League of the South Laments Removal of Racist Icon from Georgia Capitol

In life — especially later life, Tom E. Watson was a racist politician who found support among white Georgians. In death, he continues to find support from a cadre of white Southerners who want to turn back the clock. However, time marches on and Tom Watson’s statue has been removed from a place of prominence in front of the Georgia Capitol.  While African-American legislators and their supporters are happy about this turn of events, the white nationalist group League of the South laments the move.
In this BET.com article out yesterday, League of the South president Michael Hill criticized the legislature saying they were “caving in to political correctness.” The League sponsored a protest of the removal in November.
So what is the League upset about? What did Tom Watson stand for?
Watson didn’t think highly of “nigger-lovers” like Andrew Carnegie and especially Robert Ogden who ate with African-Americans and even made his employees do so. Watson published his racist views in his magazine, The Jeffersonian. In the following excerpt, his racist views are on full display in the article, “The Fool Friends of the Negro Do Him Enormous Injury.”

Note Watson’s justifications of lynchings and his threats that the situation in the South would get worse for “the negro” in proportion to the meddling of the Northerners in the affairs of the South. According to Watson, standing for equality is meddling. Let’s remember that this hero of the League of the South wrote in the beginning of the last century, long after the South had lost the war.
There are numerous illustrations of Watson’s anti-black, anti-Jewish, and anti-Catholic views. This website opposing the statue has many quotes with links to the original source. I provide just a few.

One of the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution frees our brother in black; and he is now very free, everywhere, and is robustly asserting his right to be more so, especially at the North where he is so universally loved and fondly coddled.
“In the South, we have to lynch him occasionally, and flog him, now and then, to keep him from blaspheming the Alminghty, by his conduct, on account of his smell and his color. – The Jeffersonian, Volume 14, Issue 1, 4 January 1917 (Page 4)
White men made our social system what it is. White men made our governmental system what it is. White men founded our educational and religious systems. And white men should maintain what their ancestors established. We don’t need any of the colored and inferior races to defend our homes and firesides, our institutions and our liberties. We don’t need the negro in the army, nor in the civil service. We don’t need the Chinaman, the Jap, or the Hindoo. The uniform, the gun, the office, the ballot belong to white men, and our future will never be safe until we exclude from military and political privileges every colored man whomsoever. – The Jeffersonian, Volume 8, Issue 15, 13 April 1911 (Page 9)
“But the Negro? Poor, inferior copyist of the master-race, he is as incapable of maintaining a civilization as he is of originating one. For himself,, he can do nothing. Civilize him in America and send him to Liberia, and what happens? He sinks, lapsing toward the barbarous state; and begins to implore the whites to come to his relief.
“Civilize him in San Domingo, and what is the result? As soon as the French go away, and the negro becomes his own boss, down he goes. The varnish of Latin culture wears off, and there’s your nigger. And such is the chaotic bestiality into which he plunges, that the whites must needs rush to the rescue… you seldom see, in one of our towns and cities, a negro buck or young woman who has no bodily defect… Lacking in the characteristics that make for civilization, the negro can not be educated into white black-men.” – Watson’s Magazine, February 1910 (Page 108)

Michael Hill, League president, sounds similar themes in this essay on the League website:

Because Christian liberty has been the product of Western civilization, should the white stock of Europe and American disappear through racial amalgamation or outright genocide, then both liberty and civilization as we have come to know them will cease to exist. As whites have lost the will to defend their inheritance, there has been a corresponding increase in the willingness of the colored races to destroy Western Christian civilization and replace it with their own vision of the “good society.” That vision, or nightmare, as it were, will have no truck with the rule of law, equity, or fairness. It will be predicated on the “intimidation factor”–the employment of brute force by the strong against the weak. In short, it will be “payback time” for the alleged mistreatment that minorities-cum-majorities have suffered at the hands of the White Devils.

Hill told the Economist that the removal of the Watson statue a “campaign against Southerners, a campaign against whites.”
Given what Watson promoted, I say we need more campaigns like this one. Hill was not quite correct in his statement to the Economist. The campaign is against white supremacist Southerners who can’t get over the loss of the Civil War. The campaign is against people like Michael Peroutka, board member of the League of the South by night and teacher of the Constitution by day. Peroutka laments that the South lost the war in his Institute on the Constitution essay, Fireworks, Gettysburg, and a Bittersweet Fourth of July. In the essay, Peroutka says “America” lost the battle of Gettysburg:

The second sadness comes from the historical proximity of the defeat of our American forces at Gettysburg.

