The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

League of the South Leader Depicts Obama With ‘Rubber Spear’

By Mark Potok on July 2, 2008 - 10:26 am, Posted in Hate Groups, Neo-Confederate

Michael Hill and Michael TubbsMichael Hill (right, with convicted “Aryan” terrorist Michael Tubbs), president of the neo-secessionist League of the South, has long claimed angrily that his is no racist group and that he is no white supremacist — this despite his repeated calls for a return to “general European hegemony” in the South, his description of slavery as “God-ordained,” and, in a particularly tasteless attack on African Americans, his mocking of his former black university students’ names and people helped by affirmative action (“A quote from a recent affirmative action hire: ‘Yesta-day I could not spell ‘secretary.’ Today I is one”).

Now, Hill has returned to the kind of vulgar racist humor he apparently has a particular taste for. In the latest edition of his League of the South tabloid The Free Magnolia, Hill publishes a charming item bylined by one “LeShawn Jones” that reports a fantasy marriage between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as if it were fact. It then goes on to describe Obama, the first major party black presidential nominee in American history, as attending the “wedding” wearing “only the simple leather thong of an African tribe” with a single “accessory” — “a large, rubber spear.”

Despite being listed for years as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and even including a convicted “Aryan” terrorist in its leadership ranks, the league has managed to make some surprising allies of late — the allegedly “progressive” secessionists of the Second Vermont Republic (SVR), who have gone so far as to co-sponsor a major conference with the league. SVR leader Thomas Naylor has angrily denied that the league or its leader — who regularly describes egalitarianism as a left-wing “Jacobin” horror — are racist in any way. In the same breath, Naylor has claimed that he was always opposed personally to racism.

Hill’s latest comes in an undated issue of The Free Magnolia that is marked only as Vol. 2, No. 1. As a parting shot, he offers up a cartoon on the last page of the tabloid published in his hometown of Killen, Ala., that is arguably anti-Semitic. It depicts an extremely ugly woman marked as “Dollar” (the cartoon suggests that gold and silver look “spectacular” next to the dollar), with a TV commentator in the panel concluding: “Golda Meir [a former Israeli prime minister] would have looked good next to this dollar!”

  • jim meadows

    I salute you, Snake.

    Southern and damn proud of it.

  • snake

    question if we had a white history month and a w.e.t white entertainment television would that make us racist too? how about a united Caucasian collage fund? ypu imply that anyone wearing a confederate battle flag is a racist…simple beliefs from closed minded people, perhaps you should practice some of that diversity that you preach about? btw if the stars and bars makes all racists then i guess mr h.k edgarton is really up a time to change records cause this one is broke!!!

  • Kevin Rhodes

    I was reading some of your articles and thought they might be unbiased since your organization is supposed to be honestly concerned with individual rights. After i noticed and looked at some of the links on this page, i believe i am seriously mistaken. I am a Christian and stunned by some of the statements you make in your articles and then have links to the most hateful sites on the web. You should consider changing the name of your org to something that mirrors the hate sites you promote!

  • Richard

    And Obama also claims that he is not a racist even if he did sit and listen to anti-American, anti-white racist sermons for twenty years.
    Does his affiliations with the racist reverand, or the sixties terrorist, or his communist ties, say anything about him. Obviously not, I don’t see any articles on here about that.

  • American Veteran

    On a side note, Obama will not be the first BLACK PRESIDENT…for the simple reason that he is not Black!
    1 black gene+ 1 white gene= Mulatto(Websters Dictionary)
    is he trying to play the race card?. By calling himself black is racist in itself,is he ashamed? The millions of mulatto’s living in America should be outraged!!!

  • IludiumPhosdex

    “Brian Cook” asks:

    When will the pro-family movement speak against neo-confederate ideology?

    Highly unlikely, considering where the so-called “American Family Association” is defending its call for a boycott of McDonald’s thusly:

    What the boycott of McDonald’s IS about

    It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald’s has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

    (For “remain[ing] neutral,” in the context of the Religiopolitical Right, read, IMHO, being “goodthoughtful”–in Orwellian Newspeak, orthodox to the point of pretending to a deliberate, and perhaps protective, stupidity, to the extent necessary.)

    And methinks the whole idea of “culture wars” is nothing short of distractionary for the Lower Classes, particularly so in this an Election Year.

  • Brian

    The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church has definition of racism. Remember, folks, the Cathoilc Church herself is quite anti-Communist.

  • Mark Thomey

    Blah, blah, blah…….
    You people see, ‘racists’ (a nice, undefinable, marxist term
    that’s supposed to make your opponents cower in fear I guess) everywhere you look. The old fable of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind. Just how much longer is anyone going to continue taking your lunatic ravings seriously (if they ever could)?

    As for two of the posts above, the only ‘doublespeak’ is in the minds of those who’ve bought into the insanity of radical egalitarianism and multi-culturalism. For traditional Southrons, with a Christian world-view, there is no contradiction. Those who’ve abandoned that tradition will never get it.

    The Southern Independence movement is about as pro-family as you can get. Our vision for a free South promotes chastity, charity, and responsibility. It promotes a love of family and place as central to a healthy society. If you think that working within the current corrupt DC regime will advance the cause of the family, well, I wish you well while you rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. However, my advice is to get into a lifeboat, and that lifeboat is cultural, social, economic, and political independence from the u. s. empire.

    God save the South! [><]

    P.S.: I’ll bet you lovers of freedom, equality, and diversity won’t even post this. If not, it only proves what damnable hypocrites that you, in fact, are.

  • Brian Cook

    When will the pro-family movement speak against neo-confederate ideology?

  • anti-zionist

    More Americanist imperial and pro-war propaganda from the SPLC. You guys are so towing the Bushite state-control line. What’s next, an affimation of the Bush police-state “report on global anti-semitism” which finds that it is “anti-semitism” to produce anything negative towards the jews or Israel, that could be picked up by a “hate” group?

    The SPLC is complicit in Israeli atrocities and wars for Israel (Iraq). The SPLC is an extended branch of the Bush administration. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and Norman Podhoretz all approve of what the SPLC is doing to smear patriotic groups.

  • IludiumPhosdex

    From the opening paragraph:

    Michael Hill, president of the neo-secessionist League of the South, has long claimed angrily that his is no racist group and that he is no white supremacist — this despite his repeated calls for a return to “general European hegemony” in the South, his description of slavery as “God-ordained,” and, in a particularly tasteless attack on African Americans,

    Can you spot the doublethink inherent on the League’s part, judging from the preceding?