Amurrica Series: Constructive Solutions

New York

Lawrence Auster writes:

“Fair points. I don’t know that Mr. Kersey has said what he thinks we should do about the problem (assuming liberalism didn’t stop us from doing them). I will direct your comment to him.”

To my knowledge, OD is the only racialist site in existence that has defined the problem in painstaking detail (see the many discussions about this in our archives) and consistently hammers away at the only solution to the problem:

(1) Is the problem simply that negroes are committing a lot of violent crime? No, OD is the only racialist website that defines black-on-white violent crime as a consequence of black freedom.

Blacks in prison aren’t committing crimes. Locking blacks up in prison has successfully reduced the crime rate by taking away black freedom. Whites are also able to reduce the threat posed by black-on-white crime by buying overpriced homes that blacks can’t afford and by relocating to sparsely populated rural areas which like the urban amenities that are attractive to black populations.

The explosion in black-on-white crime in free society was predicted by slaveowners and segregationists who were already familiar with racial crime and incarceration statistics when it was a regional problem peculiar to the Northeast and Midwest.

Black crime is the inevitable consequence of black freedom.

(2) Is the problem simply that Jews are using the blacks to destroy Whites?

Historically speaking, the coalition between DWLs and blacks goes back to the prewar abolitionist movement, when Northern reformers like William Lloyd Garrison forged the original alliance with free negroes like Frederick Douglass.

Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1843. Starting in 1865, Massachusetts began to lead the nation at the state level by passing comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, or civil rights laws. Blacks were already voters in Massachusetts before the War Between the States.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was vetoed by Andrew Johnson, who was subsequently impeached by Black Republicans in Congress, was the first stab at federal civil rights legislation in American history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases in 1883, attempted to accomplish most of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to do in the twentieth century. The Federal Elections Bill of 1890, which was defeated in the U.S. Senate, was the precursor of the Voting Rights Act.

In the twentieth century, Jewish influence had the effect of exacerbating a preexisting problem: Jews didn’t create the coalition between DWLs and blacks or even set its long term utopian goals of integration and eradicating racial prejudice.

In the late nineteenth century, the Jews came along like Hispanics and Asians would later do after the Immigration Act of 1965. They augmented the leftwing coalition with their wealth and media influence.

Jewish influence was more like, say, a necessary condition of the national triumph of the Left. Just like the rise of the mass media, the GI Bill and higher education, or Allied propaganda in the Second World War.

(3) Is the problem the demise of restrictive covenants? Is the problem, say, the entirety of the Civil Rights Movement?

No, restrictive covenants was just one of many “discriminatory barriers” to the advancement of black freedom and equality. The poll tax and the white primary were similarly struck down by the Supreme Court in order to advance Americanism, which is to say, the identification of America (and ultimately the whole world, as it is progressively infected by the disease) with liberalism and democracy.

What was the intention of outlawing restrictive covenants? The intended effect was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Voting Rights Act was to advance black freedom and equality by giving them the right to bloc vote in democratic legislatures.

In the North, restrictive covenants coexisted with a society that had been committed at the state and federal level to the larger project of integration ever since Massachusetts passed the first civil rights law in 1865. Minnesota barred school segregation in 1877. Michigan banned public accommodations segregation in 1885. New York banned public school segregation in 1894.

The demise of restrictive covenants was just the fall of one more domino at the hands of the same constituency of liberal utopian reformers (like the progression of cancer, spreading throughout the body) that had already succeeded in abolishing slavery and repealing anti-miscegenation laws and banning every other form of segregation.

The move into prohibiting “housing discrimination” was natural and consistent with a society already on a trajectory toward supporting affirmative action and banning “disparate impact.” Just like the abolition of slavery, it was one more reform that was consciously implemented to advance the positive ideal of black freedom and equality:

The bottom line here is that there is a constituency in America with a peculiar vision of “Americanism,” which they define as the neverending ideological expansion of liberty, equality, and democracy, and the eradication of all barriers to these holy utopian ideals (racial, cultural, religious), whether foreign (Nazi Germany) or domestic (Confederacy), which has been driving America’s racial and culture decline ever since the abolitionist movement began in the 1830s, if not since the American Revolution began in the 1770s.

Who is this foe?

There is a long historical arc of racial and cultural decline that stretches from 1776 to 2012. It leapfrogs from one utopian reform to another without missing a beat: revolution to abolition to civil rights to women’s suffrage to world peace to feminism to gay marriage. The same people are usually involved in multiple liberal reform causes.

