Dixie
Kevin MacDonald writes:
“This does not follow. One surely can’t argue that because one Jewish politician in one state opposed desegregation that Jews did not have a decisive influence on the Civil Rights movement in general. South Carolina by itself could not withstand the onslaught against desegregation given that the laws against segregation were national in application.”
That’s certainly true.
It would be a mistake to generalize about American Jews on the basis of one example. The Strange Career of Solomon Blatt tells us a lot though about the Southern Jewish experience. From Colonial America through the Civil Rights Movement, Southern Jews never developed into a hostile minority in the way that they did in the North.
“Throughout the desegregation crisis that beset the South after the Second World War, African Americans and Jews in the region took no united action. In the Southern states at least, there was never any alliance between the two peoples.”
In Montgomery, Martin Luther King, Jr. couldn’t persuade the local Jewish community to support the Montgomery Bus Boycott. In Birmingham, the downtown department stores which were at the center of the 1963 demonstrations were owned by Jews who had enforced the local segregation laws for generations.
In Selma, the downtown stores had names like “Cohen’s, Levy’s, and Rothschild’s,” and Selma’s Jews had produced three former mayors and seven ex-presidents of the Selma Chamber of Commerce. Jews had always been members of the Selma Country Club and had even played a role in building it.
Sheriff Joe Clark’s official spokesperson was a Jew named Sol Tepper who was a diehard segregationist. When hundreds of Northern Jews arrived in Selma to participate in the Selma-to-Montgomery March, the local Jewish community attempted to persuade them that Selma was really a nice place for Jews to live:
“Mayor Joe Smitherman remembers asking Jewish members of the chamber of commerce to arrange a meeting with Jews who had journeyed south to join the demonstrations. The merchants were encouraged “to talk them out of being arrested” and “to assure them that we aren’t that evil of a community.” A delegation was duly dispatched, including prominent businessmen Sam Barton, Jacob Bendersky, and Maurice Hollonborg, but their efforts were unsuccessful.”
In South Carolina, we have already seen that Solomon Blatt was the Speaker of the House, and he used his power to oppose the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, no one in the South Carolina legislature was more opposed to integration.
In Mississippi and Alabama, large numbers of Jews joined the Citizens’ Councils and many of those who did genuinely supported the massive resistance movement and were ardent segregationists. Alabama’s Jews supported George Wallace’s campaigns and often appeared in public with him to oppose federal intervention.
Throughout the South, Jews more or less supported the status quo or were passive bystanders to it, and there was no organized pressure coming from Jews in places like Montgomery, Birmingham, Selma, and Albany – the key battlegrounds in the Civil Rights Movement – to overthrow the South’s racial caste system.
It is certainly true that tons of Jews did come to the South to participate in the Civil Rights Movement: the Freedom Riders, the Mississippi Freedom Summer, SNCC volunteers, to work as volunteer lawyers, etc. Virtually all these Jews came from the Northern states like the Gentiles who came with them to stir up trouble.
Some of these Gentiles never went home: James Reeb, a Unitarian minister from Boston; Jonathan Daniels, an Episcopalian from New Hampshire; Viola Liuzzo, a fanatic from Detroit. The entire Unitarian national convention came to Selma along with legions of Northern Protestant ministers and Northern Catholic priests.
In 1963, the Jim Crow South was a segregated island in an integrated United States. The South’s racial caste system had no parallel in the Northeast and Midwest which had been integrated since Reconstruction or in some places long before. The North’s culture at the time was boiling over with hippies and beatniks while Southern college campuses were rioting against integration.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the South during the Civil Rights Movement was more like a foreign country than part of the United States. In terms of its racial and cultural decline, the North had far more in common (in the 19C and 20C) with Great Britain and Canada, maybe even France, than the Southern states.
You could go one step further and compare the North’s relationship with the South to France’s relationship with Algeria or Britain’s relationship with Rhodesia where large numbers of Arabs and blacks fueled an unsuccessful White resistance to the insanity that had captivated the metropolitan central government.
