The Alt-Right and Southern Nationalism

In the Christian Science Monitor, Dr. Michael Hill has some comments on Southern Nationalism and the antebellum roots of the Alt-Right:

“Yet the alt-right’s roots, at least according to some, can be traced all the way back to the antebellum South, when the Rev. Robert Lewis Dabney, an aide-de-camp to Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson, began writing about fundamental fissures within American conservatism – largely the epic struggle between traditionalism, the vision of a America as a country of people over principles, and liberalism, improving lives by hewing closer to the Constitution’s core principle, that “all men are created equal.”

“I think the original alt-right-ers in America were Southern nationalists,” says Mr. Hill, a Killen, Ala.-based former history professor at a historically black college who is listed in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Watch” project. He points to the Reverend Dabney, who after the Civil War wrote, presciently: “The meaning of northern conservatism is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit with a respectable amount of growling but always acquiesces at last in the innovation of the progressives.”

Dabney’s antebellum observation, says Hill, “is a perfect picture of what the alt-right has come to call ‘cuckservatives,’ [a sexual and racial pejorative based on the word cuckold.] So, I think there’s little doubt that Southern nationalism is the original strain. It’s always been blood and soil, kith and kin for people down here, and that’s what the alt-right pushes, is this idea of a true nation … that happens to be white and European.”

This is true.

I’m surprised it hasn’t come up sooner. In many ways, the Confederacy was the result of the Dark Enlightenment of the 1850s, which is still a very poorly understood subject. There were a number of currents in antebellum Southern Nationalism.

The most familiar strain – the states’ rights/constitutionalist strain – was developed by John C. Calhoun and can be traced back to the Anti-Federalists through the Old Republicans. According to this theory, the sovereign states created the Union and the Constitution, and the people of each sovereign state could choose to secede from the Union whenever their rights were perceived to have been violated. In such a way, the Confederates were the real Americans who were following in the footsteps of their revolutionary ancestors and Lincoln was reprising the role of the tyrant King George III.

The Confederacy was much more than that though. It was a revolution in defense of racialism, white supremacy, and slavery:

“But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. …”

As Vice President Alexander Stephens pointed out, the cornerstone of the Confederacy was “the great truth that the negro is not the equal of the white man.” This is a well known and highly cited phrase, but the key point that Stephens was making was that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had been based on an erroneous Enlightenment philosophy. Thomas Jefferson and his generation had gotten it wrong. All men were not created equal, but had instead evolved in disparate environments across the globe under radically different selection pressures.

Stephens goes on to say that “the errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.” There had been a great intellectual sea change since that time. He says that “this truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.” The Confederacy was the first government in the history of the world to embrace the latest cutting edge insights from science.

What had happened since the US Constitution was ratified in 1789? In the early 1830s, Charles Lyell had published Principles of Geology, which founded modern geology and revealed that the earth was far older than anyone had ever imagined. In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, which founded modern biology and posited that “favored races” was the key mechanism in the development of new species. Samuel Morton, Josiah Nott, and Louis Aggaiz had developed American racial theory.

Suddenly, European man had discovered that dinosaurs had roamed a primordial earth in the distant past long before the emergence of the races of mankind. Scientists debated whether or not blacks and Whites shared a common human origin and to what extent they were related. Whether it was due to the Curse of Ham or evolution, it was increasingly clear to anthropologists that the races of mankind were not equal. The discovery of the Neanderthals revealed the existence of an unknown extinct human species.

These were most shocking developments in science to occur since Galileo’s discoveries. The progress of 19th century science cast a whole new light on 18th century Enlightenment theories of human equality. 19th century European philosophy was also taking a romantic ethno-nationalist turn which was strongly felt in the South:

“As the great idea of the eighteenth century was that of union against tyrants, so it is that of the nineteenth century, the independence of nationalities.”
– William Woods Holden, Raleigh 1862

“Secessionists sometimes identified themselves overtly with oppositional nationalist leaders in Europe. Thus William Lowndes Yancey, responding to the charges that he was a “rebel,” defiantly identified himself with other nationalist heroes battling colonial-style oppression: “Washington was a rebel! Lafayette was a rebel – and so was Tell and so is Kossuth – rebels against abuse of power; and welcome to us be the appellation received in defense of our rights and liberties.” In a speech of the late 1850s, Robert Barnwell Rhett looked toward Europe and saw “a bloody contest for the independence of nationalities.” God had meant for there to be national differences, and a nation’s right to independence was particularly strong when it was battling against a foreign occupier, as was the case in places such as Ireland, Poland, and Italy. “Let Italy be for Italy,” he urged. Aligning his own nationalist cause with the others, Rhett argued that “the people of England and Ireland, Russia and Poland, Austria and Italy, are not more distinct and antagonistic in their characters, pursuits, and institutions, their sympathies and views, than the people of our Northern and Southern States.”

Mark Twain attributed the War Between the States to the influence of Sir Walter Scott’s romanticism:

“Sir Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character, as it existed before the war, that he is in great measure responsible for the war. It seems a little harsh toward a dead man to say that we never should have had any war but for Sir Walter; and yet something of a plausible argument might, perhaps, be made in support of that wild proposition. The Southerner of the American Revolution owned slaves; so did the Southerner of the Civil War: but the former resembles the latter as an Englishman resembles a Frenchman. The change of character can be traced rather more easily to Sir Walter`s influence than to that of any other thing or person.

One may observe, by one or two signs, how deeply that influence penetrated, and how strongly it holds. If one take up a Northern or Southern literary periodical of forty or fifty years ago, he will find it filled with wordy, windy, flowery `eloquence,` romanticism, sentimentality– all imitated from Sir Walter, and sufficiently badly done, too– innocent travesties of his style and methods, in fact. This sort of literature being the fashion in both sections of the country, there was opportunity for the fairest competition; and as a consequence, the South was able to show as many well-known literary names, proportioned to population, as the North could.”

There had been a remarkable change.

The antebellum South of the 1850s was rejecting Thomas Jefferson’s egalitarianism in light of the progress of natural science, the dashing antebellum cavaliers of the plantation South were styling themselves as Medieval knights, and suddenly, Southerners were discovering that they were an oppressed ethnic minority – like the Irish, Poles, Germans, or Hungarians – and that they were the descendants of the Normans and the Cavaliers whereas the Yankees were the descendants of Anglo-Saxons and the Roundheads:

“But, when the eye was turned from the contemplation of these social phenomena to a survey of the political institutions of the country, it required no remarkable strength of observation to discover that there were two distinct nationalities existing on the soil of Great Britain; and of the two, the Norman was the ruler.

The Teutonic and the Latin – the Northern and the Southern – types of civilization, with their diverse social systems, their incompatibility of ideas, opinions, and institutions, and their ineradicable national prejudices, were brought into the presence of each other, under the exigencies of a compulsory political union; and so long as the dominant race maintained the principles and institutions that were the native outgrowth of its civilization, its ascendancy was complete.

Aristocracy, based on the feudal relation, is the natural expression of the political thought of the Norman – a social condition, resting on the principle of subordination, and recognizing the family as the primary basis of social union. Democracy, founded on the idea of an unlimited individualism, and without any reference to the conservative organism of institutions, is the fundamental conception of the political philosophy of the Teuton or Saxon.

The English constitution is the result of a compromise between these two hostile systems, with the Norman element always in the ascendant, save during the brief reign of Cromwell.

But the Roundhead, at once a religious fanatic and a political agitator and reformer, could conceive of no government but the rule of the Saints, and form no other idea of the principles of civil liberty than what the levelling philosophy of the covenant taught. A bigot in faith and an idealist in speculation, his sentiments were violent and his convictions impracticable. A visionary from principle and a revolutionist from interest, his prejudices allowed no compromise, while his passions fed equally the flame of his cupidity and ambition. Austere in his morals and inflexible in his principles, he set up his own conduct as the standard of right, and sought to dictate the opinions and control the convictions of others. Rude in his manners and morose in his disposition, he practiced the profoundest dissimulation, while attaining credit for sincerity, and concealed his real character and designs under the cloak of hypocrisy. . . .

