Sons of Confederate Veterans

(Editor’s Note: Although this critical review of the “Sons of Confederate Veterans” is written in a leftist/liberal slant, it covers a few points of interest, that we believe, contains some elements of truth. Recommended by Kathleen Moore.)

The Southern Mercury is a publication of the Educational PAC of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). It was published from 2003 to 2008 with volumes 1 to 6 with a total of 23 issues.

This article reviews some of the issues of the Southern Mercury relative to the SCV’s claims that it is “heritage not hate” and to give some idea of the general character of this publication and to inform the reader who is writing for the SCV. It should be noted that the Southern Mercury is produced by the SCV’s educational PAC; that is, the contents are meant to educate the reader. I am not going to initially review all the issues but just some of the more notable issues. As time permits I will add some more commentary on more articles.

Vol. 1 No. 2  (Sept./Oct. 2003) — The cover theme is “Who’s Next: Southern Politicians Ousted,” which is for an article where Robert Slimp, activist in the Council of Conservative Citizens recounts the defeat of politicians who opposed the Confederate flag. (pp. 16-21). Slimp is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church of America and a retired US Army Chaplain.

The article of interest in this issue is “Where We Stand Now: And How We Got Here,” (pp. 10-14) by Frank Conner, who is the author “The South Under Siege 1830-2000: A History of the Relations Between the North and South.” He has a web page for the book at This article claims that liberals “infiltrated” southern institutions and launched an attack to destroy the south by using civil rights legislation.

In a section titled, “The Liberals Create a False Public Image of the Blacks,” Conner writes the following:

“After the turn of the 20th century, the white Southerners had disenfranchised and segregated the blacks, in perhaps the mildest reaction possible at that time to the blacks’ transgressions. The blacks — then a childlike people — had been selling their votes …”

Later in the same section:

Early in the 20th century, the liberals took control of the humanities department in the colleges and universities of America. Previously, anthropologists routinely recorded the notable differences in IQ among the races; but at Columbia, a liberal cultural anthropologist named Franz Boas now changed all that. He decreed that there were no differences between the races, the only biological differences between the blacks and whites were of superficial nature.

The following section in the article is titled “The Liberals Destroy the Old South in the Name of Black Civil Rights.” Conner writes that “Northern liberal writers launched a hate campaign” in 1947 against the South which he explains consists of desegregating the armed forces, passing a civil rights bill which he calls radical, and the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court decision which he calls unconstitutional..

Later Conner in this section claims that a campaign of “vilification” resulted in Civil Rights legislation stating:

As the result, the US Congress enacted the patently-unconstitutional Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, both of which targeted only the South.

Conner in subsequent sections explains how liberals are now continuing attacks on the white south through attacks on Confederate heritage.  Conner proposes to change the SCV to preserve “our heritage” stating:

To do that, we must urgently reform the SCV, and convert it into a (lawful) effective fighting organization; and we must use it to fight back to restore our heritage.

What this “heritage” includes, as clearly stated earlier by the Conner’s article would include the repeal of all Civil Rights legislation. For as Conner explains about civil rights which he calls “Reconstruction II”:

The Old South was destroyed, and its belief systems and way of life were discredited outside the South.

The contents of this article come from his book mentioned above, without the books many references to Jews as the persons leading the attack on the South in the Civil Rights campaign.

In the same issue Ann Rives Zappa reviews “The South Under Siege: 1830-2000). She praises it stating “The South Under Siege is a masterful work painstakingly researched by author Frank Conner.”

Ann Rives Zappa is explains in her review:

However, when Southerners prospered in small measure from World War II, the Federal Government responded by initiating Reconstruction II.

Later, in the review:

He covers policies and events created by liberals through the Supreme Court and Congress during the Fifties and Sixties to keep the South in subjugation.

Zappa explains that Conner has a plan to fight the liberals but that it is “not for the fainthearted” and that:

Nor will these last-ditch efforts to save our South be palatable to those who have swallowed the liberals’ lies or prefer to avoid today’s issues and cover before blacks and the media.

In the biographical notes it states that she has a website

What Zappa doesn’t discuss is Conner writings about Jews. Conner in his book sees Jews attacking the South. The following are some sub-headings to chapter 20 in the book.

 Following World War II, Northern Jewish Intellectuals Take Over the Ideological War Against the South from Northern WASPs,


Who and What Are the Jews in America?


The Eastern European Jewish Immigrants Trigger Anti-Semitism in the North Shortly after the Turn of the Century.


Jews Control Almost all of the Important Radical Movements in the U.S. During the 20th Century.


During the First Half of the 20th Century, the Northern Jews Lay the Groundwork for a Black-Civil-Rights Campaign.


To Gain Civil Rights Protection Quietly for themselves, Northern Jewish Intellectuals Sponsor and Guide a Southern Black-Civil-Rights Movement During the Last Half of the 20th Century.