Who was defeated at Gettysburg?

On the fourth of July, 1863, after three days of brutal and desperate fighting to defend and preserve an American way of life, American soldiers retreated in the rain through Frederick, Maryland and slipped back across the Potomac River to the relative safety of Virginia.

Peroutka calls the Southern war to defend slavery “desperate fighting to defend and preserve an American way of life.”

I wonder what “Independence Day” thoughts went through the minds of these men as they marched away from that horrific scene where they and their brethren had sacrificed life and limb for the cause of American Independence. What singular faith and courage led them to continue the struggle to defend America from the growing tyrant!
Though most people living in America don’t realize it, the Army of Northern Virginia was the last force capable of countermanding the centralized tyranny that had, more than one hundred forty-two years ago, succeeded in undermining the concept of the Constitutional Republic. When Lee lost at Gettysburg, no earthly force remained that could stand against the Washington leviathan.

Peroutka’s League of the South continues to fight for the Confederate “way of life” by standing with Tom Watson, a racist white supremacist. In response, other Southerners have moved the statue and I hope it is not the last such icon to go away.

League Of The South's President To Blacks: Go Along, Fight, Or Get Out

The League of the South often talks about an “Anglo-Celtic” (white) Southern secession from the nation but less frequently discusses what to do about the non-whites who now live there.  The League’s president recently gave us a clue about how that “problem” would be handled.
A Twitter user, Jimbo, used a racial slur to ask Hill how he would get blacks to go along with secession. Note Hill’s response:

Once again, Hill makes clear that the League of the South does not advocate for non-whites in the South (read the rest of the conversation). The League is not interested in a multi-racial South unless non-whites go along with the League’s belief that the South is a homeland for whites of European stock. Elsewhere, Hill has made it clear that, in the eyes of the League, Southerners are white people.
In light of Hill’s comments, I again ask League of the South board member Michael Peroutka if he supports his president and fellow board member’s rhetoric? Mr. Peroutka, are Southerners only of European descent? Do you still pledge the work of the Institute on the Constitution to the League’s vision of the South?

League of the South Rules of Engagement to Help White Southerners Survive

On the League of the South’s Facebook page, Michael Hill outlines 12 rules of engagement for white Southerners to use in the war for their survival.  You can read them all but I will highlight three here:

1. The mantra “Violence [or the serious threat thereof] never settles anything” is patently false. History shows that it indeed does settle many things. Please don’t forget this—your enemy hasn’t.

So what would Dr. Hill like his followers to do with that information?

7. Don’t engage the enemy on ground of his own choosing. Don’t accept his labels—“domestic terrorist,” “right-wing extremist,” “racist,” “anti-semite,” etc. These terms are meant to shame and marginalize you. Know you own mind and laugh them off. This is quite unsettling to the enemy. Once he sees that you don’t wish to be accepted into his “society,” then he loses a major weapon (ostracization) to use against you.

Actually, when one counsels that violence does settle things, one should not be surprised if someone else labels you a domestic terrorist, or extremist. The racist charge Hill obviously doesn’t care about since he advocates for special privilege for whites.
And then:

12. We are already at war—we just don’t know it. One instance: Immigration. This is not just a matter of policy. It’s a matter of our very survival as white men and women of European Christian stock on this land we call the South. It is a zero sum game—we win or they win. There is no middle ground for compromise.–Michael Hill 

Hill claims the land of other groups (those indigenous to the land – Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, etc.) and says non-whites must stay out.  He begins with a reference to violence and ends with a call to war.
Leaving no doubt as to the aim of their advocacy, the League posted a simplified FAQ on their Facebook page. Here is a taste:

Q. Who are the Southern People?
A. The descendants of European, Christian peoples who settled the Southern regions of North America
Q. What is a kith and kin nation?
A. A People bound together by blood and soil
Q. What do we mean by Anglo-Celtic?
A. The Peoples of the British Isles
Q. Is The League of the South a Christian organization?
A. We defend and promote Western Christian civilization.
Q. Is The League of the South a “racist” organization?
A. The term “racist” is an anti-White, anti-Southern slur. 