The instinctive goal  of the revolutionary spirit is always to chew up and tear down traditions and established hierarchies, to “liberate” everything in its path, to “level” everything it finds, based on the assumption that nihilistic destruction of the existing social order is inherently good.

For some strange reason, each new utopian reform, each new degenerate movement to destroy the existing social order (whether it be revolution, abolition, civil rights, feminism, or fagging the military), is invariably launched into cultural orbit from the Northeast, and imposed on the holdouts in the rest of the country through the centralization of power in the federal government.

The Northeast never actually wins these cultural debates. Instead, it triumphs through imposing its ideal of Americanism on the rest of the country, usually through control of the centralized government in Washington. Then resistance collapses, submission and demoralization sets in, and we “move forward,” to whatever beckons as the cutting edge of degeneracy.

OD is the only racialist website which observes this broad historical pattern, recognizes its importance, draws attention to its existence, and recommends disrupting it through the dissolution of the Union.

If an international border was drawn across the Mason-Dixon line, the cycle would accelerate in the rump of the Union, as it once did during the War Between the States and Reconstruction, because the force that is driving the whole process is and always has been based in the Northeast, and the secession of the South would increase its relative power in Washington.

The dissolution of the Union would fatally weaken the influence of “Americanism” worldwide. It would change the whole international order by fatally undermining Washington in its own backyard.

Alternatively, the preservation of the Union will exacerbate the problem by flooding the recalcitrant areas in the South and West with non-White immigrants dependent on the welfare state, who will politically align themselves with the cultural arsonists in the Northeast, thereby weakening the already diminished and retreating forces of conservatism in the United States.

Dissolving the Union and repudiating Americanism along with its demographic base is the only way to put an end to these neverending cycles of liberal reform. Nothing else will suffice to arrest and reverse our decline.

Disunion is the solution.

About Hunter Wallace 11763 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. No doubt. Even aside from the black issue it is preposterous to think that there can be a one-size-fits-all recipe for self-government for all men at all times. We need to break this thing up. It’s causing way more disharmony that it’s worth, and cannot be fixed.

  2. We’re in the right, the left has no moral ammunition left, everything they touch turns to shit. Witness the last four political theatre displays, the stupid slut, OWS, and nigger mania, then the unions’ circus, and how bankrupt their corrupt rackets are. It’s 1985 USSR 5 year program bankrupt level for the left and since we maybe in my WAG have about a year or two before insolvency reaches our shores I give it that long before “Ammurrrica” tards even say its time to end it.

  3. I hear alot of talk about secession on this website and other websites. I am not opposed to secession and the breaking up of the US into smaller more manageable countries. I do not have a problem with secession.
    I am confused how this can come about, however, at least without war. It seems to me that secession would require going to war.
    I am not a pacificist, or a peacenik ; But, I honestly don’t think the white race is in a good position to fight a war at this time as our culture, basically our family life (to speak in general) has been greatly weakened over the last 50-60 years from massive indulgence in “do your own thing” immorality, immorality in all aspects of life, not only sexual.
    I honestly don’t think we could go to war right now considering how divided and in disarray the white race is at the current time.
    I don’t mean this in a confrontational way.
    I just wanted to post my feeling about this.
    More importantly, I was wondering if any of the readers have any solid ideas about how secession could be won, either peacefully or through war.
    If through war, what then would be the strategy to go to war and win?
    Strategy is very important.
    I hear alot of talk of secession, but I never hear anyone proposing any kind of strategy as to how this can come about in reality.
    If peacefully, then the same question applies. What is the strategy for peaceful secession?
    If anyone has an ideas on this topic, I would appreciate some guidance in this matter, because I am honestly confused as to how secession can become a reality, sometimes it seems just like a pipe-dream.

  4. People here should consider forms of secession/autonomy that aren’t attempts to turn back the clock to 1850, to redo the War Between the States. We can’t go back, turn back the clock and frankly, I just don’t think any form of slavery is going to be seriously considered.

    The Break-up of the USSR should be an example – there was some violence, some looking back to the past, but mostly it was mutually agreed upon dissolution.

    Racially conscious Whites in the South must fight now to secure control of their culture – Hollywood, Washington and New York can’t make all the decision on what Whites in the South see, hear and read.

