To Fly or Not To Fly (the Confederate Flag)



Recently, I had an unpleasant debate with a friend of a friend about the Confederate flag and its usage. My friend had an ideological take on the subject which I didn’t find to be practical. Basically, his view was that flags are just woven material with patterns and designs, and don’t mean anything. It’s just that because we are all CRAZY that we project meaning onto these inanimate objects we call flags, and use them as an excuse to display emotions improperly. Therefore, it was okay for the state of South Carolina to sanction and fly the Confederate flag, as it would have been for it to fly any flag on its public grounds, or to have had no flag at all. For him it was just a First Amendment issue marked by relativism.

My friend’s friend agreed, but he took it a bit further. He stated that the American Flag was just as offensive as the Confederate Flag because white men owning slaves founded the United States. Along with slavery, the American Flag flew full mast over segregation of African Americans, internment of Japanese Americans, and worst of all, a genocide of Native Americans. But really he was playing Devil’s Advocate, because the Confederate flag flying on state grounds was just fine by him as it represents southern heritage to many. He even posted a link to a poll which showed that, prior to the Charleston massacre, only 61% of blacks in South Carolina wanted the Confederate flag to come down, and 27% of black South Carolinians wanted to keep it up! I couldn’t have imagined that that many blacks didn’t have a problem with the Confederate flag. My take? More South Carolinians, black and white alike, have since come to their senses. That damned flag is now down.

The argument against the flag is apparent and pretty straightforward. The Confederates were domestic terrorists, traitors, and were willing to die to treat black people like cattle, and worse. To defend the Confederate flag today as a symbol of southern heritage is as dishonorable as it would be for Germans to defend the swastika flag as a symbol of their heritage. I acknowledge that there are aspects of the US Civil War and Germany in World War 2 that do not parallel each other, but the principle is the same. On human rights issues and on territorial claims, both, the Confederacy and Nazi Germany, were in the wrong and deserved to lose.

The Americans were traitors and terrorists to the British, but on a continent apart and against an abusive king who sought to expand a colonial empire of oppression. As victors over the British, however, we proved our character to be no better than theirs during the American Indian wars. Our flag should not be flown over American Indian reservations … but if – for all of America’s crimes – the American flag should be brought down throughout the rest of the country, then we might as well wish to renounce our citizenship and leave. 

The truth on this issue of the Confederacy, the Union it fought, and of its flag, was summed up best by yet another participant in the debate I was in, as follows:

“The Confederados of Brazil are using the flag to represent their heritage. Granted, they are Brazilians now even if their ancestors were American confederates. The battle flag is not seen as racist in Brazil but is seen as the flag of a distinct ethnic group. So I can agree, these rags are nothing more than symbols that have different meanings to different people.

When I lived in South Korea, I saw swastikas on Buddhist temples. It was kind of strange for me, because I had never seen a swastika in that context. The swastika is used in India and other parts of Asia and has no connection to Nazi Germany. Surely, the Native Americans who used swastikas in designs on pottery and woven cloths weren’t Nazi’s.

What bothers me about the battle flag isn’t that some use it to mark their heritage or that others malign the flag because of its links to slavery. Rather, what bothers me is the narrative behind the flag more than its symbolism. For example: To hear some southerners tell it… “The south just wanted to preserve a way of life that was gentile and hospitable where the sun shined upon the beautiful plantation fields where slaves worked eagerly to please their masters. Slaves were treated kindly and were better off under slavery than free blacks in the North who were starving in the streets. It was not until the Northern invaded us that we went to war to defend our way of life.” This revisionist viewpoint is utter nonsense.

On the other side, the narrative of Northerners as benevolent non-racists who freed the black man from the shackles of their white southern oppressors is equally as nonsensical. I’ve seen movies/documentaries where Lincoln is portrayed as this enlightened gentleman who holds a black child on his lap and promises to free their people. Lincoln only cared about preserving the union with or without slavery. Neither of the above narratives is truthful or intellectually honest.

If this country ever wants to move past this schism, then we have to appreciate the history of how we got to where we are today. This includes teaching the good, the bad, and the very ugly parts of our history. To me what is more dangerous than a rag hanging from a pole is historical revisionism.”

