Review: The Case for Nationalism

Rich Lowry, The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free

Rich Lowry is a Center Right conservative liberal who inherited the mantle and magazine of William F. Buckley, not a nationalist or a populist. It was people like Rich Lowry who purged Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Peter Brimelow who were actual nationalists from the conservative movement in the 1990s and 2000s. It was people like Buchanan, Francis and Brimelow, not Lowry and his True Conservatives, who created the matrix of ideas – immigration restriction, trade protectionism, foreign policy nationalism – that fueled the rise of Donald Trump through the Republican primaries in 2016. Rich Lowry voted for Ted Cruz and National Review did everything in its power to stop Trump in its infamous “Against Trump” issue.

Rich Lowry was so opposed to Trump’s relatively mild version of American civic nationalism at the time that he boasted on FOX News that Carly Fiorina had cut his balls off after one of the Republican debates. He condemned Trump as a populist, not as a conservative. He said that he was wrong for the GOP. He purged Robert Weissberg and John Derbyshire from National Review. David French who Lowry employed at National Review flirted with running as a spoiler candidate in 2016 to elect Hillary Clinton to stop Trump. It is no exaggeration to say that Rich Lowry has been totally opposed to the rise of nationalism for the past 20 years.

Why is Rich Lowry suddenly making The Case for Nationalism in 2019? It is because Lowry and Conservatism, Inc. have been steamrolled like the Center Right has been all over the West by this unstoppable force. It is because National Review was discredited on the Right and has lost so much influence to its competitors after it became associated with Never Trumpism. It is because mainstream conservatives have subverted the Trump presidency, stripped it of its nationalist and populist elements and have used it to their advantage to pass their own agenda. It is because their new strategy is to coopt and tame nationalism and harness its power to prop up mainstream conservatism and their own careers before it fully escapes their grasp.

In The Case for Nationalism, Rich Lowry has four identifiable objectives: the first objective is to position National Review to stay relevant in the 2020s because of his calculation that nationalism will likely only continue to grow in strength on the Right, the second objective is to define the triumph of nationalism in such a way that it is serviceable and manageable by the existing conservative liberal elite, the third objective is to continue to keep real nationalists marginalized and the fourth is to plead with the Left to turn back before it is too late.

In spite of Lowry’s motivations, he devotes the bulk of the book to making some good points which we have made for decades and is being criticized in the mainstream mostly for the points we would agree with. He notes that the American Revolution was an outgrowth of America’s own organic English culture rather than the Patriots suddenly discovering and reading John Locke in 1776 which never happened. He justified the conquest and settlement of the American West. The Statue of Liberty, for example, originally had nothing to do with mass immigration and was seen as a guardian of American purity. The American elite only embraced its current cosmopolitan vision of America as a “Nation of Immigrants” – a sort of miniature version of the United Nations – after the Second World War. This notion that America is only an idea or a proposition or is synonymous with the American Creed is also a product of the mid-20th century. Did anyone else find it amusing that Lowry spent so much time pushing back against the anti-nationalist gospel of conservative liberalism that he himself has cultivated for twenty years at National Review?

There are parts of the book which I agreed with and liked such as the distinction that Lowry draws between fascism and nationalism. The idea that nationalism is synonymous with fascism is an absurd overreaction. Nationalism is an ancient idea and has found expression all over the world. He brings up Joan of Arc during the Hundred Years’ War with France. He brings up ancient Israel and the Greeks who saw foreigners as barbarians. He could have brought up Irish or Scottish nationalism. Nazi Germany was a product of late 19th and early 20th century German cultural currents like militarism, Social Darwinism, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer’s philosophy of the will, eugenics, geopolitical theories that influenced Hitler and countless other things. Adolf Hitler’s aspirations also clashed with British, French and American nationalism.

The problem with Rich Lowry’s account of American nationalism, however, is that what he is describing is Yankee nationalism. The Yankees of New England and the Deep North are a peculiar people with their own customs and history which sharply differentiate them from other Americans. By Yankee, I mean the actual descendants of English Puritans, not to be confused with Northerners, who Lowry describes as migrating from East Anglia to Massachusetts in the 17th century in the time of King Charles I who lost his head in the English Civil War. The Puritans were a Calvinist and covenanting people and their historical experience and the regional culture that they created in the East was unlike anything else in colonial America.

Rich Lowry devotes pretty much his entire account of colonial America and the American Revolution to discussing the Yankees. The American mainstream at the time, however, had far more in common with Virginia than with New England. From New York to Georgia, the American Revolution was much more controversial with resistance to it being concentrated in New York and the Middle Colonies. Pennsylvania was founded as a Holy Experiment by the Quakers, but the colony was full of Scots-Irish and Germans who took over the colony and who did not come to America to partake in a utopian pacifist religious community. New York was a commercial entrepot that was established by the Dutch. The Southern colonies were agricultural and commercial colonies and were settled by people from the mainstream of English culture.