    I’m surprised some White Southern governor hasn’t pushed some version of local ownership of TV stations, laws mandating that TV talking heads that air in their state have to do 2 weeks of honest labor in the state.

  5. Wouldn’t the civil rights era, say the 20 or 25 years after WWII, been the opportune time for a second Southern secession? Back then the South was still “the South”, with its peculiar institutions like segregation still in place and its demographics largely unchanged since the War Between the States, with the lucky exception of massive black flight to the North.

    In three presidential elections during this period, Deep Southerners rebelled against the rest of the country: in 1948 voting for Strom Thurmond, in 1964 for Barry Goldwater, and in 1968 for George Wallace. Back then, along with Thurmond and Wallace, there were many Southern governors, senators, congressmen and other prominent citizens who were unapologetic defenders of segregation, white supremacy and their distinctive Southern folkways.

    Was there a Southern secessionist movement during this era? If so, why did it gain little or no traction? And if not, why not? White Southerners at the time sure seemed determined to preserve their way of life, but not at the cost of disunion I guess.

    The South of today is radically different from the South of 50 years ago. It seems to me that it’s much less distinctive now, and much more like the rest of the country, politically, economically, culturally and above all demographically. That’s what the end of segregation and a massive influx of Yankees and immigrants hath wrought. The liberals have done what the reconstructionists never could: effectively “Americanize” the South.

    So if a secessionist movement failed during the civil rights era (if it was even attempted), what makes you think it could succeed today, in a radically different South? Seven out of ten newborns in Texas are now non-white, mostly Hispanic. If Texas were ever to secede from the union, wouldn’t they be far more likely to re-join their compadres in Mexico rather than join a neo-Confederacy based on white supremacy?

    And even the folks who would most likely support Southern independence, like the Southern Heritage people Hunter tangled with on Facebook some months ago, aren’t they just another pack of liberal equalists pushing ahistorical nonsense like “black Confederates”? Hey, while we’re at it let’s not forget all those gay Confederates, bi-Confederates and trans-Confederates as well. People like that just want to recreate left-liberal BRA, but this time headquartered in Richmond VA rather than Washington DC. And they’re the so-called Southern “patriots”, or at least Southern patriotism’s public face.

    Building a successful separatist movement is extremely difficult even in the most ideal circumstances. Don’t believe me, just ask the Puerto Ricans or Quebecois. The time for a second Southern secession was 50 or 60 years ago. Sorry to say, but that ship has sailed.

  6. Jack Ryan on 6/11/12 at 11:48 PM above says in part that, “People here should consider forms of secession/autonomy that aren’t attempts to turn back the clock…”

    As much as I would appreciate any year from 1900 to 1911, it is impossible to return to some earlier state of consciousness, organization, or polity.

    However it is obvious what needs to be done and that is to form a North American-wide congress of the diverse white American and Canadians to meet, electronically if necessary, to form caucuses, interest groups, and regional sub-groups to consider and try to unite on two or three initial steps.

    It’s how we did it back in the days of the Continental Congress, and the vehicle could very easily be named the same thing. You can read about this white American initiative at:

    Let’s not forget that it took from the early 1600s to the second half of the 1700s to create a new nation. We look at an effort that may well take a century, but it won’t get going until we get started.

  7. Hunter, great article. I’d just like to nail onto the end that multi-culturalism, diverity and tolerance are toxic Americanism exported.
    JEPPO: My guess is that the reason there has been no seccession movements since the War Between the States is the continual presence of an outside threat, such as WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam/Communism, and now Militant Islam/Extremism. Southerners have always fought the wars of the Union, their focus and engeries have always been deflected from the North to overseas.

  8. @Joe

    I remarked on here some weeks ago, with regard to secession and the creation of new countries, that new nations will emerge on their own, in their own time, and independent of the desires or actions of individuals. It is a naturally-recurrent phenomenon and cannot be manufactured.

    What I meant simply, was that the cycle cannot be forced. A nation will coalesce naturally from a swath of land inhabited by a group of people of racial stock, religious belief, language, cultural identity, and historical precedent in common. It existed once in America in the South, and it still does in Quebec in Canada. Those are examples of nations in an embryonic stage. When the strong-arm of federal authority, which forceably prevents their maturation into nationhood, finally ceases to exist, those places will form into sovereign states based on the dominant ethnic-concentrations which comprise their populations. These things don’t always have to happen violently. Many times nations just sort of “recognize” themselves because they were always there to begin with.