Indirectly related, he added:

“All facets of history should be taught. I’m frankly quite irritated at the Texas School Board due to their decision that the KKK and Jim Crow laws need not be mentioned in history books any longer. Several years ago, the same school board axed Thomas Jefferson as a great political thinker because of his views on the separation of church and state.”

Sounds like some are still fighting the Union!

Bailey, Isaac J. (July 1, 2015). I’m a Black Southerner Who’s Seen Racism All My Life. Why Do I Stay Silent? Politico
Brown, Emma (July 5, 2015). Texas officials: Schools should teach that slavery was ‘side issue’ to Civil War Washington Post
Libresco, Leah (June 22, 2015). Before Charleston, Not Many People Wanted To Take Down The Confederate Flag Five Thirty Eight
Civil War Trust. (2014) 10 Facts About the Emancipation Proclamation
Wikipedia. American Civil War
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg” (October 7, 1858), p. 226.
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Advertisements

The Media is Not Normal



….. and Bernie Sanders is. That’s the reluctant conclusion perhaps that one staff writer with the Washington Post comes to, after conceding or acknowledging that Jon Stewart is hip with the public, and that the media is not. It’s an obvious reality to those in corporate media who can see past the DC. bubble.



See video. “Hillarity”


There are a lot of problems with the media, especially on cable news and in opinion editorials. For example, the fact that all their predictions are consistently wrong follows the law of propaganda nicely.

They ALL predicted in 2003 that Howard Dean would become the Democratic nominee.

They ALL said in 2007 that Hillary Clinton would become the Democratic nominee.

These are but just 2 examples of how they were wrong, but you can easily add a couple of zeros to that for all things political. In fact, the best indicator probably of what won’t happen is by listening to what the media says will happen.

Now, in 2015 they are all saying once again that Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic nominee. So will a scandal then befall Hillary? Will she be so inept at relating to other people that she loses her support and places 3rd again in Iowa?* Anything is possible in election politics, however improbable some things may be.

Hillary has huge advantages going into this race, and yet I don’t feel like she’ll become the nominee. She just isn’t general election material. She’s not cut out to be a general election candidate for the presidency. It’s not that she can’t be the nominee, it’s just that she doesn’t fit the type … the type who pulls it off. If she becomes the nominee, it is her who will be defying the odds, not Bernie Sanders.** She has lacked the instincts to get to that point.***

Hillary is not gifted as a politician the way her husband is; she’s not even gifted to the minimal degree that most successful politicians are. She’s lucky she ran against a belligerent man for the US Senate in 2000, and got to ride the wave of her outgoing president-husband’s popularity.

Most Americans will agree with Bernie Sanders on the issues. Most Americans will relate to him being himself, and like that. Americans are parched for honesty and realness. Will Bernie win? I won’t say that he won’t. But he isn’t going to go away for the convenience of Hillary Clinton.

* In January of 2008 Hillary Clinton finished third in the Iowa Caucus, behind Barack Obama… and John Edwards.

** Long story short, Bernie is popular.

*** 1) I’m far from alone in believing that she missed her moment – which was 2004. As someone once asked John F. Kennedy in 1959 while he was preparing for his presidential run, why he was running for the presidency already, Kennedy answered “When you’re hot, you’re hot.” When asked, “Why don’t you wait your turn and play it safe?” He answered, “No. Others will come. They will forget about me.” Unfortunately, Barack Obama came to understand this phenomena of timing, which is why he announced he was running for President just 2 years and 1 month after becoming a United States Senator.
2) Hillary voted for George Bush’s Iraq War resolution. This was not a vote of conscience. It was a strategy to help her look tough on national security, and it backfired. She then doubled down on her mistake by standing by her vote during the 2008 presidential run. The strategy there was to be resolute and to not appear weak. Instead, she just appeared more wrong.
3) She voted for the Patriot Act. Again, she thought that going along with the herd was the bad ass thing to do, because we were going to war and had to make changes! This would not be the last time that she’d play reckless with the nation’s future for self-serving interests.

