[Spam] RE: [Vision2020] RE: LOS aka Lost Our Slaves (Yes, this is long, but packed with info and li

[matt]

I think you can support Bill Clinton's platform, party, politics and policies without being "immoral" but I do not think you can support the man with implicating yourself with his actions in some way however slight

> This reminds me of another observation that I would like to run by you
> folks.
> 
>  
> 
> It seems that many of you are unable to distinguish without separating. For
> example last week you told me that rape was not a sexual crime because it
> was a violent crime. I can understand that the disciplines of law and
> medicine need to make workable definitions and they aren't allowed to make
> laws pertaining to sexual habits, but that doesn't mean that rape, apart
> from the legal and medical definitions, isn't a sexual act as well as a
> violent act. 
> 
>  
> 
> And again, in the letter below, it seems that a guy can't agree with 90% of
> what another guy thinks without agreeing with everything a guy thinks. Isn't
> this like saying that because someone likes Bill Clinton, he also likes
> adultery and immorality? After all, Clinton has never been known as a
> faithful man, therefore everyone who likes him is also immoral.
> 
>  
> 
> Again, my question is: Why can't a person support Bill Clinton without being
> immoral like Bill is? Or why can't rape be both a violent act and a sexual
> act?
> 
>  
> 
> I know these are simple questions, but some of us are simple people.
> 
>  
> 
> Mike Lawyer
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On
> Behalf Of DonaldH675@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:14 PM
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] RE: LOS aka Lost Our Slaves (Yes, this is long, but
> packed with info and li
> 
>  
> 
>  Visionaries:
> 
>  
> 
> In a heroic effort to explain the League of the South to his followers, Doug
> wrote this explanatory note. I thank the brave friend who shared this with
> me.
> 
>  
> 
> "In the midst of our current controversy with our local intoleristas, some
> of you may  have wondered about the League of  the South, and what our
> connection to that organization actually is. Steve Wilkins, whom you know,
> has served as a director for the organization. When the group was first
> formed Steve told them a couple things that bear on our situation here.
> First, he said the group had to be explicitly Christian or he could not be
> associated with it. He also told them that it could not be racist in any
> way, 
> 
> and if anything like that showed up, he was out of there. Steve has recently
> resigned from their board of directors, but *not* because there was any
> problem with the conditions above."
> 
>  
> 
> (V2020 readers may find this ironic, but I have corrected the typo(s)).
> Steve Wilkins has been sitting on the Board of Directors for a mighty long
> time - approximately 10 years. During that decade he has, presumably, spend
> a considerable amount of time with the President of the LOS, J. Michael
> Hill. Dr. Hill authored the following (edited for length) position paper
> which is linked to the LOS homepage. 
> 
>  
> 
> <http://www.dixienet.org/> Click on the section at the top called "Reading"
> and then clip on "position papers."
> 
>  
> 
> A Call for Proportionality, Honesty, Integrity, Morality and an End to
> Demagoguery A League of the South Position Paper 
> 
> by Dr Michael Hill, LS President
> 
> "We were born on the same soil, live on the same land, and why should we not
> be brothers and sisters?" --Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest addressing the black
> community of Memphis at the city Fairgrounds, July 5, 1875
> 
> (Interjected note from Rose)  This would be the same Nathan Bedford Forrest
> who founded the Ku Klux Klan and was the commanding officer during the Fort
> Pillow Massacre which "proved the ugliest racial incident of the war,
> Confederate forces under General Nathan B. Forrest captured Fort Pillow on
> April 12, 1864, and proceeded to wipe out the black troops within; some were
> burned or buried alive. A Federal congressional investigating committee
> subsequently verified that more than 300 blacks, including women and
> children, had been slain after the fort surrendered. After the incident,
> black soldiers going into battle used the cry "Remember Fort Pillow!" Later
> in the year, the South agreed to treat blacks as prisoners of war."
> <http://search.eb.com/blackhistory/micro/215/82.html>
> http://search.eb.com/blackhistory/micro/215/82.html  
> 
> (Is it just me, or, would most of us avoid quoting Nathan Forrest if we
> intended to publish a position paper on race issues?  But, I digress. Let's
> turn back to words of J. Michael Hill.)
> 
> ".Each time the League leadership addresses itself to the issue of race, the
> policy we advance must be free of hatred and malice. This has been our
> position from the start.  Though many blacks may be taught to hate us in
> their homes and institutions, our response to them must be grounded in
> Christian charity.  Now, some will surely see this as a sign of weakness,
> but if you do it's because you simply dont understand the tenets of the
> Christian faith.  No less a man than Rev. Robert Lewis Dabney noted over a
> century ago that Southern whites recognised an obligation to treat Christian
> blacks (slave and free) as brothers in Christ, and to recognise their common
