low-trust social order and the subsequent violence that stems from it.
I’d much prefer to live among people who understand that democracy is absolutely abhorrent to human liberty and share (or at least respect) common-law heritage. I’d like to live in a place that doesn’t coerce me (and eventually my children) by threat of deadly force to pay federal taxes in order to fund abortion, subsidize illegal aliens, or anything else necessary for the “greater good.”
How come the leftist worldview always requires something of me (my money, my freedoms, my faith, my family’s future, etc.), yet my worldview requires nothing of them, other than to be left the hell alone? But I’m the boogieman. Classic.
I don’t care if you dress it up in Christian-ese. After all, who needs big-government cronies when you have leftist bleeding-hearts running about, issuing statements, and being either uninformed or complicit in the purposeful destruction of my home, heritage, and culture. Couching it in messianic political language still doesn’t change the fact that you’re promoting state violence and devastation against my kids.
Well, the localized society based upon family, community, neighborliness, voluntaryism, Christian faith, smaller, more accountable law, and private-property borders that I’d prefer is not the current reality. That cause was dashed in 1865, at least for the time being.
What we have now is life in an empire. An existence that includes having the fruits of your labor stolen from you to fund the very things you consider evil, like unending and pointless wars abroad and the imprisonment of citizens for non-violent crimes, as well socialized “medicine” and the welfare system.
And it’s those very economic incentives which entice the entire Third World to migrate here, forever enslaving my sons to perpetual debt-bondage and involuntary servitude to the state. It’s about control, wealth redistribution, and power. We’re funding our own destruction. Now I would call that a crime against humanity.
You know what else is child abuse? Ensuring through political and artificial means that my sons become a demographic minority within a few decades. I mean, they’re already said to be toxically masculine misogynists, patriarchal sexists, and potential rapists who are somehow still basking in the glory of all that doggone white-male privilege we keep hearing so much about.
My kids must follow the rules or else. Hell, they pay for the damn rules. But they don’t get tear-filled media stories or late-night talk-show rants of support. Who are their allies?
If my sons have no allies now, besides their family, you can sure as shit bet they won’t have any allies when they’re minority members in a carefully crafted system run by a majority who hate them. Even though they, too, are the “children of God,” the silence will be deafening.
Another lie is that most people coming here simply want a better life. Why then do those very same people not learn the English language, or not assimilate to what is claimed to be our freedom-loving culture, or not send so much of their earnings back to their home country?
Why do they accept welfare, and a “free” education and healthcare subsidized by tax-paying natives? Why do they self-segregate? Sounds more like colonization to me.
Why do they call me paranoid for saying there’s an unfolding cultural genocide purposefully playing out against the unReconstructed Southern people? It’s happening right in front of our damn eyes. After all, much of the razing of Confederate monuments is carried out based on the narrative that the “vibrant, multi-ethnic” communities don’t feel represented with all these statues of dead, white guys out on display.
What about the fact that this balkanized and increasingly anti-white America doesn’t reflect my children? Eh, you must be scared of brown people, they say callously. Yeah, not wanting to participate in this injustice somehow makes me the bad guy. Being a student of history and understanding the devilish cultural-Marxist agenda even gets me pegged unchristian.
Let’s open the floodgates for runaway immigration, create an uncontrollable demographic shift and an overwhelming systemic drain, fund the culture-killing madness, and then alter our history and principles to meet the needs of illegals. Wow, I can’t imagine why anyone would oppose this. Either commit slow, tedious suicide, or become a pariah. That seems to be the choice.
Yes, yes, there are NA[X]ALT immigrant examples. I believe that used to be the case for the majority of immigrants who came to the US legally before the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. Not the lion’s share of the 45.6 million who are here now.
The 37-million foreigners who immigrated to the US from 1820 to 1930 had to follow the rules, fold into the social fabric, and chart their own destiny all without a “safety net.” And the ones who couldn’t hack it left. In fact, many did go home. That’s a story you rarely hear.