Reading the last two sections is interesting. Whereas in the Southern Mercury, Conner discusses Boas and his views in IQs without mentioning Jews, in the book it is all about Jews with Conner explaining that “Jews dominated the field of cultural anthropology.” (Page 393)


Conner in another section explains:

Second, most Northern (and big-city Southern) Jewish intellectuals — as today’s main proponent of secular humanism — remain the deadly foes of white Southern Christianity.(Page 403)


Look well at the Northern Jewish intellectuals/activists, O South, for they — who by rights should have been your closest friends — are by their own choice our dedicated and deadliest enemy. (Page 406)

Vol. 4 No. 4 (July/August 2006) — This issue contains a lengthy article titled “The Tolerance Scam” by Michael W. Masters. It primarily concerns itself with attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center. However, it also explains that the very concept of anti-racism is an attack on the West and Christianity and civil rights legislation is also an attack on society. The following are a couple extracts.

… and peddling tolerance as a means of defusing resistance to unending attacks on Western culture and Christianity.


Using the wedge of anti-racism, cultural Marxists orchestrated judicial and legislative changes to society over the course of decades — e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education in 1955, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. … The cultural Marxists relentlessly hammered away at Western cultural norms using the sledge hammer of anti-racism as a battering ram to bring down the walls of traditional Western culture.

Masters sees immigration as “the cultural Marxists’ ultimate weapon in breaking the hegemony of Western culture.” In expressing his fears of a multiracial society he asks the reader:

Would America’s current majority feel secure living in a country ruled by the likes of Idi Amin?

Vol. 6 No. 2 — (March/April 2008) In this issue Alan Stang has an article “Republican Party: Red From the Start.” Stang has a website  This article sees a communist conspiracy in the Republican party of the mid-19th century. He alleges that the 1848 revolutionaries in Europe were all communists and that some of these revolutionaries came to America after the failed 1848 revolution to perpetrate some type of communist agenda in the United States. Stang states:

… Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a “Civil” War, rather than a secession, they would and could have easily seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals.”

Another quote is:

So, again, the Republican Party did not “go wrong.” It was rotten from the start. It has never been anything but red. The characterization of Republican states as “red states” is quite appropriate.

Vol. 6 No. 3 — (May/June 2008) Robert Slimp has an article “Americans Face the Worst Presidential Candidates in History.” Slimp doesn’t like Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Barack Obama. Interestingly enough he considers Clinton the lesser evil than McCain who he says doesn’t adequately oppose illegal immigration and supports NAFTA Superhighway. However his discussion of Obama is perhaps the most hysterical in the article.

It is very clear to me that if Barack Obama should be elected President, he would be extremely anti-white and demand reparations for slavery and press hard for affirmative action to the degree that it would hurt young whites who were seeking jobs or admission to College and Graduate schools. … However, I believe that his rhetoric and anti-white legislative proposals would stir up racial riots. If he were running for re-election, these riots would turn into an exceedingly violent nature that would seriously damage race relations in America, and leave entire sections of some of our cities in ruins. Source:

White Identity

[What’s the percentage (%) of WHITE people on Earth? Answer.]

[From the book: WHITE IDENTITY – Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century]

By Jared Taylor


The American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was based on the assumption, that consciousness of race is a prejudice that is learned from a prejudiced society. The movement’s goal was to eliminate racial prejudice and even consciousness of race, and build a society in which race would not matter.

That effort failed; generation after generation, race continues to matter.

And yet, official American assumptions about race—that it’s a trivial distinction…. it is our destiny to transcend — have not changed. The result is a stubborn gap between what Americans say and claim to think about race…. and how they act. This stark contrast is described in the first chapter of this book.

Though they seldom talk about it, at some level, most Americans know how little their behavior resembles what are supposed to be their ideals. The result is frustration, confusion, and not a little hypocrisy. I believe decades of frustration were behind the wishful thinking that surrounded the election of the first black American president in 2008.


There had already been a half century of effort. School integration, civil rights laws, affirmative action, the Great Society, Black History Month, the King holiday, black appointments to cabinet and Supreme Court—all reflected a deep want to do away with distinctions of race.

Every institution and authority figure in the country condemns racism and urges that it be fought on all fronts. The United States has poured more moral energy into improving race relations than into anything else in its history.

And yet, in November 2008, race was still the American dilemma. The fact that it was still a dilemma despite so much effort fostered something like a yearning for miracles. That yearning gained force with every step Mr. Obama took towards the White House and reached a climax at his inauguration.


The Gallup organization recorded a huge spike in optimism about American race relations at the time of the inauguration, but one year later it found that “optimism about race relations is now almost identical to where it was 46 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question”.

This book tries to explain why there have been no miracles. It does so by examining the enduring phenomenon of racial consciousness. For many Americans—probably most Americans—race remains an unspoken consideration in decisions about where to live, what schools to attend, what clubs to join, whom to marry, and what parts of town to avoid at night.

The closer we look at how Americans live, the more clearly we see how much race continues to matter. At the same time, the moral imperative of the civil rights movement—that race should mean nothing—remains so strong that many whites deny, even to themselves, that race plays any role in these decisions.

We insist that diversity is a great strength, but for most Americans this is mere lip-service. They rarely seek diversity in their personal lives, living instead in homogeneous islands that look nothing like the racial and cultural mix this country has become. Anti-discrimination laws ensure integration at work, at school, and in public, but in private…. the races generally separate. A dinner party, poker game, wedding reception, church service, or backyard barbecue is rarely a multi-racial mosaic. When they are beyond the reach of the law, Americans revert to the patterns of segregation the law forbids.

