The following isn't by Dylann Roof, it is a writer published in a Sons of Confederate Veterans' publication

THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS ARE FROM A WRITER IN A SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS PUBLICATION AND NOT DYLANN ROOF

These are excerpts from Vol. 4 No. 4, July/August 2006, "The Tolerance Scam" by Michael W. Masters, in the Southern Mercury magazine which was published by the Sons of Confederate Veterans.


There is a lot of this overheated hysterical writing in neo-Confederate publications.


[page 30-31]


Ideas Have Consequences


Using the wedge of anti-racism, cultural Marxists orchestrated judicial and legislative changes to society over the course of decades - e.g. Brown v. Board of Education in 1955, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. These supposedly noble triumphs quickly transmogrified into forced busing, the legalized reverse discrimination of affirmative action and an uncontrolled Flood of culturally alien Third-World immigrants. The cultural Marxists relentlessly hammered away at Western cultural norms using the sledge of anti-racism as a battering ram to bring down the walls of traditional Western culture. So successful have they been in this assault that the natural, non-violent and harmless affinity of people for their own kind, their own culture and their own traditions, values and religious beliefs has come to be viewed as the moral equivalent of slavery or mass murder-a conditioned response that is by now so ingrained that it is largely self-imposed."


Once one accepts the illogic of Orwellian cultural doublespeak, any belief is possible." Thus, the absurd premise that racism is miraculously not applicable to people of other races who have negative attitudes about whites and Christians goes largely unquestioned. Black agitators openly call for the murder of whites and the rape and defilement of white women - indeed the genocidal extermination of the white race - with impunity." Mexicans liv¬ing in America, many illegally, create political action organizations such as La Raza and Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) to advocate for separation of the Southwest from the United States and its establishment as the independent but Mexican-aligned nation of Aztlan.


[Page 31]


But there is worse yet to come. Immigration is profoundly changing the demographic face of America. Massive Third-World immigration is the cultural Marxists' ultimate weapon in breaking the hegemony of Western culture. But, has anyone considered the nature of post-Western society, when Western people are no longer numerous enough to win elections? Does anyone seriously believe that the non-Western minority, having become the majority, will turn around and extend affirmative action and protected class benefits to the former majority? 13 A pattern of fail¬ure to sustain democratic forms of government is repeated all too often outside the West, from China and North Korea

to Mexico and Latin America to the Middle East to the almost uniformly bleak (and often murderous) landscape of post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa. Would America's current majority feel secure living in a country ruled by the likes of ldi Amin? The time to think about such questions is now, not after we have been placed in the position of casting "one man, one vote - one time.?"

Politico article about the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the neo-Confederate movement. SCV racial attitudes made very clear. UPDATE: League of the South blog loses its mind over article. UPDATE2: Free Republic response to article

An article about the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the neo-Confederate movement by Euan Hague with my assistance has been published at Politico. It is a two page article, don't miss the 2nd section.

The link is:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/civil-war-american-south-still-loves-confederacy-116771.html#.VSW0M_nF8Y0

People reading the article will realize what SCV "heritage" is really about. 

Some extracts from the article:

Some of the SCV’s most troubling viewpoints are expressed in forums and publications intended for an internal audience, such as Southern Mercury magazine. In these venues, authors such as Frank Conner argue that 19th century African-Americans were a “childlike people” whose inferior IQs were deliberately hidden by liberal academics. In turn, Michael W. Masters, who in the 1990s contributed to the white supremacist American Renaissance and was a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, found a new audience for his assessments in SCV venues. In one piece from 2006 Masters argues that the very basis of Western civilization is under attack by proponents of “multiculturalism” and the “tolerance of diversity” who work to engineer “envy and hatred of white people, reverse racism through affirmative action and race-based entitlements…, [and] an uncontrolled flood of culturally alien Third World immigrants.”

And: 

In more public venues, the SCV’s dog-whistle politics come into play. Casting an eye over recent events in Ferguson and elsewhere, although never explicitly stating this, SCV deputy commander-in-chief Thomas V. Strain Jr. recently decried the “young men with no guidance attacking law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers,” officers who, when they “remedy the situation and protect the innocent … are called murderers.” The lineage of today’s events, he lamented, goes back to Reconstruction (1865-1877), a period when “our ancestors … were stripped of their arms, their voting rights, their means of supporting themselves—and in many cases their very homes” as the “central government… create[d] a form of dependency–in return for votes.”

What the neo-Confederate movement and the SCV is all about is made very clear in this article.

I plan on printing out copies to send to churches that might be considering hosting the SCV. 

UPDATE: 

The League of the South blog has been so upset that they did the following blog posting.

http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-confederacy-lives.html

The author of the blog posting is so upset that he can't see straight.

For starters Heidi Beirich was not involved in writing the article. Euan Hague wrote it and I helped with research for the article. Beirich is one of the three co-editors of a book about neo-Confederates. However, the article upsets the blog poster so much that he can't read by byline properly.

Regarding Ferguson, the posting at the Rebellion blog selectively quotes the article. What is missing is this from the article:

The lineage of today’s events, he lamented, goes back to Reconstruction (1865-1877), a period when “our ancestors … were stripped of their arms, their voting rights, their means of supporting themselves—and in many cases their very homes” as the “central government… create[d] a form of dependency–in return for votes.”

There have been a lot of commentators regarding Ferguson, but probably only neo-Confederates relate Ferguson back to Reconstruction. The whole point of the article is how the SCV uses historical memory to support its world view and how the SCV isn't just a historical remembrance organization.

As the article states:

In this way, the Confederate “heritage” movement has gone way beyond tending graves and cutting grass at Confederate cemeteries or reenacting battles. Indeed, the idea that groups like the SCV represent Confederate “heritage” is a misnomer: They are political organizations that aggressively promote their versions of the Confederacy behind a veneer of benign ancestral reverence. In 2015, the Confederate flag comes with a reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-federal politics, a politics that reverberates through social media, talk radio, and niche publishers.

There are a log of political organizations with viewpoints regarding Ferguson, the SCV is one of them, not just a "heritage" group.

The Politico article is a good concise article about what neo-Confederacy is all about, that is why neo-Confederates, at least one, is so upset he can't read properly a byline.

UPDATE2:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3277992/posts

Some of the posters at the forum do say that the Civil War is about slavery and reject emphatically the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War. Others buy into one neo-Confederate idea or another.

What is interesting is that these conservatives who think they are so much more patriotic than others, aren't so patriotic when it comes to white supremacy, or the question might be raised to what are these Free Republic people patriotic to?

This is an essay on banal white nationalism.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html