My personal anecdote is that my Lebanese grandmother never took welfare, well, except Social Security. She was part of a thriving community in Richmond, Virginia, comprised of typically first-generation Americans who considered themselves just that: American. Didn’t hurt either that she smartly married herself a handsome North Carolinian of Scottish ancestry.
These were Americans who had olive-toned skin, ate Kibbeh and stuffed grape leaves, and sent their kids to school with sandwiches made of Syrian bread instead of Wonder bread. We were glad when people ate our weird food. We didn’t call it cultural appropriation.
These folks left a legacy of pharmacists, lawyers, real-estate agents, businessmen, and middle-class families who were simply thankful Virginians doing their thing. But those are tales of the past.
This is no longer America’s story. The melting-pot is a myth. Careful, prudent, and humane immigration died in 1965 at the hands of leftist politicians and their media collaborators. And it’s championed by a populace hard-wired with Christian altruism, which is so often misguided.
Don’t believe me, just study the Progressive Era, the Temperance Movement, the Social Gospel, and 20th-century American history as a whole. Do-gooders have a real talent for having their supposed good intentions wreak havoc on the rest of us.
Moreover, we’re told that these illegal immigrants are destitute, and that as Christians, we must help them. By purposefully importing poor people, we’re moving our society away from prosperity and back to impoverishment, undoing the very thing that my and my husband’s poor white ancestors worked to avoid.
They toiled and sacrificed for their progeny’s sake. Not to have their hard work undercut by a socialist scheme. Shanties for all!
Many Christians say we should willingly endorse and throw our money at every progressive sham and then not complain about the horrible ramifications. It’s Biblical principle, they say. But when Jesus told the rich man to part with his treasure, it came with an addendum:
Follow me. Give it away for God, not for something ungodly.
And then Christians think they’re earning brownie points with God by forcing their fellow Christians to not only support causes they find obscene and hideous, but to fund their own downfall. That’s what charity means to people these days. Sheesh, no wonder so many conservative people are fleeing the church.
How about we try something different. Let’s reunite families by not letting them come here en masse in the first place. Let’s stop stealing from our neighbors to buttress the anti-family policy known as wide-open borders. Let’s stop celebrating parents who make unethical and illegal decisions that put their own kids at risk. Let’s not use children as political props.
Let’s stop pretending that immigration is a Jesus thing and not a political move meant to ensure long-term voting blocs for the godless statists, cheap labor for crony capitalists, continued power for the elites, and a leftist remaking of America. It’s a Trojan horse, y’all.
Let’s admit that “magic soil” is a lie. Let’s stop allowing people to appropriate our Christian culture and trash our common-law heritage in order to dismantle those very building blocks of our home. Let’s build the freakin’ wall!
But the malevolent malcontents say Trump’s wall is immoral and tyrannical. They say that my voting for Trump as a stop-gap measure to this progressive madness makes me a horrible person, a hater, a backsliding Christian.
Yet they’ve created another wall – a barrier where my family must exist and survive. It’s not built with barbed wire and rough-shod stone. Rather, it’s a political wall that makes extremely clear I cannot peacefully leave this oppressive union; the War of Northern Aggression proved that.
It’s more a de facto wall ruled by social-justice shaming, conformist cuckery, and progressive political enforcement, so resistance is futile. Don’t fight it. Behave.
Just shut up, pay your taxes, fight the empire’s wars, sell out your children, submit to the cultural decay, wallow in white guilt, cave to an inauthentic brand of Christian charity, and rally for open borders … or you’ll be tagged anti-child, a xenophobe, unAmerican, a white supremacist, or maybe even a Nazi.
I guess better to be branded those things than to be dominated by the totalitarians who have erected and maintain the wall of subjugation and marginalization behind which my children currently live. That, my Christian brothers and sisters, is separation.
Liked it? Take a second to support Dissident Mama on Patreon!
Original blog posted at Dissident Mama.