Opposite under the banner of the king, stood the Cavalier – the builder, the social architect, the institutionalist, the conservator – the advocate of rational liberty and the supporter of authority, as against the licentiousness and morbid impulse of unregulated passion and unenlightened sentiment. No idealist, enthusiast or speculative system-builder, upheaving ancient landmarks and overthrowing venerable monuments; but a realist, a practical and enlightened utilitarian, bowing to the authority of experience and acknowledging the supremacy of ideas, forms and institutions that had received the hallowing sanction of time . An institutor by genius and a ruler by race, his pride was at once the sword of his most eminent virtues and greatest weaknesses, while honor was the touchstone of his character. Chivalrous in sentiment and magnanimous in deed, glory was his ambition, and loyalty the inspirer of his every thought, impulse and action. Elevated in his ideas and tolerant in his views, his selfishness was vicarious and his very faults wore the semblance of virtue. Unyielding in his principles, but compromising in his opinions, his conduct was governed more by sentiment than reflection, and more by association than either. Courtly in his manners and splendid in his tastes, a knightly generosity he practiced even toward his foes, and never lost his faculties in volumptuousness. Without being an abject advocate of passive obedience or a supporter of arbitrary power, he yet took ground against the revolutionary party, not as an enemy to liberal institutions or a well-regulated liberty: but, discovering in the doctrines and principles of the revolution a greater danger to the social and political system than from the alleged existing abuses, he preferred yielding his loyalty rather to institutions than abstractions, and felt it a duty to attempt to quench the lights of the incendiary philosophy, whose torch had been applied to the noblest monuments of civil wisdom yet erected by the genius of man …”

Antebellum Southerners were the first group in America to attempt to “quench the lights of the incendiary philosophy.” They were the pioneers.

No one was more important in this that George Fitzhugh and his books Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters and Sociology for the South, or, The Failure of Free Society. Fitzhugh attacked the dominant American liberal tradition itself and seeded the intelligentisa of the antebellum South with Thomas Carlyle’s thought in his own books and journals like the Southern Literary Messenger and DeBow’s Review:

“Further study, too, of Western European Society, which has been engaged in continual revolution for twenty years, has satisfied us that Free Society every where begets isms, and that isms soon beget bloody revolutions. Until our trip to the North, we did not justly appreciate the passage which we are about to quote from Mr. Carlyle’s “Latter-Day Pamphlets.” Now it seems to us as if Boston, New Haven, or Western New York, had set for the picture:

“To rectify the relation that exists between two men, is there no method, then, but that of ending it? The old relation has become unsuitable, obsolete, perhaps unjust; and the remedy is, abolish it; let there henceforth be no relation at all. From the ‘sacrament of marriage’ downwards, human beings used to be manifoldly related one to another, and each to all; and there was no relation among human beings, just or unjust, that had not its grievances and its difficulties, its necessities on both sides to bear and forbear. But henceforth, be it known, we have changed all that by favor of Heaven; the ‘voluntary principle’ has come up, which will itself do the business for us; and now let a new sacrament, that of Divorce, which we call emancipation, and spout of on our platforms, be universally the order of the day! Have men considered whither all this is tending, and what it certainly enough betokens? Cut every human relation that has any where grown uneasy sheer asunder; reduce whatsoever was compulsory to voluntary, whatsoever was permanent among us to the condition of the nomadic; in other words, LOOSEN BY ASSIDUOUS WEDGES, in every joint, the whole fabrice of social existence, stone from stone, till at last, all lie now quite loose enough, it can, as we already see in most countries, be overset by sudden outburst of revolutionary rage; and lying as mere mountains of anarchic rubbish, solicit you to sing Fraternity, &c. over it, and rejoice in the now remarkable era of human progress we have arrived at.”

Now we plant ourselves on this passage from Carlyle. We say that, as far as it goes, ’tis a faithful picture of the isms of the North. But the restraints of Law and Public Opinion are less at the North than in Europe. The isms on each side the Atlantic are equally busy with “assiduous wedges,” in “loosening in every joint the whole fabric of social existence;” but whilst they dare invoke Anarchy in Europe, they dare not inaugurate New York Free Love, and Oneida Incest, and Mormon Polygamy. The moral, religious, and social heresies of the North, are more monstrous than those of Europe. The pupil has surpassed the master, unaided by the stimulants of poverty, hunger and nakedness, which urge the master forward.”

Thomas Carlyle’s “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question,” “Latter-Day Pamphlets,” analysis of how freedom failed in the British Caribbean and his pilloring of John Stuart Mill and the laissez-faire economists are an important wellspring of Alt-Right thought. Someone needs to write a book on how there was an Alt-Right before the Alt-Right. Most of our ideas aren’t really new.

Note: Robert Lewis Dabney was drawing from a well known tradition in his time. The leading Confederate journals were full of this stuff.

About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. The Cavalier-Roundhead paradigm is true, but the Saxon-Norman one is in error; for the South was just as Anglo-Saxon as the North, and moreso after the 1840s wave of immigration. Today Dixie is most of what remains of the Englishman in America. Albion’s Seed by David Hackett-Fischer offers the best insight into this, tracing the North-South divide across the Atlantic and even before the Norman invasion; in Alfred’s Wessex, there were noble and ecclesiastical estates that dwarfed most Antebellum plantations in their use of slave labor, and the spirit of landed, rural aristocracy was carried on in spite of the urbanizing Normans, not because of them. The Cavaliers came precisely from this region of England, and many of their banners bore the Golden Dragon of Wessex that was carried into battle by Alfred and Harold. The divide was between the urbanized and thus Mediterranean-influenced East Anglian Yankees, and the rural traditionalist West Saxons of Dixie. When one looks at the Germanic mode of government prior to Romanization, it is a model of decentralization, which the South preserved more faithfully than even their fellow Englishmen in the North and in Britain.

    • This brings up another confusing truth and that is that the Normans confiscated most of the land in England although I believe there was a great deal of intermarriage with the Saxon nobility to create a unified noble class.

      • Technically the Normans reordered ownership in England. Before William magnates held land as property from their father. After William all land was the kings to parcel out to his retinue.

        Also William abolished slavery and replaced it with serfdom under feudal lords.

        Basically Normans revoked the Freeman class in England and made everyone his vassal.

        • Moreover, the imposition of people supremacist religion I was did the indigenous English orthodoxy that have been there since at least Saint Augustine of Canterbury, going back even further, perhaps. So what was the planted in England, was more than just Norman and Saxon Rachel characteristics sticks, but also the earlier patristic orthodoxy, with the newly derived to mystic people cult.

          • The Jews followed William from France but his descendant Edward I threw them out in 1290. Oliver Cromwell a wicked Calvinist (Calvin was accused by some of being a secret Jew In fact you can find the article in a Catholic paper from 1936) brought them back in as certain religious sects somewhere around the 1600s began ascribing to an early form of Dual Covenant Theology thus ascribing a special place to the Jew

          • Eastern Orthodoxy was never in England as a mainstream religion. English and Catholic history show that England was evangelize by missionaries sent by the Western Church, not the Eastern one. There’s no proof from written records or archeology that England was a Orthodox, Eastern nation by religion. All this is is a way of denying the actual history of England to shore up religious bias and bigotry. While I understand your zeal to promote your version of EO, zeal must by conformed to the actual history and facts. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

          • I will offer a correction to Fr John and this is this. When the Roman Legions left in 410 AD, Britain was nominally Christianized meaning that the educated and wealthy were Christian but the peasants were probably a mixture of Christian and Celtic traditions.

            The Angles Saxons and Jutes were Odinists, worshippers of the Norse gods yet the Britions remained free in Wales, in Cornwall, in Brittany and there were plenty of Briton enclaves scattered about. The Anglo-Saxons took about 200 years to completely subdue or displace the Britons, most were kept alive as slaves. How we know this is in a DNA study of England, many of the matrilineal lines are Briton, the Patrlinial line is Germanic/Norse. The Britons practiced a form of Christianity that was in the isles at the time the Romans left and cut off from Rome by hundreds of miles of hostile barbarians in Frankish occupied Gaul and Goths in Italy, the British Church developed seperately, and even had a liturgy I believe in Brythonic and I believe the Churches in Ireland and Scotland had a Liturgy in Gaelic.

            Augustine of Canterbury brought the Roman Catholicism to the Islands but it took over 100 years and countless Italian priests and monks to bring the Latin Rites to England. The Welsh, Scottish and Irish Churches continued for years, The Saxons practiced Roman Catholicism, the Welsh, Irish and Scots didn’t they practiced Celtic Christianity. I believe that the Latin Rites were only established in Scotland by the Norman invaders, in Wales by the Normans and in Ireland by Strongbow though I may not be correct.

            The Saxons were never fierce enough to defeat the Britons completely and they never defeated the Scots or even attempted to invade Ireland

          • I think the Romans staffed the legions in Britain with Batavians and other German groups. The English were already the military machine before Rome formally withdraw the Legions from Britannia. There is very little archeological evidence of a Germanic invasion. The genes in Holland and Kent are a match. That can be accounted for by the use of Batavian auxiliaries.

