The League of the South opposed the removal of Confederate monuments in New Orleans by the Landrieu administration. Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who pushed hard for the monuments removal, seems to have a less than stellar moral reputation. Here is what The Hayride blog had to say about him in May 2017:
A Hayride source with knowledge of Landrieu’s private life indicated to us yesterday that the mayor no longer lives at home and has moved in with his mistress, a former communications director for the mayor’s office named Devona Dolliole, and that Ms. Dolliole, who is black, has been a personal influence on Landrieu’s dogged efforts to remove the monuments.
We have some other questions about the Landrieu-Dolliole liason:
- Was Devona Dolliole once married to one Aaron Dunitz Greenstone, a Washington, DC, lawyer?
- Is Greenstone, whose middle name reportedly is his mother\’s maiden name, of Ukrainian Jew origin?
- Is Devona Dolliole a descendant of Jean-Louis Dolliole, a free mulatto who was an architect in New Orleans in the 19th century?
- Did Jean-Louis Dolliole own slaves and/or use slave labor to build the houses he designed in NOLA?
We’re curious . . .
~ Michael Hill
The Whites of New Orleans and indeed Whites in every urban American toilet have suffered the way the proverbial redheaded stepchild suffers around those who are inferior in attributes yet still enjoy a higher station by way of political advantage.
Mitch Landrieu proved himself a cheat and liar to those who watched him putting on his scales as a young lawyer. The whole Landrieu line has given off a smell of sulfur and burning flesh while dragging down the people of Louisiana.
Michael Hill, Chief of TSNL has masterfully set the complaint against the rascal Landrieu. Our monuments in New Orleans raised the question of our right to our heritage, which is only necessary at the moment of our disadvantage which too shall pass.
White civil rights will never be given.
I remember the demonstration of destroying the very “offensive monuments” from the public domain. And it followed everywhere in the South. Since it was not resisted except figuratively at Charlottville. But these monuments were purchased by someone or even the county (Parrish) of thier state. Who represents them ?
The defensive to keep these stone memorials however provokes one not to reconciliation, A plaintive cry of for those inviolable “human rights” are not inclusive. And was there a capitulation? According to Clausevitz , surrender is not consummated until the defeated surrenders their weapons.
Is there preservation not scorned , because the representation of a contumacious people , whose suppression and eventual destruction is justifiable . Have such people not accepted the defeat of the past. Should the epitaph , vae victis have been inherited in place of the morbid and now defamed laws ( already abrogated) called the constitution.
I hear the plea from citizen in Leesburg , Virginia , “not a symbol of hate , our heritage and traditions,” a plea of innocence . This is reference to the red, battle banner , which is thier monument . Is it not? And do they not know , that it is this , the liberals disdain . It is thier indemnity for many years of uncompensated labour. It is not to be contested.
Should it not be? Did General Lee surrender in Virginia? It was not unconditional and both east and west although starving as an army could cause thousands of casualty had the opposing general not agreed to subsequent ” keeping of property.” Was it not more an agreement that should endure through reconciliation? I believe it must have been for the South . The commanding general of Northern Virginia would regret it after he learnt he had made a nudum pactum with Satan.
Today the disinherited wanders and laments with his reconciliation with each sacrilege be they in marble or flesh, word or property . We are immured in a new, homomorphic society with plastic idols and synthetic people made real with thier commination of the foe , who will not die.