    That guy Harold Covington, up in Seattle, thinks that you can build a nation around idealogy alone. He thinks he can poach a bunch of disaffected white people from the whole of America, herd them into a region that is foreign to all of them, a region which historically does not share said ideology in the slightest, forceably claim the region through acts of violence and terrorism, and then delusionally call it “Home” for everyone around the world who happens to be white. What does that sound like? I’ll give you a hint — it starts with an ‘I’ and ends with an ‘SRAEL’.

    It’s hard to say how it will play out in America. Nobody is going to secede while the US government is functional. My guess is, people will begin to identify more and more by race & regional origin, and eventually the federal government will go bankrupt and everyone will go there separate ways. Whatever violence is in store, will undoubtedly be in the form of ethnic-cleansing in the various newly-autonomous regions. When the smoke clears, there will probably be a couple dozen or so independent, reasonably ethnically-homogenous nation-states where the USA once stood.

    I couldn’t say exactly when this is going to happen, but I think we’re in the beginning stages right now, what with the precarious economy, runaway national-debt, and racial powderkeg population-demographics. So I think rather than strategize about how to artificially the process, we should develop our respective regional/national identities and prepare for being on our own.

  9. @ Hunter Wallace
    I would have no problem if the Southerners nuked New York City ( i live in northern california now, so it’s okay, lol). But, please don’t nuke Albany ( don’t want the fall-out landing into Lake George, or Lake Champlain, please).
    Carpet bomb Albany, if you wish, but please don’t nuke.
    The Adirondacks are pretty near the closet thing you can find this side of Valhalla.
    Johnny Reb can do as he pleases in New York State, but 0nly up to Albany, and that’s it!
    I won’t countenance confederates wrecking havoc in my beautiful mountain land of childhood memories. LOL
    Thank You.

  10. Joe: The only way I can think of, barring a very extreme economic collapse that leaves people destitude and hungry or an outright hot war, is a gradual reassertion of State’s rights to the point of forcing Washington to either use force or surrender that specific right. It would be a long, hard slog through 80 years of centralized Marxist legislation and most of all, mentality.

  11. @Chris313
    Thank you, Chris. Your post makes alot of sense to me. I appreciate it. You gave me alot to think about.
    Very compelling viewpoint. Thank you.

  12. @Wayne
    Yes. I think you’re right about it being a very long hard slog if it came to that.
    Probably an economic collapse would push us into it, whether white Americans were prepared or not.

  13. (1) Back in the 1960s, the conflict within the United States between the North and South over civil rights was overshadowed by the international conflict with the Soviet Union and the forces of world communism.

    In fact, “civil rights reform” at the federal level was driven in large part by Cold War considerations. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a response to the public relations embarrassment before the “free world” over the integration of Central High School in Little Rock.

    (2) The Cold War dominated American politics from 1945 until 1991. The last gasp of civil rights reform was the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

    (3) Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a bipartisan Northern supermajority, there were indeed outspoken defenders of segregation who were later ousted from their White minority districts by newly enfranchised black voters, thereby shifting the whole political spectrum to the Left.

    (4) Yes, the Immigration Act of 1965, which was voted down in the South, has flooded the South with Hispanic and Asian immigrants. The Brown decision which integrated Southern public schools (which sparked the “massive resistance movement” in the South) destroyed our major cities.

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was also voted down in the South, destroyed the segregationists by turning the Black Belt districts into black majority districts, while nullifying most of the White working class vote with the black vote in cities like Birmingham, thereby empowering White suburbanite Republicans.

    (5) The South has been “Americanized” to some degree, absolutely true, but Southerners still do not vote like Yankees, and America is still politically polarized along regional lines.

    (6) In the 1960s, the two biggest factors that prevented the radicalization of the segregationists was the Cold War with the Soviet Union, a foreign ideological adversary, and the postwar economic boom that lasted into the early 1970s.

    In the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, the Sunbelt economy continued to boom, but after the financial crisis and real estate crash of 2007, the Sunbelt model of growth is unlikely to last much longer.

    The White South also assumed correctly that it could arrest the progress of the Civil Rights Movement by abandoning the Democratic Party.

    (7) It only takes a vanguard of states to launch secession and force every other state to choose sides. Within states, counties would also choose sides, and new states like North Florida and East Texas could be created in the same way that West Virginia became a state, or the same way that East Tennessee almost became a state.