Back in 2000, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers declared, “It’s a bad time to be a boy in America.” In her book, The War Against Boys, she wrote, “Routinely regarded as protosexists, potential harassers and perpetuators of gender inequity, boys live under a cloud of censure.”
Since Sommers penned these prescient words nearly two decades ago, our cultural decay has become even more entrenched. The feminists have dug in their combat-boot heals, and the louder they shriek and stomp and cry about their fictional mass victimhood, the more my sons suffer. The anti-male creed has taken on a life of its own, with the habitual caterwaul to a supposed all-powerful, women-crushing patriarchy, and a specifically a white one at that.
Within the pages of Vice, HuppPo, and Elle; on the broadcasts of The View, MSNBC, and Girls; and in the miseducation classes of America’s universities, social-justice assemblies in our nation’s public schools, or mandatory diversity training smothering the corporate cubicle grid and boardroom alike, it’s mandated that all must bow at the altar of “(White) men suck. Women rock.”
The anti-male bias is proclaimed from beyond the ivory towers and has woven its lethal thread into the daily commonplace of daycares, churches, moms groups, and home-owners associations. “Straight white men” are evil. There’s even a wretched play and song to hammer home the sexism for ultimate effect.
What Sommers coined as the “myth of shortchanged girls” is a sinister scam, in which progressives aren’t merely clamoring for “equal access” and “equal pay for equal work.” Rather, they desire egalitarianism, and special status and rules for anyone with a vagina.
Furthermore, they seek to demote men, their professions, their uniqueness as humans, and their roles as providers, protectors, fathers, brothers, and sons. It’s punishment veiled as equality, subjugation masqueraded as fairness.
Social-justice warriors seek to shortchange my boys because they weren’t born with the right plumbing. Of course, the irony is that this is the same inanity that for so long supposedly kept women out of coveted positions of power. (I will argue in future blogs that women have always wielded control and influence, albeit not necessarily in public fashion. Give me a stern, tough-as-nails matriarch, and she can make even the boldest of kings shake in his boots.)
But in our era, the populous is drowning so deeply in the surging noxious waves of feminism that we’re either becoming numb to the misandry, or we’re just so worn down by the ridiculousness, that we want to shrug it off for our own sanity.
But hate unabated and unchallenged always has a way of wriggling its way into the nooks and crannies of the culture and into the mindsets of the masses. Really, if the enmity weren’t so detrimental to civilization, it actually would be pretty comical.
Take, for example, a few of the go-to ad hominems the “grrrrrrls” spew forth in an effort to silence half the population.
“Toxic masculinity” is code for dehumanizing boyhood and manhood. It’s a bludgeon used for belittling all males, at all costs, and elevating all women (except those of the non-leftist variety), no matter the cost.
“Mansplaining” is a dagger aimed at killing the expressions of my children, husband, and every man I know and respect. It’s an implement meant to censor men’s thoughts, thus, giving dominance to those in opposition to real equality and freedom: feminists.
“Manspreading” is a more farcical version of the above, but it’s just as menacing. This verbal weapon is meant to demean men for their stature, not their opinions, but is nonetheless objectifying and degrading.
Hell, if women were endowed with testicles and a penis, you can bet they’d be stretching out in an effort to cool off their junk. They’d also declare it some kind of human right, and then try to make us all either subsidize it (as some feminists suggest for motherhood and menstruation) or worship it (like the growing breastfeeding in public hysteria).
“All men are potential rapists,” to the even worse, “All men are rapists and should be put in prison and then shot,” are simply polemics – tools aimed at silencing opposition. Is it any wonder that “polemics” in Greek translates to “warlike” and “belligerent”?
I mean, how can one argue in defense of rapists? Or not rally to the cause of the victim? You’re called horrible names if you even cling to the notion of innocent until proven guilty or that someone’s not an immoral felon merely by virtue of having a dick. The feminists win by stating fiction as fact. From Marx to Marcuse, this tactic has always worked well for the polemicists, so why stop now?