          • The Angles and Saxon invasion is historical fact, now I personally believe that it was maybe a handful of Saxons against an entire island of Britons and Roman peoples left behind who were just slowly enslaved by the Saxon’s superior military powers.

          • It’s all based on a monk’s account and much if it is suspect. There were plenty of Germans in Roman Legions stationed in Britain before the formal withdrawal. When Claudius conquered Britain he used huge numbers of Germanic auxiliaries and gave them land after victory. Something like old English would have been spoken in Kent during the Roman occupation because of these settlers.

          • Well I’m not sure about all of it I do know of the story of the warlord Vortigern bringing in Saxon troops to help him conquer his enemies so evidently there was some historical evidence for it. The Genetics though clearly shows the majority of the Matrlilineal lines in England go back 10,000 years in the Island it was the male lines where you could trace the invasions. Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire placed some authenticity on the Saxon story

          • Here read about the Batavians.

            They steamed into Kent under Claudius and captured Colchester and other Briton cities.


            The waterway between Kent and Holland is busy and quite short. Based on these very well attested details I’d say that something like English was the language of the farming villages, sailors and fishermen in What is now Kent, Sussex, Essex, Middlesex during the Roman occupation and not imposed later.

          • Yes I saw that BRITAIN AD show which was very good and was about this subject as well about the true origins of English language. I am of the opinion there was some sort of invasion but it was likely much smaller than we were ever made to believe

          • I did not like the conclusions that the archeologist came up with though. Curry as the dish for fucks sake! Good god!

            Well anyway there is a caste iron record of large numbers of Germanic speaking invaders it’s just that it happened in the first century AD and they got a toehold genetically in the fecund and fertile area of Kent and spread from there under the banner of the Empire.

          • There is another factor here though, namely that the entire Anglian tribe crossed the sea and settled in Britain; Bede records Angeln in his time (late 7th-early 8th century) as having been uninhabited since the invasion. The Jutes were probably already established in Kent alongside the Frisians and Saxons. By this theory, both the military settlement and invasion theories hold equal weight and go a long way towards explaining the heavy Germanic DNA in England.

  2. Alex Jones is NOT Alt-Right, and the Real Reason why Hillary’s Masters(the globalist Jews) loathe the Alt Right is because it does NOT peddle in conspiracy theories

    According to Hillary, the Alt Right is all about paranoia and conspiracy-theorizing. Among the villains she mentioned was Alex Jones.

    Alex Jones is a conspiracy-theorist, sometimes right, often wrong. He has connections to the Alt Right, but he is not of the Alt Right. Indeed, most Alt Right people see him as amusing at best.

    The problem with Jones and others like him is they rely on elaborate conspiracy theories because they are afraid to speak the plain truth. Conspiracy theorizing allows them to go around sacred taboos, the violation of which can jeopardize their careers.

    So, instead of Naming the Jew, Alex Jones will talk about the ‘Illuminati’. Or, he will pretend that the Saudis run Hollywood. Or, he will invoke ‘false flag’ operations whenever a crisis hits.

    And people like him will yammer endlessly about silly subjects like GMO’s or vaccination.

    Alex Jones peddles in sensationalism, and his brand of conspiracy-theorizing may entertain on the level THE BOURNE TRILOGY or V FOR VENDETTA.

    But, we don’t need fantasies and exaggerations to know what’s really going on. And this is where Alt Right can make a real difference. Alt Right is Zzzzzzzzzz about most conspiracy theories. Alt Right sees them as diversions from the plain truth of what is really happening and what needs to be said. Alt Right is committed to tackling the obvious truths suppressed by the Narrative than to concocting outlandish theories in the hope of bypassing PC no-go zones. Illuminati? The Masons? Please!

    Alt Right also knows there are limits to ideology. While excesses of socialism can undermine society, the failure of Detroit and other black-dominated cities cannot be explained with ideology alone. After all, even communist Poland, as bad as it was, wasn’t as bad as Detroit or black areas of Baltimore.

    If libertarians, ever fearful of being called ‘racist’, attribute black failure to public education(and lack of charter schools), Alt Right says it like it is. Blacks fail more because they are stronger(therefore hold other races in contempt), more aggressive(therefore less cooperative), and less intelligent. Alt Right doesn’t care about the taboos against speaking such obvious truths. It notices and says what it sees. Alt Right has no use for Rand Paul the ‘Detroit Republican’. Alt Right has no use for NYT ‘progressive’ hacks who cook up ever more outlandish theories to explain why black domination in sports and failure in education. Alt Right knows Weasel Words when it hears them.

    THIS is why the Establishment is afraid of the Alt Right. People like Alex Jones(who are not of the Alt Right) can easily be dismissed for obsessing over chemicals in morning cereals and umpteenth theory of Building 7 on 9/11. They can be mocked as cranks, clowns, or lunatics.

    But Alt Right doesn’t truck in such diversions. It takes a cold hard look at who has the real power in America. Alt Rightists notice the Jews. And they notice that the Jewish-globalist agenda is hostile to gentile populations everywhere. The Zio-globalist policy of Invade-Invite has led to the mass destruction of the Arab/Muslim World and the mass-invasion of the West by uprooted Third World hordes. Alt Right takes notice of this and says it like it is.

    Alt Right also takes notice of the real source of racial problems in the US. It is due to blacks being more muscular/stronger, more aggressive, and less intelligent than other races. Alt Right is about Occam’s Razor or, better yet, Occam’s Laser. It has no use for bogus explanations cooked up by disingenuous ‘progressives’ and craven ‘libertarians’ who either blame ‘system racism’ or ‘socialism’ for the problems stemming from the black community.

    An example of how the Alt Right operates:

    The Alt Right community played a key role in exposing and debunking the UVA fraternity rape hoax. It didn’t have to cook up wild conspiracy theories to do this. It only had to look at the hard facts.

    If anything, it was the ‘progressive’ Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone magazine that had concocted an elaborate hoax about blonde ‘Aryan’ rape gang terrorizing college girls. (I think Hillary topped the Haven Monahan Hoax with Putin-as-grand-poobah-of-Alt-Right. And they said Joe McCarthy was deluded.)

    To this day, NYT has yet to admit that the whole thing was a wild hoax pulled off by a venomous Jewess. Jew denounce ‘tribalism’ among white gentiles, but Jews sure watch out for each other’s backs.

    The Establishment fears the Alt Right because the Alt Right refuses to tiptoe around sacred PC taboos. Alt Right picks up the drill and bores right through the taboos. Also, Alt Right doesn’t fritter away its energy on ridiculous conspiracy theories because it prefers to speak the honest and simple truth about Jewish Power and Black Thuggery.

    Also, Alt Right has no use for mindless brainwashing slogans like “Diversity Is Our Strength”, “Marriage Equality”, “Inclusion”, or “Gay Pride” — ‘pride’ about homo fecal penetration or de-sausaging of the penis to form a fake vagina? Those slogans are weasel Words. After all, if ‘progressives’ really believe in ‘marriage equality’, why don’t they push ‘incest marriage’ or polygamy? Why did Homos get special treatment? Alt Right knows without being told because the facts are so obvious: Jews are the Ruling Minority Elites in the US, and they funded and pushed the Homo Agenda to NORMALIZE minority-supremacist-domination because many homos are successful and well-connected in elite fields. The homo agenda is not about justice or tolerance(though it may have been that in the past). It is about power and domination.

    Alt Right is sober and doesn’t need escapist conspiracy theories to explain or understand the world. Its only tools are honesty, courage, and integrity, which are qualities sorely lacking in all of establishment media and academia totally dominated by PC enforced by Jewish Power.

    Can anyone prove that Jews are NOT the ruling elites of the Western World? Follow the money. Look at Jewish representation in elite institutions and industries. Look at the powerful people around Obama, Hillary, and even Donald Trump. Alt Right is simply the boy who has the guts(seen as ‘gall’ by the Establishment) to say the Emperor has no clothes.

    • They know some people are going to look up the people mentioned in the speech and they don’t want to direct them to the most well written alt-right writers but would prefer they visit the X-files type sites and dismiss it.

    • can we then use the letters JLGC to describe the forces that dominate our society? Judeo-Liberal Globalist Coalition? That covers white liberals, Malevolent Jews, and Plutocratic Globalists.

    • “Alt Right also knows there are limits to ideology. While excesses of socialism can undermine society, the failure of Detroit and other black-dominated cities cannot be explained with ideology alone. After all, even communist Poland, as bad as it was, wasn’t as bad as Detroit or black areas of Baltimore.”

      Yes, although I abhor communism and socialism, I’ve come to realize that social capital is the biggest driver of culture and societal success or failure.