By themselves, Southern Jews (who were a fraction of 1 percent of the population) weren’t inclined to challenge the South’s racial caste system. The South’s honor roll of race traitors – Harper Lee, Clifford and Virginia Durr, Morris Dees, Howell Raines, Frank Johnson, Paul Hemphill, these were all from Alabama – have tended to be White liberals.
The presence of so many notable White race traitors combined with the relative disinterest of Southern Jews in the Civil Rights Movement and the fact that virtually all the civil rights demonstrators (Jew or White) came from the Northern states gave White Southerners the impression that it was all the work of “outside agitators.”
Note: I should emphasize here that the author says that 80 percent of the South’s Jewish population are now transplants. None of this implies that there isn’t a Jewish problem in, say, Atlanta or South Florida in 2013.
“Here in the South, the Klan and the Council were successful in nullifying any threat from the Jews.” Of course they were Klansmen themselves. They were fellow Klansmen north of the Line as well, when the Klan was popular there. Why would original elitists and supremacists ever “threaten” their own elitist, supremacist system?
This could be an ad campaign for Southern tourism. Jews: Less perfidious in Dixie!
“In the entire South, there were 7 rabbis who publicly supported the Civil Rights Movement.”
They were “ahead of the curve.” Some are not only better at predicting future trends but help create the trends.
@ Porter: “Antichrist tolerable south of the Line.”
The 7 rabbis who supported the Civil Rights Movement were dwarfed by the millions of “Northern Christians” who supported MLK. In just the last few years, the same White people voted for Obama twice.
One group of readers agrees with Hunter’s opinion that the WHITE people who live or originate north of the Line are the #1 Enemy of white people south of the Line. Another group sees everything clearly, from the higher vantage point of Faith.
“Like the South, the North was also multiracial”
Not so, only multi-ethnic white, unless you count Indians and a few slaves escaped from south of the Line.
“Jews didn’t even arrive in your states until decades later”
Obfuscation. There were MANY who led the way in colonial New England and New York, and the “southern kind” (Sephardic) too.
Correction: “only multi-ethnic white, unless you count Indians and a few slaves escaped from south of the Line” should have been:
“only multi-ethnic white, and some Jews. Not multiracial like the southern colonies at all, unless you count Indians and a few slaves escaped from south of the Line”
Why is there is a “Line”?
There is a “Line” because the Cavaliers settled in Virginia and Maryland and their culture was dominant in those colonies. Those colonies became slave states and adopted Barbadian-style slave codes.
In contrast, Massachusetts was founded by the Puritans, and Pennsylvania was founded by the Quakers. Their egalitarian culture was dominant in both of those colonies and spawned a radically different social system.
Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780. The anti-miscegenation laws of Maryland and Virginia were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967. Hence, “the Line.”
In Pennsylvania, blacks were citizens and had the right to vote, but only lost it in the 1830s, whereas the idea of negro citizenship and voting rights was absurd “south of the Line” due to the lack of Quaker influence there.
In the Northern states, blacks were citizens in the antebellum era in Pennsylvania (until the late 1830s) as well as in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island before the war.
Slavery was legal in the Northeastern states before the American Revolution. After the blacks there were emancipated by Yankees in the name of liberal ideology, they continued to live there and eventually were given equal rights.
In Pennsylvania, blacks have had the right to marry White women since 1780, one of the first triumphs of anti-slavery and equality. The Quakers moved early during the Revolution to establish complete racial equality.
If “whiteness” was of such great significance to the Northern states, why were they so emphatic that the negroes were their “equals,” and why did they repeal anti-miscegenation laws and even give them citizenship?
Another group sees everything clearly, from the higher vantage point of Faith.
And a third group (consisting possibly of one) observes from the more prosaic perspective of Terrain. From a pro-white perspective what land is more arable at present, northern whites or jews? With the former, I have a poor chance of cultivating an ally with similar end-goals. With the latter, it is practically nil. That is the current situation…and the only one with which we have to work.