“White privilege” is a bit of a hornet’s nest, so for another day and another blog. But all we need to chew on for now is that it’s acceptable for “journalists,” Hollywood insiders, “educators,” and apparatchiks of all stripes to unapologetically state that they’re “repulsed and mystified by men” and look forward to a day when “old white men holding culture back will all be dead.” This kind of hate is becoming normalized.
Sadly, I could go on, but let’s wrap this up with the two biggies, those all-encompassing and discourse-annihilating nails in the coffin of reason, intellect, and true equality: when in doubt, just tag someone either a misogynist or a tool of the patriarchy. Easy peezy, debate done. Conversation over.
Now, consider uber-PC pastor, John Pavlovitz, writing about his daughter, who supposedly “smashes the patriarchy” just because she’s strong-willed, rebellious, and fearless. Huh, sounds like most kids to me, especially young girls. I was one once, ya know.
But then again, this dude has his thumb on the pulse of truth and enlightenment because he heads a big social-gospel church, so perhaps I should defer to his infinite wisdom instead. Nah, challenging the liberal elitism of what I like to call the “evangeleftists” is way more satisfying, both creatively and spiritually. (And if that term takes off, please remember you heard it here first!)
Hey, Pastor John, I’m partial to teaching my sons, who are obviously in the cross hairs of progressive puritans like you, that being a boy is awesome! Scratching butts, farting, playing zombie apocalypse with Nerf guns, shooting BB guns, being geography geeks, wrestling, wielding swords, doing archery, competing over anything and everything, warming their hands down their pants, constantly moving and wiggling, picking boogers, being enamored with battles and flags and armament, wearing camo, loving history, disassembling things in order to figure them out, building forts in the woods, being tough yet gentlemanly, and thinking that dookie jokes are hilarious is not only okay, but it’s super cool.
Please continue to “push back against a big world” that seeks to define you, fellas. Resist cultural Marxism. Man up! Embrace masculinity and celebrate the joy of being who God made you to be: all boy, no apologies. Keep on smashing that misandry, kiddos. And this recovering feminist will be cheering you on all along the way.
Liked it? Take a second to support Dissident Mama on Patreon!
Original blog posted at Dissident Mama.
Today marks the 155th anniversary of the fateful death of Stonewall Jackson. In honor of this truly remarkable figure, who succumbed to pneumonia on May 10, 1863, I thought I’d share something my 10-year-old son and I recently wrote for our homeschool co-op.
This “Faces of History” research paper is part of a curriculum we use called the Institute for Excellence in Writing (IEW). I referenced the assignment in my last blog because of my displeasure with a few source-texts for some of the other American-history-based lessons within the writing-intensive program.
Honestly, the main reason my husband and I decided to homeschool our sons originally was to counter the statist propaganda taught by race-class-gender fetishists and pushed as “history” in government schools. I mean,we were on the home-education train well before we were Christians … or even birthed children! So, yeah, resisting Lincolnianism is kinda our thang.
Hence, my kiddo and I were on a mission to set the Southern record straight with our five-paragraph Jackson biography, which had to include the following format: introduction, three sub-topics, and conclusion. We decided that “soldier,” “faith,” and “legacy” would be fitting subjects to encompass the inscrutable Jackson.
We also opted to use only adult sources. Too many children’s history books, especially ones about the “civil war,” are simply not worthy of the time and energy of folks who aren’t interested in revisionism. Thus, my son required quite a bit of my help parsing, digesting, and organizing the intense, but high-quality materials.
Moreover, IEW encourages what is called “hand holding” – a parent taking lead on some aspects of an assignment but with the child remaining fully part of the process. The methodology asserts that the student will learn to emulate the skills through modeling the adult. And it works. I know because I’ve seen it. And this paper is proof.
Before completing this assignment, my son and I already thoroughly respected Jackson. Over the years, the family has visited his home, place of work (Virginia Military Institute), and grave in Lexington. We’ve stopped traffic by taking a family picture while waving both Battle Flags and the Virginia state flag in front of his grand statue on Monument Avenue in Richmond.