      Having been to Russia in the late 90’s and early to mid 2000’s, it was pretty bad though. Still not Detroit like. But bad.

  3. The difficulty is Maryland was also a slave state, and in the slave states, Blacks owned black slaves.

    I doubt if you asked even Thomas Jefferson or the other Founding Fathers who owned slaves in what sense are all men equal, they would say they have souls, were created by God, and similar, not that they would be physically, intellectually, aesthetically, or spiritually equal.
    Another problem is the bell curve. You can have a Frederick Douglass outlier or other who was smarter than the average white. In recognizing inequality where, how, and on what basis do we draw the line? Do we grant white men with Downs syndrome who are barely verbal the franchise while denying learned and very intelligent black women?

    To return to Jefferson, the next line was that all men were entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or pursuit of property and the things which followed like being secure in their private lives and due process. Even if Blacks were collectively lesser, to say they are chattel property is a stretch, but that is what was being argued by some.

    Do we draw the line at a particular IQ and say any below are now property and can be enslaved or euthanized on that basis?

    Another problem is intelligence is not Morality. Look at the supreme court. If there were 9 Clarence Thomas clones on the court it would be better than the current whites (((and others))). With Scalia gone, he is probably the best we have.

    For the Alt-Right, which is still coalescing, there will be questions if white makes right, or the virtues most often present or unique to whites make right. For a simple example, abortion, which this blog covered well

    C.S. Lewis once considered society as convoy. Ships not running into each other was clear, but less so insuring the ships were seaworthy (so wouldn’t slow or need a tow from other boats or run into them), or the destination and direction of the convoy.

    The left has been pushing a return to port, the cuckservatives have been on deck saying don’t change course until we can check our sextants, but now the alt-right with the enemy shores in sight are saying full reverse!.

    What the alt-right is saying is the white patriarchy is the best thing invented by the human species and everyone is welcome (usually saying Christianity is included – and not churchianity). That includes Milo and Diamond & Silk. It does not include the NRO cucks or the (((neocons))).

    • “Do we grant white men with Downs syndrome who are barely verbal the franchise while denying learned and very intelligent black women?”

      By “the franchise” I presume you mean voting. We can and should select by more than one parameter. We should include limitations such as:
      –Whites only
      –Men only
      –Minimum age (maybe 30)
      –Also include some way to weed out very low IQs.

      If voting is limited to veterans, and they have to pass asvab to get into service, then that would screen out low IQs. Also, it would screen out a lot of hippiefags draft dodger types.

      “Learned and very intelligent black women.”

      Ok, that was funny.

      • Ok, I admit Condoleeza Rice is a bad example and Jocelyn Elders is a counter example, but…
        Originally voters were limited to property owners. This goes back into English history with “The Levelers”, however it is an efficient way to filter those who really want to vote and would be affected by property taxes and other bad policies.
        We do need to repeal the 19th and 17th amendment. The former would return that to the states, so the fierce pioneer women of Wyoming would outvote the New York Cucks.

        • I see your point about property ownership, but then you’d have to say how much property, and you’d have to verify via documentation. It would eventually grow into another IRS. I think a modest poll tax like maybe $20 screens voters just as well and should be a lot less troublesome to administer. Plus it actually generates revenue.

      • Well, what’s clear is that democracy didn’t work. Michael Ironside’s speech in Starship Troopers is very prophetic. On the other hand how centralized do you concentrate power? An IQ based voting system would have Harvard Professors delivering us the same shit were getting today. A one man in total charge was also discredited by the awful, reckless risk-taking of a certain dictator mentioned too often in these comments. One can look at the business world at one man owned companies vs. a board coming to a consensus and also see blind decisions made by one man that destroyed a business. The foolishness of letting blacks vote should be self evident to everyone here, but the acceleration to downfall by the west seems to come hand in hand with female suffrage after the Great War. I always see WWI blamed as the downfall, but was this experiment at the same time the true culprit? A funny little scene that really sums up female nature to fall for the con was the opening of the early 1990s movie “Singles” where that chick falls head over heels for some stranger (pretending to be) European with a line about puppies. We’ve got enough dumb men, mega church pussies, metrosexuals, drugged out commie punks, queers, and henpecked husband weak liberal leaning men voting already; adding white women to the mix finished us off.

        • The Southern Democratic Leaders in the late 1800s/Early 1900s often strongly supported Female Suffrage as in 1890-1920 women were married by 18 and did as they were told. If you came from a Democratic household you would vote Democrat, This was done to guard against the Negro Republican votes as only in the Deep South and Virginia were Negroes disenfranchised. The rest of the South had Negro voting in certain localities. The female vote was seen as a boon for the Democrats.

          Well it didn’t work out that way because once women got the power they began using it against the men. Blowback.

        • Monarchy is very risky. It could be great under a great king, terrible under a terrible king. Even if we started out w the best king ever, we would have no guarantee that his replacement would be good.

          Regarding IQ screen, I would not screen it down to top 1% but we need some way to screen out our simpletons.

          I really like the military service requirement bc it screens out most of the simpletons and also likely screens out some other undesirables. Also, it forever binds power to the warriors, so that draft dodgers are never, ever able to vote again.

  4. Hunter I must congratulate you for this piece as it has said much of the same thing I have got at before. Thomas Jefferson was wrong all the way around, wrong in the Declaration, wrong for pushing for the outlawing of slavery in the Northwest Territory OH IN IL WIS MI were all Virginia Land under the 1607 Royal Charter although there was some overlap around the Great Lakes by CT, NY and MA their charters came later and were thus invalid. The Land Ordinances of 1784 and 85 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 thus denied Virginians and all Southerners their property rights. We went to war in 1775 because of England denying us our property rights among other things, yet Jefferson and his friends did the same in 1784 and no one in the South muttered a word.

    The worst part of Jeffersonianism was that it offered Virginians no incentive to colonize her western land nor to develop it unlike New England with its ample wealth that could pool money together for settlement enterprises. As in the case of Ohio, along the Ohio River near the present city of Parkersburg the first settlement was made by men from Massachusetts and the town was named Marietta for Marie Aintonette and although the Virginians in time outnumbered them in the borderlands, it was long after the Yankees had done their damage and planted the underground railroad on the border of Virginia itself. In fact Virginia owned a huge swath of Ohio;s territory until the 1850s, the land was set aside for Virginia Revolutionary and War of 1812 vets but the land was sparsely settled and sold to speculators who sold a large portion of it to German families coming from Pennsylvania and from Germany itself.

    This same pattern held true in parts of Indiana and Illinois, Virginia offering no incentive toward western settlement watched as others swarmed her land and claimed it for themselves.

    General Bradley T Johnson of Maryland wrote this in his seminal book MARYLAND IN THE CIVIL WAR Chapter II

    Virginia promptly responded by passing her ordinance of secession on the 17th, not, however, to take effect until it had been ratified by a vote of the people, to be cast on the 24th of May; and the governor of Virginia, John Letcher, moved Virginia troops to Harper’s Ferry and “retook, reoccupied and repossessed” that property of Virginia which she had ceded to the Union for the common welfare and mutual benefit of all the States, East and West, North and South. Now that it was being diverted to the injury of part and the exclusive use of one section, Virginia resumed the control of her ancient territory.

    Had she (VIRGINIA) had the power, she would have had the right “to resume possession, control and sovereignty” of all the six States she had ceded to the Union, northwest of the Ohio river. But, alas, her own children, born of her blood and bred of her loins, were foremost in striking at the heart and life of their mother. The Northwest was the most ardent in “suppressing the rebellion, “the forerunner of which had been independence from the British nation and the right of self-government for the English in America, and had breathed into their nostrils the breath of Statehood.

    Tells you all you need to know about Jeffersonianism doesn’t it? Yet these CUCKFEDERATES like DiLorenzo will still hold Jefferson as the patron saint of small government.

  5. One tiny thing to correct Hunter, the South comes from different settlement strains. The Aristocrats in Virginia were largely the descendants of the Anglo-Norman elites in England and the aristocrats of lowcountry South Carolina were French Hugenots. However the largest and most important group of Southerners were Celts, largely from Scotland but also others from Ireland and Wales who came as dirt poor beggers. Some of these settlers originally started out as far north as Boston. As the Anglo-Saxons of Mass hated anyone who wasn’t their kind, the Celts had 2 choices, one was to settle in the mountains of New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont or to move South and most chose to move South and did sowith every generation eventually reaching the Mason-Dixon and crossing it around the time of the Revolution.

