For the past two weeks, the liberal media have been steadily punching holes in
the defensive system of the republican presidential candidates with the ram of
the naphthalene issue of a confederate flag that is still quivering over the
state building of South Carolina. And even John McCain, who has never before
read his speeches in public, stumbled about this issue and was forced by the
press to read a statement that was precooked by his staffers. Time and again
McCain has been putting "freedom" as the fundamental principal from which he has
boldly inferred the resolutions of multitude of other issues, including the
issue of what to do with that Cuban boy, whose mother drowned, trying to escape
from Castro's oppressive communistic regime. And I am wondering why it is so
difficult to apply the fundamental principal of freedom to such a naphthalene
issue as the confederate flag over a state building? What is special about this
issue that even the best republican presidential aspirants could not handle it
spontaneously?
On one hand, McCain admitted that the flag was a symbol of slavery; on the other
hand, he asserts that it is a heritage of the South Carolinians who must resolve
the flag issue without the external pressure of the presidential candidates. The
rest of the republican candidates took nearly identical positions on the flag
issue, except Alan Keys, who, as a black, understandably must accentuate the
relics of slavery. So, why do the liberals smell something fishy in the
ambidextrous republican response and continue hammering them with the question?
It is very simple… because a shallow answer or an answer that is not brought to
the logical end allows the liberals to use it as a mean in achieving their ends.
We know that their ends are to save the present level of influence in the
federal bureaucracy and, if the republicans will give them a chance, to extend
it further. And we know that they are masters in Clintonese and will not
hesitate to inject the race-card into the presidential race, which allows them
to be the leaders of emotionally disturbed non-thinkers. To root out the
liberal’s fang or, at least, to decontaminate the presidential battlefield, the
republicans must to elaborate on this issue and put it to rest once and for all.
By definition, a ‘flag’ is a standard or a banner that marks distinction, or
rank, or nationality, and that conveys messages. Some 140 years ago, in South
Carolina, the old confederate flag had been about the second American nation
that would allow the state-members to resolve the slavery issue by themselves.
The Northerners, by force, asserted that each State and its citizens could not
resolve that issue as if they were a separate and sovereign entity. After
winning a civil war, the Northerners forced upon the Southerners their own
imperial ideal of freedom and social organization, which was clearly superior
than that of those locally-minded Southerners.
However, because this imperial ideal came in the South not through the ballot
box, but on the tips of bayonets, some of the seventh generation of those
Southerners who actually fought in the civil war still suspect that some of the
seventh generation of Northerners treat them as inferior people. Moreover, after
introduction of the liberal New Deal program, the incursions of the imperial
bureaucracy into the domain of the state bureaucracy are constantly increasing,
if not by size then by quality; and that further draws the resistance of local
people and their governments to "outsiders" and "carpetbaggers."
There is always a smart-ass in a crowd, who is well versed in Clintonese, and he
may think that the confederate flag does not bear the same meaning of
far-fetched posterity as it used to bear for their rustic ancestors. He might
understand the views of the modern Southerners who suspect the modern
Northerners as having a superiority complex. And he may reasonably suspect the
Northern liberals in trying to prolong the fading subconscious resistance of
those "non-submissive" and "stubborn" Southerners, forcing this issue again and
again until their tactics 'to divide and conquer' succeeds and they would brand
the republicans as the racists. Then, he may cry out -- let it be, let the
non-violent and non-intrusive freedom to heal the wounds, which were made with
the bayonets, and the problem will peacefully fade away in due time. Force it
again, and you will reap thousands of Wacoes and Ruby Red Ridges.
Blood... blood... blood is what the liberals crave. Blood is the best glue that
criminals have been using from Moses’ times to anoint each other in a
carpet-bagging union. And that is precisely why they are provoking us.
Therefore, we should not cave in, but expose those blood-thirsty suckers on
every corner and every street until they give up questioning our allegiance to
the Union, which the Founders looked to as a tool of freedom, not of oppression.
1/16/00
[email protected]
Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on
04/13/03