The League’s slogan in their rejection of non-whites is “it’s wrong to replace us.” Apparently, the League doesn’t understand their native tongue. Replace can mean to put something in another place or to substitute one thing for another. Neither action is happening to Southern whites. They are still there and have not been moved. Most people get that. However, the League has this fantasy that Southern whites are secretly yearning to separate from everyone else. It is not going to happen and I have little fear of their political aspirations.
What bothers me is the influence of League in evangelical churches, via their kinist Christian reconstructionism, expressed recently by the Institute on the Constitution. IOTC’s founder and director and League of the South board member Michael Peroutka pledged the IOTC to work of the League of the South. As a board member, he is partly responsible for the message of the group and it seems clear to me what the message is.

League Of The South Fears Average Southern Whites Might Be Offended By Neo-Nazi Ties

In a post on the League of the South Facebook group (also on their public page), it was disclosed that recent League of the South award winner Matthew Heimbach has been banned from the upcoming League protest of “demographic displacement” in Murfreesboro, TN. Heimbach’s offense is that he consorts with neo-Nazis and plans to speak at a National Socialist meeting.
Explaining the action, League president Michael Hill said
LeagueAverageWhites
Three observations come to mind.
One, I can’t tell if this a pragmatic move for public relations, or if Hill really believes national socialism is incompatible with Southern nationalism. In any case, it seems clear that Hill sees problems with continued association with Heimbach. The League normally decries charges that involve guilt by association. Influential League member and organizer of the TN protest Brad Griffin (aka Hunter Wallace) chided those who get caught in the “associations game.” Now the League has found a reason to do the same thing.
Two, I wonder if Michael Hill will now stop appearing on neo-Nazi radio shows. Twice recently, once in August and then again in September, Hill appeared on the American Nationalist Network radio show. When you click through the American Nationalist Network link on blogtalk radio, you come to unashamed white supremacist, Hitler worship. For instance, check out this disgusting little gem of wisdom from der Fuhrer on the Facebook page of the organization Michael Hill dignified with an interview.
The ANN tweeted about Hill’s appearance back in August. No seig heiling but Hill was fine with being associated with the ANN.

Seems like Hill shouldn’t go to the TN rally either. Probably they should just cancel it.
My third observation involves Michael Hill’s statement that the League of the South seeks to rally average Southern whites. Can it be any clearer that skin color and region are the main issues of interest for the League? The target audience is marked by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. If League of the South board member Michael Peroutka is serious with his recent video invoking Martin Luther King, then shouldn’t he publicly condemn his own League of the South for targeting people based on skin color?
 

League of the South Gives Award Commemorating KKK Grand Wizard to Members for Street Fighting

At their conference in June, the League of the South gave the Nathan Bedford Forrest Award to Mathew Heimbach and Shane Long for their confrontation of May Day marchers in Washington, DC on May 1, 2013.  Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first Imperial Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and is an inspiring historical figure for the League.
Watch the first three minutes of the following video where League of the South president Michael Hill gives the Forest awards to Heimbach and Long for the confrontation on May Day.  Watch:

Before giving the awards, Hill said:

Earlier, during the awards ceremony, there were two young gentlemen who were set to get an award who were not here and I wanted to wait until they got here and give them the awards. As you’re going to learn from my next speaker, Shane Long, a group of our League folks, six young men and two young ladies, if I’m not mistaken, this past May the first, staged a little counter, uh, attack. I wouldn’t call it a protest. They really didn’t attack anybody, they were just holding our flags and carrying our message. And they faced off against, how many, 400? Four hundred communists, in the streets of Washington, D.C., and they held their ground, like good Southerners ought, and they turned that march of 400 communists on May Day around. Now that’s the kind of bravery and courage, and fortitude, and duty that I like to reward. So I’ve got two awards here and they read, the Forrest, as in Nathan Bedford, First with the Most Award, for active and aggressive, I like those terms, promotion of the cause of Southern independence.

On May 1, the International Workers of the World sponsored a May Day march in Washington D.C. The march was marked by sporadic violence and was winding down to a raucous end in front of the White House when the marchers were confronted by eight members of the League of the South.
Watch this Russia Today video of the confrontation (caution – profanity):

There are no good guys here, so my point is not to assign blame or credit. However, I think it is worth pointing out what the League of the South rewards. For those unclear, the marchers are the socialists and the those standing with the Confederate battle flag are the League members. Someone appears to be injured at the end of this video, but is not identified. It may have been Shane Long who is identified in this account as being in police custody, being uninjured but separated from the brawl.
Heimbach gained fame by founding a “white student union” at Towson State University.  Started in 2012 (with white nationalist Jared Taylor as first guest speaker), the organization made news through 2013 as in this CNN report:

Not only does the League identify with those who engaged in street fighting (“our folks”) but rewards them. And they do so with an award which commemorates the first KKK Grand Wizard.
Next year, awards might really be flying since they plan to go back the May Day protest, 2014.
Perhaps actions like these are why some people have reconsidered associations with the League of the South.
Related Links:
The Radicalization of the League of the South
League of the South President Says Immigration Reform Could Spark True Civil War
Institute on the Constitution Supports Controversial PA Police Chief’s Actions to Nullify Gun Control Legislation
Does the Church Have a League of the South Problem?
Michael Peroutka Pledges Resources of Institute on the Constitution to League of the South
League of the South: GOP No Longer Stands for White Southerners
Institute on the Constitution Founder Michael Peroutka on Southern Secession and His Course on the Constitution

Will the Real Institute on the Constitution Please Stand Up?

Last week, a representative of the Institute on the Constitution, John Lofton, touted a  new initiative to alert elected officials that they must administer God’s law rather than make their own laws. Called the God and Government project, Lofton wants followers to go to town council, school board and other local government meetings with 2-3 minutes speeches promoting the IOTC view of civil government.  You can read all of them at the link, but I will cite the first one.

Suggested Statement for Those Going Alone
(The greeting you are most comfortable with but one that is respectful)
My name is __________________. And I wanted to come here this evening to tell about what God says is the duty of those holding the public office you hold.
In the 13th chapter of the book of Romans in the New Testament, God’s says that those who govern us, such as this (yourselves, this Council, whatever) are ministers of God — that actual word “minister” is used. And that you are a minister of God to us for good, for good, as defined by God’s Word. And that you are, conversely, to bring wrath on those who are evil — evil as defined by God’s Word.
Thus, your job is ministerial and not legislative. Your job is to administer and apply God’s Law. And this means it is not the role of government to house or feed or clothe or give health care or education or welfare to anyone.  There is no Biblical authority for that kind of thing. The provision of those things is the job of Christ’s Church.
Romans 13 also tells us that a law is just or unjust depending on whether it is in accord with what God says or whether it is at odds with God’s Law. That is the teaching of the Bible, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, the British jurist William Blackstone and Martin Luther King in his “Letter From The Birmingham Jail.”
In that “Letter,” Dr. King said, and I quote: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God….An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law,” unquote. King said, and again I quote him directly: “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’.” The word legal in this letter is in direct quotes, King’s point being that what Hitler did in Nazi Germany was not  legal because it was against the Laws of God.
Thank you very much. And may God bless us all as we obey Him.

There is a lot wrong here, but I want to focus on the surprising citation of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Let’s review: The IOTC’s founder and director is Michael Peroutka who is a board member of the neo-Confederate, Southern secessionist League of the South. Peroutka pledged the resources of the IOTC to the League and even told a League audience that he acquired what he knows about government from the League. What does the League think of Martin Luther King, Jr.?
One could start with this review of a book on Martin Luther King, Jr., by John Lofton. After reviewing recitations of allegations about King’s character and morality, Lofton concludes:

In a nutshell,’ what Mr. Garrow’s book demonstrates is that King was one of the most grossly immoral hypocrites in American history.

and then

Well, indeed, Martin Luther King was not a saint, to put it charitably. And thanks to the scholarship of David Garrow, we now know that he was “perhaps worse” than even Buchanan imagined. But to think that this man is honored with a national holiday, and for as much as a week at a time he is honored as a saint in thousands of our public schools. What a disgrace! 

If he is such immoral person, then why quote him Mr. Lofton?
Then, in a press release in 2005 from the League of the South on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day we learn the League’s view. Written by Peroutka’s fellow board member and League president Michael Hill, the release leaves no doubt about the League’s position on King:

In a day when every facet of traditional Anglo-Celtic Southern heritage is called evil—including the thoughts and actions of Lee and Jackson—I am in no mood to mince words. The “Reverend” “Dr.” Martin Luther King, Jr., far from being the saint of recent liberal myth, was nothing but a philandering, plagiarizing, left-wing agitator. Conversely, Lee and Jackson were paragons of Christian manhood, though not without fault. But this year, as always, King is the object of veneration by liberals of every color and stripe, while Lee and Jackson are held in utter disdain. Even some so-called “conservatives” sing MLK’s praises, choosing to keep silent about Lee and Jackson, in hopes that they will not be called “racists” by the left-wing media.

and…

Only a sick and reprobate society would elevate Martin Luther King, Jr., and demonize Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The former sought to manipulate white guilt and use the power of national government for the ends of black racial advancement; the latter risked their lives on the field of battle to preserve the true principles of Constitutional government and the integrity of their homeland. To King and his ilk (both then and now), the U.S. Constitution and the Bible are nothing more than words to be twisted in service of the liberal vision of the good life. To Lee and Jackson, and those who honor them, they are the wellsprings of Christian liberty and prosperity.