    (8) Connie Chastain and the Southern Heritage Preservation Group are not representative of everyone who takes an interest in Southern heritage. The Rainbow Confederates are a small minority even within the SCV.

    (9) The absence of a powerful foreign domestic enemy, the end of the GOP as a national governing coalition, the collapse of the Sunbelt economy, the racial polarization created by an ascendant Democratic Party dominated by non-White voters, and the explosion of the national debt is having exactly the opposite effect.

    In just the last five years, Southerners have traded in the nationalist hat for the states’ rights hat. Nullification is already back. The polls show that support for secession is actually rising. Racial polarization is growing with the last White Democrat in the House from the Deep South on schedule to lose his seat.

    Oh, and Florida and the Justice Department are filing lawsuits against each other over the Voting Rights Act.

  14. Re: “When the smoke clears, there will probably be a couple dozen or so independent, reasonably ethnically-homogenous nation-states where the USA once stood”: Where does the “world government” figure in this, if at all?

  15. Back in the Bush years, at the height of neoconism, I predicted that the rah rah “Go America” patriotards would prove ephemeral, and that the South would be back in states’ rights mode under a Democratic president.

    A generation of Americans raised in Andrew Jackson’s America also lived to see the War Between the States.

  16. I think fighting to restore some semblance of freedom of association though restrictive covenants is a good short-term goal and compatible with working toward the end game (secession and separation). I see many advantages in the Southern approach. My main concern with it is that it divides racialist Whites based on geography. Hopefully this issue can be overcome.

  17. I liked JFK and respect him, but his brother, ” the good senator from Massachusets”, was a treasonous bastard, that’s for sure.
    Pretty overwhelming to me that the country was opened up to the whole world and so many of our lawmakers, the majority of them + the president , approved of it. Unbelievable.
    Just had to get that off my chest.

  18. Re: “The South has been “Americanized” to some degree, absolutely true, but…America is still politically polarized along regional lines.”

    The polarity: Different peoples live on either side of the Line or lines (Mason Dixon Line, Ohio River, etc.) — Mostly Puritan Quaker Germanised Yankee BR/WR/JR Ameri-K-ans north of the Line, and south of the Line, still mostly Southrons whose essentially Caribbean or Norman culture has been, as yet, only somewhat Ameri-k-anised?

  19. A minority of Northern racialists will inevitably bitch and complain, but the moment secession was actually accomplished, and the niggers and the liberals started retreating to the North, which would inevitably react to secession by reasserting its ideological commitment to “freedom and equality,” the racial environment in the North would become so hostile that they immigrate in droves.

  20. Also, I would welcome a war of liberation between an independent South and the United States, because if we won that war, a war against a declining liberal empire, it would forever serve as our national cornerstone.

  21. Re: “still mostly Southrons”: I meant to write “still mostly Anglo-Celt Southrons.”

    Also, Lew’s concern about the Line and the polarity: I see many advantages in the Southern approach. My main concern with it is that it divides racialist Whites based on geography.” I see the same advantage and the same weakness.

  22. Mosin Nagant: IMO the NWO is post-WWII Americanism (liberal democracy, equalacracy) exported to the rest of the world via commercial means, and when that fails, through military means. The classic carrot and stick approach. Additionally, I believe that the Cold War wasn’t so much competing idealologies as it was competing MEANS to accomplish a common end, namely an international world order founded on socialism. The USSR approach was through hard line communist economics, the USA approach was through light, gradual, incremental social change and capitalism.

  23. The United Nations was formed by post-WWII America and it’s charter is modeled to a great extent on the Constitution, updated for modern liberal democracy, of course. The same ideas pushed by the NE are now being pushed worldwide through this instrument.

  24. The “minority of Northern racialists will inevitably bitch and complain, but the moment secession was actually accomplished…the racial environment in the North would become so hostile that they (would) immigrate (to the South) in droves.”

    Are racialists are so rare and weak in the North that they can offer no significant aid to the South as it shakes off the shackles of liberalism and secedes, and they will never be able to change the course of liberalism in the North, but only flee to the South.

  25. @Mosin Nagant

    If by “world government” you mean a singular, EU-style entity that governs the planet, I wouldn’t worry. “One world government” was never realistically possible and never will be.