    A good example of this Southern movement from New England was (DONT STONE ME FOR THIS EXAMPLE)Lincoln’s family who migrated southward every two generations or so until reaching the South. This was just one example of the exodus from New England. Although not Celtic, this was the pattern of most Scots-Irish families who started in Boston.

    The vast majority of these Celts landed at Philadelphia and moved South along the Great Valley Road. Some continued traveling all the way through North Carolina to Georgia and then west all the way to the Mississippi Country

    The Celts I will argue saved the South from Jeffersonian Liberalism. Virginia was in 1800 the least religious states in the United States because after the collapse of the Anglican Church, many Tidewater Virginia aristocrats were left clueless what do do with themselves spiritually. The Scots Irish in Kentucky and Tennessee started the gigantic religious revivals at Cane Ridge and other places that ended up flooding all over the South and led to the explosion of the hundreds of Baptist groups and other groups that between 1801 and 1861 grew exponentially until the Bible Belt was born about 1850. Odd to know that when the war began in 1861, the Bible Belt was a very new thing, of course the term hadn’t been coined yet but the religious conservative shift almost coincided with the war.

    • You’ll know much more about this than I do, Billy Ray, but the following are a few extra facts for the history.

      Samuel Lincoln, who was Abraham Lincoln’s fourth-great-grandfather, as well as his original American ancestor, came from England to Massachusetts. He was a Puritan. The story of the Lincolns is almost like a James Michener book, in which the history of one family reflects much greater history. Down from New England, they migrated, across generations, through New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Appalachian Virginia, where Abraham Lincoln’s grandfather–also named Abraham–grew up to be an officer in the Revolutionary War. In the 1780s, this grandfather Abraham moved his family into Kentucky–right out through the then-new path of the Cumberland Gap, I’ll guess. There, where he himself was killed by Indians, his grandson Abraham was born in 1809.

      What’s interesting is the somewhat-parallel history of Lincoln’s nemesis, Jefferson Davis. Having come to Philadelphia from Wales in the early 1700s, his paternal grandparents settled in Georgia, where their son grew up to fight in the Revolutionary War. In the 1790s, that son, having married a Kentucky-born girl, moved his family to Kentucky, where their son Jefferson was born within a year or two of Lincoln and not one hundred miles from Lincoln’s birthplace. Who could have foreseen what the ancestral migrations of those two men portended …

      • I feign with disgust to mention the Lincoln Family but only as an example of the migration south from New England that took place in the early 1700’s and it continued for over a century. In fact a New England settlement was planted near Savannah Ga and another large one near Natchez Ms of course they were overtime Southernized but it goes without saying,

        The Celtic migration southward from Pennsylvania and from New England to Pennsylvania and into the South is the most significant

      • If you look at all the mobility in the Colonial days, and there was much more mobility than we think about, there were New England settlements in Savannah, Natchez, and a couple of other places as well not to mention the Germans in Eastern North Carolina. When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, the identity of a Virginian was pretty well solidified, but the rest of the South was still in cultural transition. New England and Virginia were the two original definable cultural regions of the 13 Colonies.

        About 1800 and never ceasing thereafter there was a gigantic exodus of Quakers and Germans from North Carolina most of the Quakers headed to Indiana, the ones who remained had to assimilate or face reprisal. The other exodus from North Carolina swept through SC, GA, AL, MS, TENN, ARK, LA and eventually Texas.

        There was also a mass exodus from Virginia heading west to Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and eventually to Texas. The third amazing expansion were the Hugenots of the South Carolina Low Country coming west into GA, AL, MS, and LA as well and eventually into Texas.

        The three settlement strains is why Texas mirrors each part of the South in bits and pieces.

        Somewhere along the expansion, these folks migrating as family groups began to grow into large tribes and by 1830 realized they were a nation. Slavery was of course a component along with the Souths horrible isolation by its rough terrain and the fact that it was so far from major markets, only two Southern Cities were classified as world market cities, Baltimore and New Orleans in the 1830s and to a lesser extent Savannah and Charleston which by 1830 was fading into obscurity.

        I think the expansion into the west and the gigantic Southern white family fertility helped to create what was defined by Calhoun as the Southern Nation. The problem was in 1830, the Southern Nation controlled the so-called United States and took her control for granted, never realizing that the OPEN BORDERS were slowly eroding her control as the Immigrants artificially grew the Norths electoral votes. For whatever reason Calhouns speeches and his pleading with his brethren went unheeded and at his death in 1850, it could be argued that Calhoun probably thought his efforts to awaken Dixie failed.

        Calhoun like a Prophet died without seeing the fufillment of his prophecy, but it did come.

  6. “Most of our ideas aren’t really new.”

    Liberals would gladly have told you that.

  7. Damn, Wallace is on point in this article…

    To supplement: McKitrick supports the “southerners-for-science” thesis in
    his “Slavery Defended” by arguing that Henry Hughes was one of
    America’s first sociologists and has the honor of being the first
    American to use the word “Sociology” in a book title. Hughes and
    Fitzhugh have been most influential in my own economic thinking and
    defense of slavery. Hughes’ famous book is “Treatsie on Sociology” and
    provides a wealth of as-of-yet untapped material for Southern

    • Oh, sure, I can hear the old slave song now: “I wish I was in de land ob cotton; scientific inquiry there is of the first importance.”

      Since Mr. W., our website host, has mentioned no less a figure than Charles Lyell, let’s see how he, Lyell, gauged the intellectual vitality of old Dixie:

      “While at Richmond, we saw some agreeable and refined society in the families of the judges of the Supreme Court and other lawyers; but there is little here of that activity of mind and feeling for literature and science which strikes one in the best circles in New England.”

      That’s from page 206 of Volume 1 of Lyell’s “A Second Visit to the United States of North America,” published in New York and London, 1849.

      It was Sayyid Qutb, I think, the spiritual father of Al Qaeda, who argued that the scientific method had been developed by the Moslem world, from which Europe had stolen it. Once the swindle had been effected, apparently, the poor, pitiable Moslems had languished, in backwardness, while unscrupulous Europe had flourished. What a sad story, just like that of poor, oppressed Dixie, fallen behind those swindling Yankees, when really it was Dixie where science was getting going in the U.S. all along.


      Here’s the link to Lyell:

      • So, your argument against the “South-as-pro-Science” thesis is an ambiguous anecdote from someone who’s so remote in time and distance (from you) that your ability to properly gauge his sentiment is in question?

          • By the way… I’ve just been reading that Lyell book you cited.

            I’m always interested in first-person accounts of old Dixie. His snobbishness towards Richmond is typical of someone with anti-slavery views, but I find it highly ironic that a few pages after your citation (proving how backward and anti-science the South was), Lyell commends the local coal industry as having “high scientific value” and serving as fascinating case studies.

            While it might be difficult to battle it out with anecdotes (counter-examples to a thesis can always be found), I think it’ll prove difficult to argue against Hunter’s point that the South, in toto, exhibited an exciting trend towards pragmatic naturalism – an attitude that persists among “red-neck” engineers to this day, despite our having majority negro counties in many cases.

          • Presumably, that coal work had its origin in the Virginian geological survey that had been lobbied for and organized by William Barton Rogers, whom Lyell goes on to mention in the passage you’re citing. In origin, Rogers was a Yankee, born, as I was, in Philadelphia, to a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. Eventually, after marrying a Bostonienne, he moved to Boston, where, by his exertion, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was chartered, just two days before the Dixie he’d left behind chose to bombard Fort Sumter, lest the much-more-valuable institution of Negro enslavement be lost to Western man forever. I have a vague recollection, not incidentally, that Rogers was of abolitionist sympathies. I notice, too, that the large and productive coal mine that Lyell mentions by name is owned by an English company and is managed by a former British army officer.

          • The difference between Roman or let’s call it Latin based civilization and what the Anglo created is that the Latins understood how to move things. The Anglo figured out why things moved. That’s the difference between Da Vincis maquettes and the Wright’s and Curtiss respective flying machines.
            Why didn’t your ancestors achieve an industrial revolution?

          • My best guess or, rather, my long-held feeling is that the Anglo, the Teuton, the Northern European–whatever we call him–is a distinct and very-valuable breed, an evolutionary advance. That’s why I give you guys the help that God only knows you need.

            The said advance is apparent not only in science and engineering but in painting, in which, as H. W. Janson pointed out, the Northern Europeans attained what even the greatest of the Italians never did, namely, a mastery of “light.” Compare, below, Rembrandt’s “Danaë” and Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus.”

            In the spirit of exchange, as you see, I’ve stepped over your question’s apparent purpose, which is a needling of me. I’ve put aside, too, my trace of apparent Scottish ancestry, which gives me an ethnic connection, however attenuated, to the inventor James Watt and other notables.