Of course there were a few black slaves owned in colonial Pennsylvania. I understand that they were mostly kept as house pets or status symbols, and only white people did the farm work.
It is clear that you are determined to believe “Southern Judaism” was/is NOT harmful to whites, and that the #1 Enemy of whites south of the Line is the “other” white people, who live or originate north of the Line.
Porter says:
This could be an ad campaign for Southern tourism. Jews: Less perfidious in Dixie!
Gold man, pure gold, lol……
“Hunter Wallace says:
June 6, 2013 at 10:08 pm
In the entire South, there were 7 rabbis who publicly supported the Civil Rights Movement”
See how even a small number (a public number) can cause so much trouble!
Eschew the Jew!
Shut up Dalton the Jew. You area Jew.
LOL, good one, Denise.
Southern Jews were a negligible problem compared to Grant and Sherman’s armies.
“Southern Jews were a negligible problem compared to Grant and Sherman’s armies.”
That’s an understatement if I’ve ever seen one!
The SPLC is the most notorious, powerful, and well funded Jewish subversive organization in America, but the Jewish mind control emanating from the Kremlin’s bunker couldn’t stop HB 56 or force Whites here to elect and reelect Obama.
This proves that subversive Jews can’t accomplish much without their Yankee allies.
Southern nationalism still needs to exclude Jews.
“In Pennsylivania, blacks had the right to marry white women since 1780..”
– And just how many blacks were there in Pennsylvania in 1780, and just how many white women married black men when that law was repealed? Do you have figures?
You constanly trumpet how “the North repealed it’s anti-miscegenation laws before the South did” as if that somehow means that black-on-white miscegenation was something the North was eager to accept. Utter horseshit. There were hardly any niggers at all in the North at that time, as opposed to your Golden Shower in the South, and the repeal of Northern anti-miscegenation laws was probably a consideration made towards white men who wanted to take Indian and half-Indian women as their legal wives.
The North had fought the Revolution in the name of equal rights to liberty.
After the Revolution, it began to abolish slavery, expand the electorate, and diemantle racial barriers because of its own ideology. The anti-miscegenation laws were an early victim of the North’s leveling culture.
It has since “progressed” to marriage equality. This wouldn’t have surprised Fitzhugh in the 1850s or Dabney in the 1890s. It is the logical conclusion of Americanism.
See here:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2013/01/15/the-miscegenation-ball/
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2013/01/15/the-lincoln-catechism/
And still you answered neither of my questions, choosing instead to sandbag with subjective observations about chapters in American history which bear no direct relation to one another.
Re: “If ‘whiteness’ was of such great significance to the Northern states”:
CHRISTIANITY was of greater significance to most northern settlers, and TRUE whiteness is subsumed in that!
It has been noted often in OD posts that the attitude of most colonists below the Line toward religion was much more casual and tolerant than those at the north, hence their willingness to actually PRACTICE multiracialism, while professing whiteness in theory.
Re: “The Miscegenation Ball”: It happens south of the Line, too: http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2002/10/18/column-interview-miscegenist
The Hollywood influence has won the hearts and minds of most whites south of the Line, too — bound to be so, where the Gospel is rejected or disbelieved!
Nonsense.
1.) The plantation complex didn’t spread to the North because tropical and subtropical crops couldn’t grow there. The same Puritans also settled in the South and West Indies in places like Bermuda and the Bahamas.
2.) Slavery was legal in the Northern colonies. It just wasn’t the kind of slavery found in the Golden Circle.
3.) The Anglican Church was the established church in the South and the West Indies. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were founded by the two most obnoxious groups of heretics in the British Empire.
4.) In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, the Puritans and Quakers attempted to build their multiracial utopia by converting the Indians to Christianity.
5.) “Whiteness” became important first in the West Indies and later in the Southern colonies as slavery took root there.
In fact, slavery was introduced to Georgia by Congregationalists from South Carolina.