    If you meant “world governments” like China or the UK or Germany, I wouldn’t be worried either. Pretty much every first or second world country on earth is mired in economic and other domestic crises, which are only going to worsen with time. No one will be in any position to interfere with other counties personal business. And I don’t think any nation on earth is brave enough or stupid enough to stick their nose in the middle of an American break-up. Too many guns, too many people who love to fight. Nobody interfered when the Soviet Union broke up, and I’ll bet a lot of countries will be celebrating when the USA does.

  26. Wayne, I meant the role of “world government,” in addition to United States federal government forces, in resisting any attempt by any states to secede from global, multicultural liberalism.

  27. In the case of a continued, accelerating, worldwide economic collapse I agree with you, Chris, and you have stated my thoughts exactly. To open the way for secession to succeed or even be attempted, such a worldwide cataclysm seems essential.

  28. Time is not on the side of State’s rights and liberty. The DWLs and the establishment know this. If they can maintain the status quo, eventually all Southern, White, Western resistance will be washed away in a sea of brown multi-culturalism. The establishment has enough true believers that are completely onboard with sacrificing Whites (that is, marginalizing us into a powerless minority and breeding us out) for the improvement of the other races (through our genes, wealth and culture), the ultimate in Puritan/Quaker self-flaggelation. They believe once this happens there will be the end of all wars, and utopia will rain down from heaven. That’s why neither party intends to do a damn thing about immigration.

  29. Hunter, if the South succeeded in secession, then theoritically, there would be nothing stopping large parts of the North or other regions from doing the same thing, would there?

    If the South went independent, and started kicking out all it’s niggers and liberals, I promise you nobody up here is going to take them in. We would form into our own small interstate alliances based on mutual interest, and cooperatively defend our lands from unwelcome refugees. We have too many strategic resources here to just abandon.

  30. “Are racialists are so rare and weak in the North that they can offer no significant aid to the South as it shakes off the shackles of liberalism and secedes, and they will never be able to change the course of liberalism in the North, but only flee to the South.”

    — was a question, and should have been written: “Are racialists are so rare and weak in the North that they can offer no significant aid to the South as it shakes off the shackles of liberalism and secedes, and that they will never be able to change the course of liberalism in the North, but only flee to the South?”

  31. How would the North react to secession and the emergence of a race based challenger in the South?

    In light of history, I would say that the liberal majority in the North would either welcome secession, as it would increase their political power in the rump Union, or it could provoke a war to halt further disintegration.

    Does the Interior West follow the South into secession?

  32. “I would welcome a war of liberation between an independent South and the United States, because if we won that war…it would forever serve as our national cornerstone.”

    Yet there is an immense IF in that statement that bears capitalisation: “If” as in: A cornerstone, IF not a gravestone, if the racialists of SOME states and of ONE region, fight against the federal government and possibly also other interested members of the global multicultural union.

  33. Are racialists too weak in the North?

    They can’t even stop Obama after four years of Eric Holder at the DOJ. Yet those states are whiter than most in the South and West. If Whites in the North voted like Whites in the South, the decline would have stopped a long time ago.

    What else can we do but secede when the White majority in the North votes for ever more liberalism?

  34. Isn’t a conservative military takeover more likely to happen and succeed than a popular movement to unseat liberalism?

  35. If Whites in the North (and interior West) had “voted like Whites in the South” they would have gone much more for the Neo-“conservatives” Gingrich, Santorum and Romney.

    Re: “What else can we do but secede…?” Possibly, all of us, north and south, and west, get solidly behind genuinely conservative leaders.

  36. I know what you mean about all these things, Hunter, and it all makes excellent sense (“What else can we do….”) to me!

    I’m sharing what I hope are CONSTRUCTIVE contrarian counterpoints, from somewhere north of the Line.

  37. You nailed it again, Hunter. Many become confused about the persistent influence of the Northeast in pushing for the demise of whites. Not necessarily the demise of themselves, you understand, but of the “benighted” whites who dare oppose their “enlightened” perspective. They fervently desire to sacrifice “lesser whites” to their deified black savage gods.

    The Yankee disease is even behind the current “multiculti” disease of Europe, which only became possible in post-WW2 Yankee dominated Western Europe. Using immigration as a wedge among whites was pioneered and perfected by Yankees. With the addition of non-whites to the immigration equation, they think they have found the perfect tool to impose their will upon the nation in perpetuity. While any white of sound mind would love to see more unity among whites, the bottom line is it isn’t going to happen anytime soon as long as Yankees are in the mix.