There can be no compromise between the worldviews of those who follow MLK and those who salute Lee and Jackson. Moreover, there is no way that a man can, in good conscience, pay homage to both sides at the same time. 

At present, the IOTC appears to pay homage to both sides. On one hand, Michael Peroutka writes for League publications, speaks at League meetings, gladly joined the League’s board of directors and pledged the resources of the IOTC to the League. On the other hand, his organization favorably cites Martin Luther King, Jr. What a hypocritical ploy this is.

King’s letter from the Birmingham jail was addressed to clergy who opposed his non-violent resistance approach to inequality. The League of the South has no sympathy for African-Americans who suffered under Jim Crow laws and worse. In fact, Michael Hill defended Jim Crow laws. In a League essay, Hill said:

Whereas whites and blacks in the antebellum South had lived and worked together in close proximity, once the situation changed at the end of the war (especially with the passage of the Reconstruction amendments) some new arrangement became necessary if whites were to preserve their society. Few Southerners of the late nineteenth century believed that whites and blacks could live together in a state of equality without serious social consequences for both races. Therefore, postbellum Southern blacks were disenfranchised and “Jim Crow” laws resulted in a segregated South (today “Jim Crow” has been replaced by what might be called “Jim Snow” policies that discriminate against whites). Through these measures white Southerners were able to exert some control over a still primitive black population. Nonetheless, the “black community” of the late nineteenth century began to experience problems largely absent prior to 1865: black-on-black crime, illegitimacy, abject poverty, disease, and family disintegration, among others. Despite trillions spent on welfare and other programs, these problems–and many others–still plague the “black community” in the present day. Clearly there is an ever-present problem here that emancipation and money did not solve. 

In another essay (see also this one), Hill decried the civil rights movement led by King:

Sadly, our true interests were compromised and sold for a mess of pottage by our so-called leaders a long time ago. For instance, if the South had had real leaders of the people there would have been no second reconstruction known as the civil rights movement. 

Either the IOTC has betrayed the League or there is an effort to obscure the sentiment of the League to which the IOTC has been pledged.  If the IOTC really wants to celebrate civil rights and the legacy of King, publicly and decisively step away from the League of the South.

League of the South President Says Immigration Reform Could Spark True Civil War

Michael Hill, president of the League of the South appeared on the American Nationalist Network on Saturday (8/3). The ANN is the radio arm of a new white nationalist organization, the American Nationalist Association. It appears that the ANA leaders are Holocaust deniers/revisionists.
On the program, among other things, Hill said if the Congress passes immigration reform, there will be a secession or a civil war. At 47:40 into the interview, Hill says:

Michael Hill: You talk about a transformation in 1965? That would be a slow and gradual transformation compared to what will happen if they pass this amnesty act in 2013 or 2014. The changes there will be immediate and drastic.
Rodney Martin: Absolutely.
Hill: The South will either leave the union, or there will be another civil, a true civil war.
Martin: You know, you mention civil war, I think if they do, if they ramrod this amnesty bill through, then I think where I talked about the United States being a Soviet Union, I think overnight, we become Yugoslavia, and it becomes not a pretty picture.
Hill: It’s going to be extremely ugly.
Martin: I’m not sure that this power elite in Washington really understand how people feel about when they look out their front doors and see that their government, obviously its not our government anymore, they don’t represent us. They’re looking to replace us. They’re looking to ethnically cleanse us from our own lands.
Hill: This is genocide.
Martin: That’s exactly what it is.
Hill: This is genocide; this is anti-white genocide.