I’m sure the numbers are available somewhere online.
Re: “the North’s leveling culture”:
But there is a kind of leveling that is Christian. Christians care for the poor, and do not support class exploitation schemes.
Miscegenation on the other hand is lustful, unnatural and unhealthy. It is neither leveling nor Christian.
The Quakers were the first radical leveling sect in America to agitate against slavery and racial hierarchies. They were behind CORE and the Freedom Riders. Miscegenation is the ultimate leveling force which is why Quaker Pennsylvania legalized it as far back as 1780.
Having brought down kings and queens and aristocrats in the name of “equality,” it was logical to declare war on nature itself.
Mosin:
Sometimes, you remind me of an old-time Southern preacher, always on message with the Gospel. We have a lot of those south of the Line.
I could use a beer.
Hail the Golden Dawn!
Winners keep on winning!
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Jewish-groups-condemn-Greek-partys-racism-bill-315604
When a Jew is squealing – it means Good is winning.
The comments are a delight. And no – none of ’em are mine.
“The plantation complex didn’t spread to the North because tropical and subtropical crops couldn’t grow there. The same Puritans also settled in the South and West Indies in places like Bermuda and the Bahamas.”
The same Puritans? (Just as the same Sephardim who settled in places like the Carolinas also settled in places north of the Line like New England and New York!) This may confuse some regular OD readers who are convinced by now that TWO DIFFERENT peoples settled the colonies above and below the Line: (1) the good, southern, “Golden (Circle)” settlers of good, Cavalier British stock, and (2) the other, radical, nutty, Puritan, Yankee, northern one, of dour, part-Scandinavian Anglian British stock. Now the second kind settles in some of the same places and behaves just like the first kind.
“Slavery was legal in the Northern colonies. It just wasn’t the kind of slavery found in the Golden Circle.” I suppose you would include “wage slavery” and certainly, white indenture. African importation and slavery was RARE north of the Line, as everyone knows.
“The Anglican Church was the established church in the South and the West Indies. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were founded by the two most obnoxious groups of heretics in the British Empire.” Those Anglicans were generally NOT fervent, or much LESS fervent than those “obnoxious” radicals for Christianity — as in “no need to take Christianity so seriously — only sacraments are required, to then live however you wish, buy and breed Africans to create wealth, rape enslaved negresses to create mulattoes, etc.
“In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, the Puritans and Quakers attempted to build their multiracial utopia by converting the Indians to Christianity.” But in the southern colonies the much less fervent, nominal Christians actually SUCCEEDED in building a multiracial utopia, under the guidance and with assistance of the “good kind” of Talmudists.
“Whiteness became important first in the West Indies and later in the Southern colonies as slavery took root there.” White racial solidarity with the white (and paler-skinned mulatto) underclasses HAD to be cultivated and maintained by the Talmudic-and-white Elite simultaneously while managing the potentially dangerous Africans.
“Nonsense.” We are “fools” for Christ’s sake.
Hunter – you Southern gents are right about Yankee treachery and folly and destruction. 110% right.
The thing is – we are learning from our mistakes. Believe me. We don’t want you guys ot make the same mistakes.
“Sometimes, you remind me of an old-time Southern preacher, always on message with the Gospel. We have a lot of those south of the Line.”
Thanks for the confirmation, Lew. I’m an “outlaw conservative” volunteer preacher. I despised the seminary corruption, denominational politics, and clerical careerism.
I think I would have liked Dabney, even if he was a Calvinist. I also believe true Christian revival is the true panacea that all whites need.
“We don’t want you guys ot make the same mistakes.”
Anglo-Celtic and other Europeans settling in different parts of America have made DIFFERENT mistakes — and sadly, conflicted with one another. Let’s all turn away from repeating those “mistakes” and triumph over evil.
I think we need to examine the influence among Jews in the US prior to about 1850 by Jews from Eastern Europe who poured into the US, mainly in the northeast over to Chicago, after that time.
