Even this Yankee got the joke. Excellent satire; too bad the history-benumbed PS kids can’t even muster up enough brain cells in their ‘skulls full of mush,’ to even GET the humor- Viagra Rush, oh ROTF!

What does the battle flag, the first national and the former Georgia state flag stand for? Many of those who fight to “save” these flags tend to define them in terms of what they are not – they are not racist, they are not sectarian, etc. Indeed, the only positive symbolism they have is historical; our fathers flew that flag. But if we do not stand for what our fathers did, the value of fighting for these symbols is negligible.

For our fathers, the flags stood for freedom from tyrants, freedom to pursue their agrarian way of life, and Christian civilization. When these values become the crux of the campaign to retain these symbols, I will join the battle.

The “Heritage not Hate” bumper stickers, in contrast, were a PR campaign. Whether or not the campaign was effective (Randolph says “nay”), is one question; whether or not an effective PR campaign was the right objective (MRB says “nay”) is another.

I think that the lampoon conveys what it intends to convey quite well (which, I sense, is more about disappointment with the current regime than about potential violations of the Bill of Rights).

-Turretinfan

I think Randolph presents an interesting thesis. Moreover, symbols are important and are worth fighting for, “because of our weakness” as Calvin said re sacraments. As Sheeple, we need a symbolic mesh to undergird our tacit beliefs.

Nevertheless, it is not everyone’s nitch to fight that battle, even while approving of it. I tend to think that readers that are drawn to our offering will not be likely to fall prey to the danger that Randolph has highlighted. If the square root of the number of people he mentions were on board, we would start to see some change.

Randolph’s pitfall is misplaced in this case, but it also shows the weakness of sarcasm and satire: it only benefits those that are already basically on board with the key premises; which he is obviously not in this case.

You seem to think that there is a political solution to the kultur krieg. When southerners think that battle is one of “PR,” the war is lost, again. Yankees and Judaics are the masters of PR since for the former appearance is reality and for the latter deception is a way of life. You cannot beat them at their own game. So why play on their field?

Keeping confederate banners waving over state capitals is hollow if we do not preserve the values those symbols once stood for.

Go back and read the agrarians, read Dabney, read Cato, read Jefferson, read Mencken. You play right into the hands of Central Command when you look to Madison Avenue for your battle plans.

It took dozens of generations to build southern culture. It cannot be rebuilt by a referendum or a vote in the legislative chambers.

The way we fight the war is determined by the nature of the war itself. Given your comment, it is likely that we are fighting different wars.

It was a terrible idea, because the enemies of southern heritage were and are trying to tie Confederate heritage and the confederate flag to “hate”, and our side did it for them. There all three were together: the rebel flag, “Heritage”, and “hate”. Don’t bring up the word “not”: “not” is a description. The flag is a symbol, Heritage, and Hate are concepts, and public opinion is made up of symbols and concepts, not descriptions. When you put a symbol and its concept with the concept you are opposing, the real result is to tie them together.

What you have done here in a “bright idea” satire, is create an image of Andersonville as a confederate death camp a la WWII in Germany, which resonates terrifically to hundreds of millions of people, and then reinforce the concept with an attack against the EU’s impending legislation against “holocaust denial”. What were you thinking?