Later this spring, we’re camping at Stone Mountain, Georgia – home to the largest bas-relief carving in the world, which just so happens to feature Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis. Down the road, we plan to make pilgrimages to some other important Jackson sites, including Manassas, Chancellorsville, and Clarksburg.
We understand that time is of the essence. We grasp that the memorials to Jackson and other Confederate dead are under siege.
We get that we must embrace and celebrate Southern heroes before the puritanical progressives move them to “contextualized” museums or just raze them altogether. Hell, the latter is what Jackson’s quisling great-great-grandsons aim to do. Sickening. We can deduce that this iconoclasm is a vital battleground within the ongoing cultural genocide.
But after diving into the details of this valiant, noble, and godly man, my son eventually wanted to title his paper “Stonewall Jackson kicks ass!” Being that our co-op is Christian and my allowing that racy title probably wouldn’t have been the best parenting ever, we opted for something a bit more academic but as historically accurate.
Still, we think this paper speaks to our overall contentious contention: that if more people were like Stonewall Jackson, the world would be a better place. You read and decide for yourself.
On his deathbed, Jackson’s final words were “Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.” So while this son of the South is at peace dwelling in the the eternal, we unReconstructed rebels continue to fight in Jackson’s stead for his honor and for his cause: hearth and home.
And there’s no better way to raise unReconstructed resistors than by homeschooling the next generation. As Proverbs 28:18 says, “Instruct your son, and he shall love you; and he shall give honor to your soul, lest he follow a lawless people.”
“Stonewall Jackson: The Indispensable American Patriot”
It was once said of “Stonewall” Jackson that “A braver man God never made.” But Thomas Jonathan Jackson was an unlikely soldier with humble beginnings. In 1824, he was born in Clarksburg, West Virginia, when the state was still part of Virginia, and was an orphan at a young age. He attended West Point not to become a soldier, but to sharpen his character. Having ranked last on his entry exam, Jackson graduated 17 out of 59, proving his dogged determination. And by the Mexican War, he had earned a reputation as a “fighting man.” Interestingly, Jackson hated war and was not a secessionist. But he loved Virginia and considered the invasion of his homeland acts of war, aggression, and tyranny. It’s a popularly mimicked moral misjudgment that Jackson and his Confederate brothers fought only to keep slavery intact. However, Jackson, who was lionized for his kindness by many blacks of the time, either freed or hired out his six slaves at the onset of the war and brought many slaves and free blacks to Christ before his death. In 2005, a black Southern pastor gave an honest account: “Thomas Jackson, like Jesus, was willing to cross real boundaries for the sake of the Gospel.” Because he was such an exemplary man, more people should aspire to be like “Stonewall” Jackson.
Jackson was a pure military genius, whose fearlessness made him and Gen. Robert E. Lee a near invincible team during the War Between the States. To try to shorten the conflict, he was ready to raise the “black flag.” “Shoot them all,” Jackson stated in June 1862. “I do not wish them to be brave.” As a general, he aimed to wage an aggressive, punishing war on the enemy by taking the bayonet to Yankee territory. Surprisingly, Jackson exhibited calmness in battle. In fact, that’s how he got the name “Stonewall.” “There is Jackson standing like a stonewall,” yelled Gen. Bernard Bee of South Carolina at the First Battle of Manassas. “Let us determine to die here and we will conquer. Rally behind the Virginians!” It was at this battle that Jackson’s “foot cavalry” saved the day, as they were known to do. Jackson was able to move large armies at unheard of speeds. These forced marches averaged 20 miles a day with each soldier carrying 40 to 50 pounds of gear. Because Jackson consistently beat overwhelming odds, even when the Yankees had double the troops, he had become the most famous general in the world by the spring of 1862. By flanking the Union and pulling off unfathomable sweeps, the formidable “Stonewall” always turned up the heat. “Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy,” Jackson explained, “and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in pursuit.” Understanding human nature, Jackson took advantage of the “fog of war,” so together with Lee’s direction, the two incredible generals never lost a battle.