There was a huge shift in the Jewish political center caused by Polish and Russian Jews.
“If every Jew in the South had vanished in the year 1954, the outcome of the Civil Rights Movement wouldn’t have been any different, but if the Union had ceased to exist in 1954, the Civil Rights Movement would have instantly been stopped dead in its tracks.”
DC enforces their wet dream utopia. School desegregation began 60 years ago in Arkansas. DC dispatched the national guards to suppress the local community.
Mosin can fantasize about a “Christian revival” being the magic bullet all he wants. But back here on planet earth, white man keep your daughter out of that Christian church unless you want a black man coming home to dinner and a future mongrel grandchild.
Christianity powers more miscegenation than even Hollywood and the entertainment business. It has always been the locomotive of universalism and One World mentality.
If Christianity is the engine that powers miscegenation (I thought it was lust) and Southrons are now (supposed to be) the most Christian Americans, what conclusion do we draw from that, Brutus?
“black man coming home to dinner ”
Indeed. The b flick film ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ with Sidney Poitier (not a Frenchman) the film was released during the Vietrnam war and the internal commies saboteurs .
I thought that keeping your daughter out of public school was more likely to save her soul, virtue and whiteness — not keeping her from Christianity! Yes, most churches are corrupt, and heretical. But that is no reason to reject the Faith.
Here’s an example of Christian upbringing: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336616/Valedictorian-rips-approved-speech-recites-Lords-Prayer-school-bans-prayer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Is he ever in trouble now: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/06/todd-starnes-anti-religion-group-blasts-teen-valedictorian%E2%80%99s-prayer#ixzz2VYZ6EdcI
Who runs the Freedom from Religion Foundation?
“I thought that keeping your daughter out of public school was more likely to save her soul, virtue and whiteness — not keeping her from Christianity!”
You thought wrong. If I were black, you couldn’t keep me out of the white Christian churches. There’s more poon tang at church than you can shake a stick at, Mosin. And a hell of a lot of the white women sitting in those pews are burning up with black bamboo fever.
About your first post in response to me about the Southern Churches, you betcha. You see a good looking Southern woman wrapped up with a nigger, and I’ll lay you ten-to-one odds every time she is a good Christian girl who attends church regularly, and I will take your money at least eight times out of ten. I don’t care what anyone here says, either, save your attacks; I saw it with my own eyes over and over down there.
White man, get out of the Christian church!
Yeah, it’s always good when someone gives the liberal “progressive” asshole coalition the finger, Mosin. But my guess is this brave Christian condemns white racism and would have no problem seeing his pretty white school mates or his sister bedding down a lanky black buck. He probably would stand up and give a similar speech condemning you, Mosin. I wouldn’t hesitate to put fifty bucks on it.
Non-whites are “God’s children, too,” according to most Christians.
“Non-whites are “God’s children, too,” according to most Christians.”
Children of the Sun.
“But my guess is this brave Christian condemns white racism and would have no problem seeing his pretty white school mates or his sister bedding down a lanky black buck. He probably would stand up and give a similar speech condemning you, Mosin. I wouldn’t hesitate to put fifty bucks on it.”
You instincts on most issues are generally accurate, I’ve noticed, Brutus. You take more of a populist or “working man’s” position than many others here, who lean toward ELITISM. In this case, I won’t bet against you. Before posting the link I read how he consulted with his pastor and others to decide whether he should do it or not, and instead of counseling him to do it, the pastor asked him to examine himself about whether he was really wanting to “do it FOR HIMSELF,” and next, it was considered, if he was going through with it, what KIND of prayer to pray that would offend the least number of people — hence The Lord’s Prayer, that all denominations could agree with! How worthlessly craven! Nevertheless I do sense some righteous indignation at work in the young man, and that’s why I posted the “good news.”
Like you I am FIERY mad at all the corrupt churches and their worthless counsel, heresies and undiscipline. We probably have different views of the Christ however, and I still maintain the final solution we need is TRUE Christian revival.