    Joe reveals the insidious nature of the Yankee menace. Joe’s hero, JFK, who sent federal troops into the South, was just as avowed an enemy of Southern whites as his brother RFK. Why do you think of him otherwise, Joe? What good did JFK ever do for whites in Amurrica? You need not identify so much with someone who has no blood and cultural ties to you, anyway. It’s not like you’re Irish or from Massachusetts, are you? Or deep down do you just harbor a belief in Father Abraham’s “proposition” nation?

    I have often observed this phenomenon among Yankees and their negro pets. I call it “snapback.” Just when you think you might have a “good” one on hand, they “snapback” to what they really are. It only happens when you are young and naive and believe all the Yankee propaganda. After that you learn…

    White Southerners don’t want any part of the goddamn Yankee states, including upstate New York. It’s still the same as President Davis said, “All we want is to be left alone.” Keep your utopian visions to yourselves. We simply aren’t interested.

    The ship hasn’t sailed on secession at all. The weakness and decrepitude of the Yankee federal beast guarantee that alone. Sorry, jeppo, you can whine all day about how strong your Yankee empire is, but we can see the wheels coming off. You won’t kill Southern nationalism until you’ve killed all white Southerners. We’re sure you all will keep trying, too.

    Southern patriots, I ask you all. Which is easier to save, white “Amurrica” (with persistent Yankee opposition), or the white South? Which is a more attainable goal?

    Along the same lines, how do you tell a “good” negro or Yankee from a “bad” negro or Yankee? Someone please enlighten me.

    Deo Vindice

  38. There were genuinely conservative leaders in the South right down until 1965 … then suddenly, everything changed for some inexplicable reason, and the segregationists vanished – why?

  39. Re: “I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a coup”: Although the military has been multiculturalised and corporate mercenary forces are being hired as adjuncts, it is theoretically still possible among the middle and upper (but not uppermost) ranks.

  40. If your answer was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, then you win the prize.

    – The black vote swamped the segregationist strongholds in every Southern state which were White minority districts that sent racialists to Congress and the state legislatures.

    Federal control of Deep South elections was the most devastating of all the Yankee reforms.

    – The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 destroyed all the major cities like Birmingham by stripping Whites of their ability to defend their schools, neighborhoods, and businesses.

    In Birmingham, we went from an industrial city with a White working class electorate to a majority black city in twenty years.

    How did that happen? Every black vote was a vote that cancelled out a White working class vote. The Voting Rights Act empowered wealthy suburban moderates while effectively disenfranchising the White working class.

    The liberal minority combined with blacks until the blacks dispensed with them altogether after Richard Arrington was elected in 1979.

    – Racial politics in the South was dependent on state and local control of elections which produced a homogeneous electorate with a White working class majority invested in the preservation of Jim Crow.

    – After racial identity was taken away from the White working class, nothing but religious nuttiness and sports enthusiasm was left, and those things moved into the vacuum in the 1970s

  41. “I have often observed this phenomenon among Yankees and their negro pets. I call ‘snapback.’ Just when you think you might have a “good” one on hand, they ‘snapback’ to what they really are…..Along the same lines, how do you tell a ‘good’ negro or Yankee from a ‘bad’ negro or Yankee? Someone please enlighten me.”

    Somehow those Anglo-Celts who landed and settled in the colonies NORTH of the Line (north of Maryland and Delaware) acquired this inherited depravity.

  42. @Apuleius
    I honestly didn’t know he sent troops down South. I thought that happened under Eisenhower and Johnson. Sorry about that.
    I was talking about his desire to lessen the influence of the federal reserve bank over the economy.
    I will do more reading and studying about his administration.
    I believe you what you had to say. I will study the matter.
    If I had known he sent troops down South, I would not have so much respect for him.
    I thought Eisenhower and Johnson sent troops down South. I didn’t know JFK did
    Sorry about that.

  43. “After racial identity was taken away from the White working class, nothing but religious nuttiness and sports enthusiasm was left” is so well and simply said! “Religious nuttiness and sports enthusiasm” describes the majority of “conservative” Republican voters!

  44. The Birthright of their racial identity needs to be taken back voluntarily, just as it was given up (“taken”) — voluntarily — in exchange for the Pottage of the soma of the heresy of cheap grace and predominantly negro, meaningless sports.

Comments are closed.