“For not going with the flow, and for challenging Hillary Clinton, the big fish many elites have tagged as their own, Sanders’s entry into the race was greeted with story after story whose message—stated or understated, depending on the decorum of the messenger—was “This crank can’t win.” The trouble with this consensus is the paucity of evidence to support it. “This crank actually could win” is nearer the mark. But having settled on a prophecy, the media went about covering Sanders so as to fulfill it.”
“The foregoing would be woeful enough even were it true that Sanders has almost no chance of winning, but it’s not true.”

Conspiracies Don’t Happen and It’s a Sin To Speculate That They Do


It should be apparent that this is a strange and silly statement to make, that is, if it were made sincerely. It’s not. Rather, it’s my mockery of the mainstream media and its minions who keep it in business.

The reality is that this is exactly how the media carries itself … that conspiracies don’t happen, and if you so much as speculate that they do, you’re pariah and will be ostracized accordingly. You think conspiracies happen? In this great country? How dare you!

Where does this bizarre mentality come from? Well, obviously the media are the face and voice of it. Who are the media? People who report for corporations on tv, in print, and online. By nature of this mechanism the media are embedded with the government. What does the government do? Lie. Does our government have a record of lying? Consistently. Is the corporate media indeed privy to corruption within the US  government? Often. So where is the media’s outrage and reporting on this corruption – the secrets, replete with lies and illegality? Minimal to non-existent.

There are no UFOS. There has never been drug trafficking on the part of federal agencies. The government does not conspire to subvert the constitution. No citizen who has stood up to the US government has ever been assassinated by it. Nothing problematic about the cases of Jack, Bobby, and Martin save for the daydreams of lunatics. What is a lunatic? Someone who doesn’t take the government’s word on any given controversy. War crimes? Nah. Congress and the media will see to it that you’re overreacting. Wall Street? No crimes to solve here. Never in the US of A. Just those pesky, indigent thugs with dark skin victimizing our gun-toting police. It’s post 9-11, baby. Any one of those people could be a terrorist!

Introduction to a Sinister Reality


The United States became a Federal Republic upon ratification of the Constitution in 1789, and following passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 it became a representative democracy as well. All this came to an end on November 22nd 1963, when our elected President was overthrown in a brutal Coup d’État. Since then we’ve come to live under something much different.

Conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy is not a matter of theory. It is not mere opinion or a guess that a conspiracy materialized from up on high. The evidence is there – both hard and soft – and in the case of the libel suit Liberty Lobby, the CIA’s complicity was proven in a court of law. The general public is unaware of all this, and to what extent they are aware of facts which greatly undermine the official version, they are often in denial. The public can think what it wants but they are lied to everyday by the government. Indeed, it takes a special amount of brainwashing to believe that our government tells us the truth on nearly anything at all. In other countries it is a given that we are corrupt beyond belief. Ask people in the countries we call our allies what they think, and I guarantee you they will tell you that the US government is a lying sack of shit.

The core of the US’s dysfunction stems from JFK’s death. It is the root of the corruption that reeks today. To understand the dynamics of the criminal world in which our government does its business, the JFK assassination must be understood and confronted. For the intelligence community the assassination was a successful operation that led to their founding – “Autonomous Central Intelligence Agency, Est. 1963”. The agency has worked the same way since, as it is predicated on this rich legacy of a tried and true formula implemented at the highest levels.

The best way to begin studying the assassination is to first gain familiarity with Kennedy’s presidency – specifically his foreign policy record. To that end, this link is my recommended starting point.  

 
jfkmccone2

 President John F. Kennedy with senior CIA officials in 1961

An Overview

I go by Nominay. My interests are (but not limited to) the JFK assassination, Bigfoot, and spiritual values.  This site promotes and advocates for the preservation of a liberal vision, inspired by, and, modeled after, Robert Lindsay’s wordpress http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/. As its editor I am starting off with journal entries more than substantiative articles, with the long-term goal of “getting there” in terms of responsible reporting. What I aim to achieve is to provide honesty and reality-based commentary that is neither subjective nor unsourced. A radical corporate and state run takeover of the media which crosses party lines has left a vaccum that only citizen journalists can legitimiately fill. If you imagine yourself as for the people and not the state, for individual rights, and if you value liberal and socialist policies and philosophy, you don’t have a voice and may well not even realize it.