          • Oil paint was the specific innovation. A Dutch invention which gives a long drying time and a permanent finish. This allows complex glazing and opaque layers to be built up that closely imitate optical reality. Holbein was probably the best oil painter exploring this tech and he was Henry VIII court painter.

          • The difference between DaVinci and Wright is ca. 4 centuries of development. Our ancestors didn’t achieve an industrial rev because we were under a foreign boot for centuries.

          • In principle there is no reason that the Romans failed to do what England did industrially in the late 17 hundreds.

            I’m lumping in the Renaissance Italians in with the Romans.

          • No, I wouldn’t be surprised; it’s not an obscure fact. I like Southerners, and I like Brits.

          • I don’t think you’d like me if we met.

            Zealous ideologues (whom I term: cultists) rarely do. They don’t like being reminded of the infinite complexity of historical data and finite man’s inability to grasp more than a provincial handful of it. Observations like that throw the ideologue’s attempt to callously generalize and naively systematize historical data.

      • These great achievements of the Islamic World were largely a continuation of the ancient Greek Civilization despite their conquest by Snake Handling Bedouins and the vicious “faith” that one of their pirates came up with.

  8. Boy, that phrase continues to roll right off your tongue, doesn’t it, Mr. W.? “The failure of free society.” I wonder which one of your commenters here will be first to volunteer for the unfree position in the brave new world you envision. Maybe you yourself will lead the way, by volunteering your son to be fitted with chains. Oh–no. What am I saying? Undoubtedly, he’s a Norman lord, of obscured pedigree.

    I’ll take the innocent South in the Hollywood image below over your antebellum Negro-whipping South any day. Haven’t seen this movie since a summer evening in what must have been 1957, when I was not yet four years old. Huddled in a car with my parents and my two, younger siblings, I stared up at the drive-in movie screen, which rose high and wide before us, like a placard of the mind of God; and even as I was unable to follow the story, the tender feelings on display penetrated my juvenile mind …

    • Were you more familiar with the thesis, you’d know that, technically, all of us here are in the “unfree” position, excepting the super-wealthy commenters.

  9. Ignoring the purely petty regional rise-to-the-occasion uppity Yankee-ness of Mr. ‘bone of contention,’ I’d like to ask HW a question…as well as all the other Southerners on the forum.

    Now that I am living in this area, how do you reconcile this “aristocratic feudal ” paradigm with the modern-day masonic-infested, hyper individualist Southern Baptist, Dispensationalist, Nigger loving sports nut, BUBBA mentality, that is all that seems to be left of the historic south?

    • Very simple. The best of the Aristocracy was killed off during the war in fact the Aristocracy had a much larger death rate than the Commoners as they often served in Calvary Units and such. What aristocrats weren’t killed off were reduced to poverty and over time their descendants often became no different than their dirt farmer neighbors. Very Simple

      • Which war are you talking about? Norman Conquest? Cromwell vs the King? Revolutionary War? Or US Civil War?

        • Well the English Aristocratic attrition is a subject for another time, but the SOUTHERN ARISTOCRACY’s MASS DEATH IN THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES was horrifying as I don’t know exactly how much of the Aristocracy was wiped out but if memory serves me correctly the rate was exponentially higher than that of the common Southern Whites largely because the Aristocrats served in visible areas like the officer corp and in calvary corp. Afterward there was also more death as many committed suicide or died of illnesses brought on by malnutrition because they had no clue how to survive without slaves.

      • So, then, HW -after all is said and done, you want to return to a semi-feudal society, with an aristocratic core, that cannot exist, simply because the aristocrats of a former era, are now all dead from a war that happened 160 years ago!

        Which then means that your thesis is even less tenable then the liberal, Yankee dream of human perfectibility without God; and the thought that with enough education, money, and good wishes, the blacks (for starters) will eventually end up being white men!

        So, are we going to aim for revolution, or just live in our fantasy worlds- whether north or south- until the XXIst century’s “Haiti revolution” happens… and the next (lesser) generation of aristocrats of the white race are genocided by the nonwhites?

  10. This is why Occidental Dissent and the ideas here need to ascend to the head of the movement. The bomb throwers offer no plausible civilization, and thus will never bring over enough normal people to actually get anywhere.

    Traditional society is not only plausible, but stable. Stability is the core demand of this movement, not just in terms of race and culture, but also the overlook problem of man vs machines. I’ll take a Dr Hill and John C Calhoun over Adolf Hitler and Pinochet any day of the week.

    • You cannot compare them, When Communist Revolutionaries try to overthrow your Government and then control the streets you have to fight fire with fire and that’s what Hitler did.

  11. Apropos to the Origin of Species and the Secession of 1865, the discovery in 2010 that non-black humans have neanderthal DNA has been a catalyst of the alt right.

    What you really believe drives you: if you believe in Out of Africa, then race is a social construct, if you believe in Multi-regionalism, then race is real.

    • How long ago did the “Out of Africa” happen, I doubt modern Sapiens came out of the place but Erectus spread, modernized somewhere in Eurasia and then Sapiens gene flow helped to modernize African Erectus. Sapiens probably couldn’t go back to Africa and fully take over due to the diseases which the native Erectus population had resistance, but a hybrid with improved problem solving skills, and disease resistance could. The population would still have the most ancient DNA but modernizing genes could have come from elsewhere. The result: Homo Africanus Criminalus is what we imported to the Western Hemisphere and has become the most destructive non-native species in history ecliping by magnitude the damage of typical things like cane toads in Australia, Tumbleweed and Dandelions here, etc that the ecologists love to talk about.

    • Out of Africa was whitey in some fortified community near Djibouti tiring of fighting off blacks so they build a few rafts and Ferry the group of 200 across the Red Sea. The first example of White Flight.

    • The thing is we are all on the same team for now, here is a reason the Neo Nazi Rockwell approach (Though Rockwell technically was HQ in the South in Virginia across from DC) got traction in the North but didn’t work in the South, the Nazi ethos isn’t easy to communicate into the Southern mindset. Neither would anyone be able to transmit the Southern Mind and Culture to say Germany. Different Regions Different Approaches. Doesn’t make one wrong or the other right,just makes them different.

  12. The founders did not believe “all men were created equal”. When they said men, they were citing WHITE MEN ONLY. This is proved by the fact that ONLY white men were considered to have un-lien-able (inherent) rights and the first immigration act cited ONLY white men of good character.

    The US Corporation “Constitution” unlawfully instituted after the “Civil” War gave blacks US/DC citizenship which bestows upon them privileges which can be retracted at whim. This is the same BS “Citizenship” (slavery) that has now been unlawfully imposed upon all whites.

    • They had sell off the franchise to get enough suckers to fight. Now we have Hillary acting like Caracala making everyone a citizen, even if they haven’t stepped foot in the country.

    • All Men Are Created Equal was Theologically Wrong no matter what the liar Thomas Jefferson claimed he meant. Only two were created ADAM AND EVE the rest have been born into human societies which are organized around race culture religion and yes government.

      The French of course ran with ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and mass murdered hundreds of Christians, Priests, Nuns, you name it and even put Negroes in their government. Thomas Jefferson gleeflully praised France and called it Liberty.

      I don’t think Jefferson was Pro-White at all, in fact he wanted to encourage Interracial Marriage between Whites and Native Americans to end the Indian Wars. Both he and Patrick Henry said miscgenation with the Natives was the only way to civilize them.

      • Yes, State citizenship (National really) was supreme and still is under our common/natural/Christian American law form which is the supreme law of the land.

        As for state citizenship, free negro’s could have “full rights” (Citizen but citizenship is really a form of slavery) but they couldn’t vote (as a State National) even as a landowner because that was reserved for white male landowners only and only white male landowners could be State Nationals.. Am I wrong? If so, please cite something because I believe I am right.

        As for Jefferson I believe you’re right but wasn’t aware that both he and Patrick Henry advocated miscegenation with Indians.

        I am constantly in a fight with a Wo-men named Anna Von Fritz who fancies herself as the “last man standing Judge for Alaska State. She often
        writes very good, informative stuff but she is a Jewess and Feminist Marxist who keeps telling everyone she’s going to get our inheritances via our estates back that have been stolen by the “Jews” of the 3 city states while advocating against white males by way of supporting the invasion of our lands through constant omission of the genocidal threat that this is.

        I for one don’t advocate for any “overthrowing” of the Corporation DC/US but believe that someone like Trump must get in to stop this invasion before the “Jews” pull the plug on us. In such a scenario we could organize and even re-inhabit our old Constitutional Governments before (even after) the collapse; before being the preferable route.