> humanity (original sin, all created in God's image, etc.).  Moreover, all
> (except those convicted of felonious offenses) should have their lives,
> liberties, and property protected by the civil magistrate. 
> 
> This does not mean, however, that we must subscribe to the flawed Jacobin
> notion of egalitarianism, nor does it mean that white Southerners should
> give control over their civilisation and its institutions to another race,
> whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants.  Nowhere, outside of
> liberal dogma, is any nation called upon to commit cultural and ethnic
> suicide.   Furthermore, our surrender would ultimately be regretted by all
> parties as the remaining liberties were squandered by those who had no
> desire to preserve the Eurocentric, (and therefore "racist"), institution of
> the rule of law. 
> 
> Let us in the League, then, confidently defend our ethnic, cultural, and
> religious heritage.  After all, we have as much right to do this as anyone.
> Let us also not fall prey to the notion that any other group besides
> ourselves could (or would) defend and preserve the biblically-based rule of
> law that has undergirded our Southern society since its formation.
> Undoubtedly, the liberal and neo-conservative pundits will attempt to smear
> us as "racists" because we stand up for ourselves and our posterity.  This
> is, regrettably, unavoidable because we are confronted by fundamentally
> dishonourable and dishonest people who substitute the ad hominem attack for
> rational debate.  Therefore, we are obliged to develop thick hides to fend
> off the attacks that will inevitably come. 
> 
> But at the same time, we will loudly proclaim that we will have no truck
> with those who wish to interject malice and hatred into the racial issue,
> and that includes both sides, black and white.  Being proud and thankful of
> who we are does not mean that we must denigrate others.  But let us always
> speak the truth about race (as well as all other things) no matter how
> uncomfortable it may be or how politically incorrect it is. 
> 
> For instance, League member and syndicated columnist Charley Reese noted in
> a recent column that black-on-white crime has reached epidemic proportions
> (e.g. 100 white rapes against blacks in 1994 as compared to over 20,000
> black rapes against whites).  Reese writes: "This huge disparity between
> white-on-black and black-on-white crime is the elephant at the tea party
> that both the press and the federal government pretend they can't see. They
> are vile hypocrites."   Well said, Charley.  
> 
> Such hypocrisy is guaranteed to fuel white resentment, but we must not allow
> ourselves to be pulled into the vortex of hatred and violence to "settle the
> score."  Rather, we should speak the unvarnished truth and continue to work
> positively for the interests of our own people.  And of course this means
> protecting ourselves when necessary, individually and collectively. 
> 
> Today's white Christian Southerners are the blood descendants of the men and
> women who settled this country and gave us the blessings of freedom and
> prosperity.  To give away this inheritance in the name of   "equality" or
> "fairness" would be unconscionable.  As the progeny of Lee, Jackson,
> Forrest, and Davis, let us summon the courage to defend what the God of the
> ages has given us.  No one else will do it for us. 
> 
> Dr Michael Hill
> LS President 
> 
>  
> 
> (Rose again) If that's not enough nuttiness from J. Michael Hill, and the
> crackpot crime reports of Charlie Reese, read on for a brief piece of
> non-history again from Dr. Hill
> 
>  
> 
> "On Defending the Anglo-Celtic Culture of the South: 
> 
> The League seeks to protect the historic Anglo-Celtic core culture of the
> South because the Scots, Irish, Welsh, and English have given Dixie its
> unique institutions and civilisation.  Should the Christian, Anglo-Celtic
> core be displaced, then the South would cease to be recognisable to us and
> our progeny.  We must maintain this all-important link to our European
> heritage from which we have drawn our inspiration.   Anglo-Celtic
> Southerners and their European cousins have a duty to protect that which our
> ancestors bequeathed us. If we will not promote our own interests, no one
> will do it for us." http://www.dixienet.org/positions/free-ac.htm
> 
>  
> 
> Rose Note:  What is it about revisionist history and Neo-Cons? For an
> accurate, readable, debunking of the myth of Anglo-Celtic heritage in the
> South please read: Oxford American, Sept.-Oct. 1999, pp. 24 - 30, by Diane
> Roberts English professor at the University of Alabama. Published by Oxford
> American, P.O. Box 1156, Oxford, Mississippi.  Or, email me and I will
> forward my copy.  And by the way, I did not correct Dr. Hill's typos.  
> 
>  
> 
> The point of my email is this.  I conclude that  Steve Wilkins' long and
> voluntary association with J. Michael Hill, indicates his agreement with
> Michael Hill's writings. I wonder what, if anything, it would take for him
> to identify someone or thing racist?  I also wonder if resigning his
> directorship means that he also resigned his membership?  Somehow, I doubt
> it.  
> 
> Rose Huskey
> 
> PS  I suppose anyone who wishes to read more about Doug's position on the
> LOS organization  - which he "mildly supports" but did not join - could stop
> by the Christ Church office or email Doug directly and ask for a copy.
> 
>