Why is this? Chapters 2 and 3 of this book, together with the scientific findings reported in Chapter 4, should leave no doubt that diversity is not a source of strength ….but a [continuing] source of conflict.

Americans live a contradiction that makes it difficult to talk honestly about race. There is probably no other subject about which there is a greater divergence between what is said publicly and thought privately, or between official pronouncements and personal behavior.

At least that is true for whites. Chapters 5 and 6 explore the open rejection by Blacks and Hispanics of the civil-rights ideal of transcending race. For many minorities, race or ethnicity is central to their identity.


Non-white racial/ethnic solidarity is an entrenched part of the political landscape, and the pressure tactics to which it gives rise have been very successful. As we will see in Chapter 7, Asians are now adopting the same tactics. Non-white leaders are so accustomed to promoting [their] explicitly racial interests, that they would be dumbfounded at the suggestion that they should broaden their horizons and work for all Americans.


Chapter 8 describes the radical transformation of white racial attitudes that has occurred in the last half century. Up until the 1950s, most white Americans felt the same kind of racial identity that is common among non-whites. These sentiments have almost completely disappeared—certainly from public sight.

No politician would dare examine legislation by asking what was in it for whites. No city in America has a WHITE firefighters’ union or a WHITE caucus on the city council. Across the political spectrum, Americans assert that any form of white racial consciousness or solidarity…. is despicable.

Whites, therefore, have tried to keep their end of the civil rights bargain. They have dismantled and condemned their own racial identity in the expectation that others will do the same.

Why, though, is it so hard to build a society in which race does not matter? To the extent that Americans even ask themselves this question, they would say that it is because Americans—whites, especially—have not tried hard enough. And yet, how much harder can a people try? Today, after 50 years of trying, most whites cannot muster much more than exhausted resignation in the face of reports on school resegregation and yawning gaps in test scores or poverty rates.


If diversity is a source of tension, are there risks in basing policies on the assumption that it is a strength? If non-white groups continue to advance race-based interests, is it wise for whites to continue to act as if they have none?

The ideal of moving beyond race still appeals to the most whites. They dream of an America where there is no such thing as racial conflict, in which all Americans work together for common goals. They love to quote Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech about judging people by “the content of their character”.

And yet, two generations after that speech was delivered, how many blacks judge whites by the content of their character? And when whites take a wrong turn off the freeway, do they lock their car doors because they can read the character of the people on the sidewalk?


Is it possible that our racial ideals assume that people should become something they cannot?

If most people prefer the company of people like themselves, what do we achieve by insisting that they deny that preference?

If diversity is a weakness and not a strength, why work to increase diversity?

I believe that mistaken assumptions about race are leading us in dangerous directions. Merely to raise these questions, however, is to dissent from the deeply held convictions of many thoughtful Americans—and they are more than mere convictions. For many Americans, perhaps even most Americans, they are the foundations of morality; even to question the assumptions of the civil-rights vision is illegitimate.

Of course, we can never speak honestly about race if the majority brooks no dissent. There cannot be dialogue if doubters are thought to be not merely mistaken but immoral. In fact, it is a sign that the defenders of orthodoxy are unsure of their ground when they close their ears to disagreement. Real solutions to real problems need honest discussions, and honest discussion comes at a cost. As Thomas Paine said: “He who dares not offend cannot be honest”.


Attorney General Holder was right to say Americans are cowards about race. But he was wrong about why. White Americans are cowards, but not because they are unwilling to admit guilt and atone for the past. They are cowards because they fear that any departure from carefully scripted opinions about race—to suggest, for example, that the very fact of multi-racialism gives rise to serious problems no matter what whites do—will be met with charges of racism.

And they are right. Charges of “racism” are not a form of debate; they are meant to silence debate. Accusations of racism are often transparent attempts to choke off honest discussion.

This book is an attempt to understand race relations as they are—not as we might wish them to be. We cannot understand the world we live in if we refuse to reconsider assumptions that may be wrong. Nor can we make progress if we are knocked off course for fear that others may call us names.

Reexamining our assumptions about race could have far-reaching consequences, which are explored in the last chapter. Disturbing as such a reexamination may be, it will help us understand the choices our country faces today and the choices we made in the past. We can continue down a path that is likely to ensure tension and social dislocation—or we can reorient policies in more realistic directions.

This book is about racial identity, something most people who are not white take for granted. They come to it early, feel it strongly, and make no apologies for it.

Most American whites do not have a strong sense of racial identity. But they would do well to understand what race means for others.

They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group.

These questions—certainly the most controversial in this book—are taken up in the final chapter.  Source



Diversity Is A Fraud

Affirmative Action In Action

Affirmative Action Contradictions

WHITE Americans – An Endangered Species


EuroCanadian News

Suicide of the White Race

Is Burlington TOO WHITE?

Emboldened Minorities Eye Canada

“A Racial Program For the 20th Century”


Importing Jamaican “Culture”

Black Culture Retarding White Kids