        Either way, we, I believe, must stand on our Declaration which is our enacting clause (citation of authority to exist, change or reform Governments) if we have a fighting chance against the world being set up against us.

        Only in such a way could we start a new form of banking/money system to oppose the “Jews” JWO one that presently, engulfs the planet.

        • Actually Free Negroes did vote and serve in the State Militias in the following states, RI CT NH, MASS, VT, ME, NY(with property) NJ PA, DEL, MD, NC, TN and KY in 1796 the only states that defined them as NON CITIZENS were Virginia South Carolina and Georgia.

          The question of Negro Citizenship was only settled for the new territories west of the Appalachians except for KY and TENN which were extensions of Virginia and North Carolina respectively. Western Georgia to the Mississippi was organized as the Mississippi Territory and the Northwestern Territory was established and Negro citizenship was forever banned in any further territories. However where it existed already it was allowed to stand.

          Kentucky declared Negroes non-citizens in 1799 and it took until 1835 for North Carolina and Tennessee to disenfranchise them. NJ, DEL, MD, RI CT, disenfranchised them between 1800 and 1835 the last Northern state to declare Negroes non-citizens was Pennsylvania in 1838. In 1842 Rhode Island declared them full citizens again under their new Constitution after banning them earlier. This was allowed as RI existed before the Constitution. Negroes remained full citizens in VT, NH, ME, MASS the entire time from the Revolution until the modern day and voted in every election since George Washington. New York only counted them as citizens provided they owned tangible property.

          This was the entire problem with the two citizenships. When Judge Taney in Dred Scott declared Negroes Non-Citizens he was correct they were not Federal Citizens but they were State Citizens in New England and PRE 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court’s rulings couldnt be enforced against the states.

          The Confederate Constitution created a Uniform Confederate Citizenship and did away with Dual State/Federal Citizenship that the 1787 Constitution established.

          • Thank you very much for all of this. Do you have any sources I can confirm? I tend to think you’re right on this matter in certain respects but there is still a distinction between a State National and a State Citizen. One can have “rights” as a Citizen (who’s really a slave because this can be nixed by a vote as you pointed out) and the other (national) rights can’t be nullified.

            So in reality, there are 3 categories. A State National (a white with inherent rights per our declaration), a State Citizen (who’s given privileges that mimic those with inherent rights) and US Citizenship.

            Anyway, if anyone, any state allowed blacks to be State Nationals this would have been in direct violation of the Declaration where only the white posterity were recognized as such which is much like we see today where State Nationals are not recognized nor are State Citizens but only 14th Amendment US Citizenship which are privileges and not rights.

            You might want to check out this Jewess called Anna.

            I have exchanged over 200 emails with her. She claims much the same as you but takes the whole Jew narrative of slavery and the white man is evil to the extreme. It would be nice to see such a knowledgable person such as yourself take her on.


  13. Someone needs to write a book on how there was an Alt-Right before the Alt-Right. Most of our ideas aren’t really new.

    I wonder where the man for the job might be found. You have any ideas, HW?

  14. Hunter you should do a piece on Reverend James H Thornwell, Stonewall Jackson’s Army Chaplain who wanted a Christian Loyalty oath and to amend the Confederate Constitution to include Jesus Christ but it was blocked by Benjamin the Jew and certain Freemasonic forces. Thornwell died soon after his critique.

    The main difference religiously in North and South in 1861 was that the South was religious from the Aristocrats down to the dirt farmer, while religion in the North was slowly becoming an activity of the commoners. So what you had in the North was a religiously ambivilent ruling class largely Unitarian and nominal Episcopalians with a largely faithful people whereas the South was wholly Christian.

    • Now I’m not pleased with the Ashkenazi Culture of Critique, but I can understand the frustration Jews feel with Christianity. Roman peasants a hundred years after the events misinterpreting their religion and taking stories of a failed Jewish Revolutionary who got his ass handed to him and nailed to a cross after his Passover Revolt failed. Then saying “oh it was really all part of the plan! He “died for our sins” and rose from the dead three days later! Nope, I never bought that story even though it was forced on me in Catholic School as a small child.

      • I personally reckon that the OT is a warning about Israel and Sarah and that the NT is a sustained Greek troll operation against Israel and Sarah.

  15. It was the wonderful confederacy that wanted to preserve the existence of Negros in the South and to spread their presence into the Western Territories. It was the hated Lincoln who wanted an all white USA and who advocated repatriating blacks to Africa or to other countries. I do not support the war crimes committed against the Southern people but I do not want Southern slave owners bringing their pet Negros to my white community so they can make fortunes by throwing rank and file white people out of work.

    Freedom didn’t fail. Slave owners failed to make their case to the world and were crushed by the free society they deplored. Unfortunately, they took down a lot of wonderful rank and file Southern Whites with them.

    • Abe Lincoln was a tool of his controllers and I personally believe a political hack with no real stances of his own. He was fine taking his father-in laws slave money for years for contributions to his campaigns and such and his best friend owned a very large plantation in Kentucky.

      The Abolitionist Elites picked Lincoln because as he was born in the South it would make them appear reasonable and cover up their more odious ulterior motives. The problem was Lincoln’s candidacy was so odious being Southern-born that they put a Maine Abolitionist Yankee on the ticket to soften his image in provincial New England. The ruse worked well in the Northeast and to whites in the Northwest Territory States, but the Southern leadership had it pegged from the start and wisely left the union

      After November 8th, 1864 when the Abolitionist Elite realized that Lincoln was no longer needed, they sought to rid themselves of him, knowing that his Vice President elect Andrew Johnson was a Southerner and thus easy to depose. Remember until the 25th Amendment when a Vice President succeeded or died, the office remained empty until the next election. If a President was deposed without a Vice President under the 1792 Act the President Pro Tempore of the US Senate became President.

      John Wilkes Booth unknowingly I believed provided the Radical Congress with a golden opportunity just like the death of Julius Caesar did for those in the Roman Government who wished to nullify the Roman Senate and institute a King. You had to first create a so-called national hero via murder, Booth did this to Lincoln just as Gaius Cassius Longinus and Brutus did for Julius Caesar. Next you replace the man you killed with someone who is pliable or chaos ensues. In the case of the United States Johnson was this man and mass chaos was averted, in the case of Rome, mass chaos reigned until Octavian finally seized power in 27BC and became known as Caesar Augustus.

      Booth strangely enough with his brothers Edwin and Junius played in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and the Virginia Motto Sic Semper Tyrannis is what Brutus was said to have uttered after Caesar fell dead

      • Johnson’s impeachment was the high water mark of the Radical Republicans as they almost managed to control the White House through the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Ben Wade of Ohio but thankfully Johnson’s impeachment was thwarted. He wisely thanked his friends in the South with a universal pardon on Christmas 1868 for a job well done.

        While General Grant was a Radical in some ways and not in others, his administration was all about making corrupt $$$$$$$$ and soon the Radicals found themselves on the outside looking in. By 1877 most were out of power and remained so up until WW for the Jews By that time they had long switched parties to the Democrats.

    • 1.) As Douglas pointed out, Lincoln gave lip service to repatriating blacks in order to win over Democrats.

      2.) Fortunately, slavery is now over and all those slaves are the contraband of the federal government.

      3.) Sure it did.

      Every negative thing Fitzhugh and Carlyle said about free society has only worsened over the last 150 years.

      4.) No one is proposing any revival of slavery. We’re just noting that Fitzhugh and others made some penetrating observations of free society which are still true in our own time.

      5.) Fitzhugh would have been the first to point out that a racially homogenous society would still suffer from all the problems he identified.

      • Economics rules the day and no matter what Lincoln’s personal views on Negroes in the USA were, any effort to remove cheap Negro labor from the United States by anyone would have resulted in the Jew Banksters assassinating them.

        The truth at the end of the day is this. Negro Emancipation was about making cheap Negro labor available to corporations and transferring Southern wealth to the coffers of greedy corporations and Jew bankers. Following the war, the railroads hired thousands of Negroes to work for them laying track not to mention George Pullman who hired every Negro willing to work to become a Pullman Sleeping Car Porter. As a show of thanks every Pullman Car Porter was named GEORGE

        Think about it from a corporate perspective. Suddenly you have available to you a ready made population of strikebreakers and cheap labor. Do you know how many thousands of Negroes were brought into the North and other places solely to break strikes?

        The life of Riley on a Southern Plantation taken care of from cradle to grave versus a wage slave half starved more often than not. That my friends is the true freedom the corporations wanted. They never wanted Negro equality like the Radicals nor anything else, they wanted cheap labor. PERIOD.