Because Jackson was a “man of arms surrounded by tenets of faith,” he was known as the “Confederate Joshua.” Like the Biblical soldier, Jackson believed he was the Lord’s instrument on earth. “Duty is ours. Consequences are God’s,” he uttered on his death bed. Courage. Leadership. Divine guidance. These were the attributes that followed Jackson into battle, making him the “sledgehammer of the war.” Jackson was an enigma. He was the model Christian and soldier, a Calvinist who questioned predestination, and a slaveowner who ran a Colored Sunday School for slaves and free blacks. Additionally, Jackson did not support slavery as a choice because he considered it ordained by God: slaves were given this burden and that he must be a compassionate master. Similarly, Jackson thought the Union had violated the principles of the Founding Fathers, the principles of Christianity, and the principles of civility, as well. The North was “attempting to create a new society that lacked order and cohesiveness … (and) seemed to be striving to alter basic American structures,” explained historian James I. Robertson, Jr. “If the South did not resist, it would stand in failure of God’s will and become subservient to Northern domination.” And he was right. Jackson’s Christianity was his lamp in all that he did. The general, who knew death wasn’t his choosing, was as prepared for it in peace as in war. Fighting by the Old Testament and living by the New Testament, Jackson was truly a soldier of the cross.
After Jackson was shot by friendly fire on May 2, 1863, at Chancellorsville, his death a week later was a fatal blow to the Confederacy and stunned, appalled, and astonished North and South alike. His military partnership with Lee was one of history’s most adept. “You have lost your left arm, I have lost my right,” Lee mournfully wrote to his ablest lieutenant whose arm had been amputated because of the wound. The legacy of this team is second to none, and the South’s winning strategies were dependent upon it. “So great is my confidence in General Lee that I’m willing to follow him blindfolded,” stated Stonewall of his fervent loyalty to the general. Commenting on Jackson’s resolve and devotion, Lee remarked, “Straight as the needle to the pole he advanced the execution of my purpose.” Since Lee attempted to divide the army and flank the enemy at Gettysburg without Jackson, the system failed. Boldly, Lee even declared that a complete Southern victory both at the famous Pennsylvania battle and for Confederate independence would have occurred if Jackson had not been killed.
Isn’t it shocking that this amazing man is not respected anymore? Jackson was once mocked as “Hilljack,” yet became one of history’s most celebrated generals, who was adored, respected, and exalted by his troops. “His fights were our fights, his victories were our victories,” a Georgian soldier explained. “My individuality, with that of thousands of others, was represented in the power wielded by that great military chieftain.” Honestly, to talk of Jackson while leaving out his Christianity “would be like undertaking to describe Switzerland without making mention of the Alps,” remarked Dr. Moses D. Hoge, who was a fellow Presbyterian. He prayed before everything. On Sundays, he didn’t read newspapers. He prayed in his tent and even during battle. People felt so reverently about Jackson, even in the North. When a Confederate boat called “Stonewall” fell into Union hands, the enemy kept the name out of admiration for Jackson. Crushing all hopes of Southern victory, his unfortunate death shocked everyone and destroyed the winning Lee-Jackson alliance. Stonewall Jackson was an irreplaceable American patriot, not a traitor.
Bedwell, Randall. May I Quote Stonewall Jackson? Cumberland House Publishing Inc., 1997.
Gwynne, S.C. Rebel Yell: The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson. Simon & Schuster, 2014.
“Jackson’s ‘colored Sunday school’ class.” The Washington Times, 2006, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/5/20060505-083815-2779r/. January 16, 2018.
McClanahan, Brion. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes. Regnery Publishing Inc., 2012.
Robertson, James I., Jr. Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend. MacMillan Publishing USA, 1997.
Liked it? Take a second to support Dissident Mama on Patreon!
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 statists, so she’s going to bang as loudly as she can.