The American Nationalist Association promotes the American National (radio) Network. One of the first guests was David Duke; other early guests were leaders in the American Nazi Party. On their website, the ANA lauds Hitler and Goebbels in a section of the website titled “fundamental truths.” The Hitler quote indicates their position on Jews:

“He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.”
“Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago.
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.”
– Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Earlier in the broadcast, Hill advertised the League of the South’s rally against demographic displacement to be held in Uvalda, GA. According to the League, Mexicans are taking jobs that he says should belong to whites (“Anglo-celtic southerners” to use his term) and so they are protesting a mayor there who supports the immigrants.  Despite his warning over civil war, Hill acknowledged that he hopes immigration or the “gun issue” leads to people being willing to consider Southern secession.
Hill was asked to name the main concern for League of the South members. Hill responded (22:54):

I tell you what the unifying issue is for people in the League: It is that we must have our independence in order to assure our survival and well being as a people. That overshadows everything, our survival, our well-being hinges on our independence as a people.

What people is Hill talking about? Earlier in the program (7:25) he identified the group.

First of all, this is about our survival as a people, white Southerners of European descent.

Some commenters on this blog and in emails have asserted that the League is interested in preserving Southern culture and less interested in matters of race. While that might have been true at one time, it appears to me that the League in recent years has moved more toward white nationalist position. He was certainly clear on this program that the League’s concerns are “blood and soil,” i.e.,  race and region.
Given the fact that Institute on the Constitution founder, director and teacher, Michael Peroutka, just joined the League board of directors and pledged the IOTC’s resources to the League, it was surprising to hear Hill say at 26:38 that the members of the League are not “constitutionalists.”

The Constitution has been a bad deal for the South; we’re anti-Federalists. We believe they should have stopped with the Articles of Confederation.

Which state seems most ripe for secession? According to Hill, South Carolina. A problem is they have a large black population. Hill later said he believes there will be a non-binding resolution for secession in SC sometime in the next two or three years. Hill said the League is always looking for a good “Leipzig-like” moment to provoke such a resolution. For Hill, as noted above, immigration reform could be that hoped-for moment.
As I was listening to this, I reminded myself that the same person who has a show on the National Religious Broadcasting network and Liberty University Network is a board member of the League and has pledged his resources to achieving the ends Michael Hill described on the broadcast.

Rand Paul Staffer Former Member of League of the South

Of late, I have been writing about the League of the South. My interest has been in the connections between that group and the Institute on the Constitution via IOTC founder Michael Peroutka. Peroutka is a member, supporter and according to one source, a board member of the League of the South (update: Peroutka is a board member as announced at the most recent League conference).
Of much wider interest is the disclosure that a member of Sen. Rand Paul’s staff is a former member of the League. The story by Alana Goodman begins:

A close aide [Jack Hunter] to Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) who co-wrote the senator’s 2011 book spent years working as a pro-secessionist radio pundit and neo-Confederate activist, raising questions about whether Paul will be able to transcend the same fringe-figure associations that dogged his father’s political career.

From my point of view as a social psychology teacher, I can understand the interest in Paul’s associates. In making attributions about the social behavior of others, most people are quick to make judgments using only a little bit of information. In the absence of sufficient data, people use what they have. First impressions are made this way, and while they may be unfair, those impressions are often durable.
In making attributions about political figures, voters are at a real disadvantage.  We are quite distant from the person and thus look for clues about the person’s character and beliefs. Consistency is one factor people intuitively use to make attributions. We expect that politicians have certain consistent beliefs, and that they associate with those who also share those beliefs. Furthermore, most people expect that staff members of a politician are especially committed to the politicians beliefs and perhaps are even drawn to politician because of ideological similarity. And so, when it is discovered that a staffer or endorser (e.g., father Ron Paul’s endorsement by Phil Kayser) has offensive views or views at odds with the stated position of the politician, that revelation rightly draws interest.
In light of the Jack Hunter disclosures, League of the South president Michael Hill told white nationalist website Occidental Dissent:

As President of The League of the South, I’d like to thank Rand Paul, the GOP, Salon, and all the other cultural, social, economic, and political organs that are helping us separate the proverbial men from the boys. To wit, you are helping us destroy any “middle ground” to which the timid can retreat for safety. Soon, those like Mr. Hunter will learn that there’s no place in the GOP for Southerners who wish to remain . . . Southerners. Just so there’s no chance that you’ll confuse The League with the GOP or any other “conservative” group, here’s what we stand for: The survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people. And by “the Southern people,” we mean White Southerners who are not afraid to stand for the people of their race and region. In other words, we understand what it is to be an historic “nation”–a specific people with a unique culture living on a particular piece of land. And, God willing, we shall one day have a name and place among the nations of the earth.

Given statements like that, it is understandable that the public makes an attribution of white nationalism to people who belong to the League.