  16. ‘Radical’, ‘Extremist’, ‘Subversive’, ‘Heretical’, and etc. are all Relative Fetishes of Changing Politics

    Hillary Clinton and PC commissars may negatively label the Alt Right as ‘extremist’ and ‘hateful’; and the Alt Right might counter by labeling itself ‘radical’, ‘heretical’, or ‘dissident’, but all such tags are relative to the conditions of power.

    When communists were out of power, they were heretical, rebellious, dissenting, subversive, and radical. The ‘reactionary’ or ‘bourgeois’ powers-that-be denounced them as ‘extremist’, ‘hateful’, or ‘destructive’.

    But when the communists took power, they were the New Establishment and the New Normal. And those who had once held the power were denounced as ‘extreme’, ‘hateful’, and etc. And leftist rebellious voices against Establishment Communism were denounced as ‘adventurist’.

    So, the ultimate worth of any vision, ideology, or set of values is not the labels tagged onto itself or by its enemies. Arguably, ALL systems and ideologies are ‘radical’ relative to the conditions of power. What goes by the name of ‘moderate liberal democracy’ would be considered ‘radical’ and ‘extreme’ in Islamic Iran or Saudi Arabia, or in totalitarian North Korea. A communist would be a radical in a capitalist system, and vice versa. Capitalists are dime-a-dozen in America, but they would have been hounded as ‘extreme’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘subversive’ in Stalinist or Maoist China.

    Atheists are commonplace in Western Europe and may constitute the majority of the population. But an atheist would have been seen as ‘extreme’ in the past when virtually all Europeans were Christian and regularly attended Church services.

    There was a time when ‘gay marriage’ would have considered as ‘extreme’ and crazy, indeed even by the biggest Liberals. Today, majority of Americans are resigned to accepting it, and there are even people who feel that ‘marriage for homos’ is the greatest moral crusade of our age.

    So, ‘gay marriage’, once a radical idea, is the New Normal. If anything, it is people who remain resolute in denouncing ‘gay marriage’ who are reviled as ‘extreme’.

    So, what is ‘extreme’? What is ‘radical’? It is relative to who has the power, who controls the Narrative, and who controls the taboos and relics.

    Some in the Alt Right define the ‘movement’ as ‘radical’. It may well be that in the current political climate. But if radicalism defines the Alt Right, what happens if reality were to conform to Alt-Rightism?

    Let’s play a little mind game. Suppose Alt Right wins and gets everything it wants. It gets to define the Official Normal, and most people are instilled with Alt Right ideas and values from cradle. Could the Alt Right still claim to be ‘radical'(or even Alt)? If the essence of the Alt Right is ‘radicalism’, it would lose its raison d’etre the moment it gains preeminence. If it were then to cling to the ‘radical’ label, it would akin to communists waving the revolutionary banner even after its power has been firmly entrenched as the New Normal.

    Consider. Galileo’s ideas about astronomy were once ‘extreme’, ‘heretical’ and ‘blasphemous’. Ultimately however, they came to be accepted as true, and even most uneducated people know that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

    Now, were Galileo’s ideas valuable because they were ‘radical’ in their time or because they were true and correct? If ‘radicalism’ is the highest essence of value, then Galileo’s views would have been rendered worthless the instant the Establishment accepted them as canonical.

    But if the essence of value is truth, it doesn’t matter if his views were deemed ‘extremist’ or ‘official’. Whether only 1% or nearly 99% of the world agreed with him, he would have been right simply because he was right. If Galileo’s core ambition was to be ‘radical’, ‘contrarian’, and ‘heretical'(for all eternity), he should have come up with a theory that could never be accepted by most of humanity. Maybe a theory says the sun is a tiger that plays polka music while the planets, which are actually jelly beans, waltz in space for kielbasa on sale. Now, every generation would find such an idea ‘radical’, ‘outlandish’, and ‘ludicrous’.

    The paradox of people who are labeled(or self-labeled) as ‘radical’ is that their mission is to prove that their views are not actually normal and true. Galileo wasn’t trying to be ‘radical’. He was just being honest, courageous, and truthful. He strove to demonstrate that his views, though denounced as ‘extreme’, weren’t such at all.

    Someone may be targeted as a ‘radical'(in the negative sense) because the powers-that-be and/or the great majority see his visions and values as crazy, ‘extreme’, or ‘unacceptable’.

    Someone may designate himself as ‘radical'(in the positive sense) because he believes himself to be honest, courageous, and principled in saying it like it is even if condemned as outcast by the powerful and/or the unwashed masses.

    However, in either case(and this is very crucial), he would be trying to show that his views are not ‘extreme’ or ‘radical’ and instead should be accepted as the New Normal or, better yet, the True Normal.

    The boy in the story of the EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES was not trying to be ‘radical’. He was just being honest. If his words sounded ‘radical'(or like a crude gaffe), the fault wasn’t with him but with the system that wove a web of lies around the emperor and his flunkies. (One wonders if the weavers in the story were serving or trolling the Cult of the Emperor.)

    So, the Alt Right needs to be wary of labels. Because it finds itself in the ‘radical’, ‘extreme’, or ‘heretical’ position for the time being, it may fall into fallacy that its core agenda is to ‘make trouble’, ‘outrage the establishment’, pull the fire alarm, and etc. What the Alt Right has to do is ask itself, “Does its vision and values have worth even if were to take power as the New Normal?” Will its ‘New Normal’ be just a new fad or fashion, or will it really be the True Normal with Eternal value?

    Indeed, even the notion of ‘alt’ is relative. Alt Right currently offers an alternative because the American Political Narrative has been, for too long, dominated by Democrats and Republicans. But if Alt Right voices become prominent, it will no longer be ‘alternative’. If such time were to come, will it have value other than as a dissident voice? It’s always easier to attack and ridicule those with in the game than to play the game.

    If Alt Right is to have a lasting impact, it must ask itself what its vision and values are apart from its relative position to the conditions of power.

    In a world that insists 2 + 2 = 5, both assertions that 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 6 may be condemned(or praised) as ‘heretical’, ‘extreme’, and ‘radical’ for deviating from the official orthodoxy. Inasmuch as both assertions rebel against the dogma, they may have ‘radical’ value. But once the power that insists 2 + 2 = 5 is removed, 2 + 2 = 4 would continue to have value whereas 2 + 2 = 6 would no longer have value.

    The 6’ers may have had radical value in resisting the oppression of the 5’ers, but in the end, their formula was just as wrong as that of the 5’ers. Once the 6’ers lost their radical chic, they only had the wrong answer to offer. In contrast, even after the 4’ers are no longer deemed ‘extreme’, ‘heretical’, or ‘radical’, their answer still has value(indeed eternal value) because they are correct.

    In a repressive system, ALL voices that resist and challenge the Power may have ‘radical’ value, but once the oppression is vanquished, the only lasting vision and values are one with the truth. Truth, in the end, is neither official or radical. 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether it is asserted by officialdom or radicaldom. In contrast, 2 + 2 = 5 and 2 + 2 = 6 are wrong regardless of their adoption by officialdom or radicalism.

    The ‘radical’ is a mere fetish relative to the conditions of power. Truth, on the other hand, is the real flesh.


  17. Dabney may have said it elsewhere but it bears repeating. Adolf Hitler once said paraphrasing that Revolution begins on the left. I think Revolution can begin from the right as well such examples being the religious uprisings in France during the Revolution and in Mexico during the 1920s.

    Conservatism seeks to conserve a status quo it offers nothing NEW or no real solutions nor does it offer real change. This was why the Conservatives in the Yankee government collapsed so quickly including Andrew Johnson in 1866 because they offer no real vision for the future or to better mankind, just more of the same. Dabney noticed long after the war that people don’t respond to more of the same but to remain relevent they will always accept incremental progressivism and then feign anger at doing so.

    Now compare this to the Southern Nationalist who for the first time since the Mediveal times offered to FIX what was wrong with Southern Society ESTABLISH A society built around moral rules chiseled and stone and a restoration of a more perfect organic society a process that would have taken 50 yrs to see to the end. That is something to build toward. That gave people hope,

    This is what people want a VISION not more of the same

  18. The problem with the South is they have no martyrs now. Only someone laying down their life really matters. Talk is cheap…

  19. The Alternative Right has great ideas and a modern part of Paleoconservativism. However we can’t ignore the Demographic changes in America. The native population (White People) will be a minority in the next few years. We must change that fact “NOW” in America. If not we must work for Secession. Deo Vindice !

Comments are closed.