The biggest failing of this book by far is Lowry’s dismissive attitude toward the enduring cultural and ethnic differences between Yankees and all other White Americans. The Scots-Irish, obviously, who settled Appalachia and the Southern backcountry were Presbyterians who believed in individual freedom, but the culture of the Borderlanders was never anything like the Puritans of our Eastern states in spite of coming from Britain and speaking the English language. Similarly, the slave driving, easy going, latitudinarian Anglicans of the Tidewater and the Low Country who came to the South from the West Country and Barbados and replicated its culture of manorialism were never anything like the Puritans of East Anglia either, nor was the bulk of the White population in the South which immigrated here as indentured servants and who were drawn from the mainstream of English society, not from a highly self conscious, dissenting minority.

I could easily write a book about all the marked differences: the founding settlers of the South saw their sunny, fertile region as the Garden of Eden waiting to be filled up with enterprising planters and agricultural laborers, not as a frigid, howling and threatening wilderness like the founders of the East. The West Country gentlemen who first envisioned an English Empire in North America were motivated by geopolitical rivalry with Spain and commercial success. They came as conquerers to Virginia like the Spanish in Mexico. In addition to the difference between Anglicanism and Scottish Presbyterianism and English Puritanism, the South and East differed from the beginning in everything from settlement patterns to religious attendance to racial demographics to foodways to the orientation of their respective economies. Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were all named after English royals. The Southern cultural elite modeled itself on the English gentry of the West Country and Southerners came to the New World from different parts of Britain for different reasons.

The American Nationalist tradition also runs through the Virginia Dynasty (Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe) and through Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk in Jacksonian America through Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Jefferson envisioned a White Republic of small farmers that would disperse out across the North American continent to create his “Empire of Liberty.” This ideal of America as being a White Man’s Country was affirmed in the Dred Scott decision in 1857. Jefferson wanted to avoid creating large metropolitan areas teeming with urbanites who were alienated laborers with corrupted morals who were prone to social revolution. It was largely Southerners who wrote the Declaration of Independence and who created the Constitution for their posterity (every Southern state defined posterity as White), who dominated the country from Washington through Lincoln, who as the Democracy acquired virtually all the territory of the continental United States (Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, California and the Southwest, the Gadsden Purchase) and who cleared out the Indians over the objections of the Hamiltonian nationalists of the East who opposed the Louisiana Purchase (Jefferson’s Swamp), blocked the annexation of Texas and opposed the Mexican War before destroying the country in the War Between the States to abolish slavery and enfranchise blacks.

As a Yankee and Eastern conservative who lives in New York City as an isolated Ted Cruz voter surrounded by a sea of liberals, Rich Lowry is deeply uncomfortable with White identity and White Nationalism. The Southern pole of American Nationalism, however, has historically had no problems with it. White identity emerged in the Chesapeake even before plantation slavery was established there through vicious wars of extermination with the Powhatan Indians. From the 1640s to the 1960s, the South had a racial caste system. The Age of Jackson was the age of Herrenvolk Democracy. There was a marked retreat in the Early Republic and antebellum era from the egalitarianism of the American Revolution with even Pennsylvania changing its constitution in 1838 to eliminate black citizenship. Rich Lowry sees slavery, white supremacy, segregation, racism, populism and so forth as “sins” of the South’s bigoted regional culture. Presumably, we were all evil down here until we were redeemed by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1965.

From the time of Lincoln to FDR, Rich Lowry’s Yankee ancestors were ascendant over America. The American nationalism that he appeals to as a force for good during the War Between the States was a sectional Northern nationalism. The GOP dominated America until the Great Depression when Herbert Hoover and conservative liberalism was discredited by the Crash of 1929. FDR came to power by winning all the Southern states and combining them with Northern Catholic voters who had previously been divided over cultural issues like Prohibition during the 1920s. The Northern WASP elite lost control over America in this period to the Jews and their black and Catholic allies in the Democratic Party especially during the JFK presidency.

As with Rusty Reno in Return of the Strong Gods, Rich Lowry addresses the Jewish Question without explicitly naming it as such. He focuses on Horace Kallen who he blames for multiculturalism and Howard Zinn for deconstructing and vandalizing American memory in his highly influential work of revisionist history A People’s History of the United States. He alludes to our hostile Jewish elite on the Left and their ongoing project of tearing down and deconstructing the historic American nation. In his book, Reno brought up the influence of Karl Popper and Jacques Derrida in forming what he calls the postwar consensus around the weakening of Western culture, but of course we know the Jewish Question is much larger than either Lowry or Reno are willing to candidly discuss due to the power of the charge of “anti-Semitism.”

In the final analysis, Rich Lowry has nothing to offer in The Case for Nationalism but an inclusive and milquetoast American nationalism in which we tear down all of our Confederate monuments and miscegenate to become a coffee colored race that finally becomes one with the American negro, an embrace of our future as the Brazil of North America while convening around a Samsung flatscreen television to watch the Dallas Cowboys at the Superbowl:

“We should have a more capacious and merciful self-understanding. We all are Thomas Jefferson and W. C. Handy, the Pilgrims and Frederick Douglass, British and African, black and white, sitting at a vast Thanksgiving table within sight of an an enormous flat-screen tuned to a Lions or Cowboys game under the watchful gaze of a red, white, and blue–bedecked Eagle, sharing, laughing, squabbling, commiserating, and doing it all loudly in the distinct, instantly recognizable American style that makes its indelible imprint on us all.”

As someone who also has blood from East Anglia, I do not wish this fate upon our Yankee cousins (they are our next of kin) who in their foolish and neverending utopian quest to assimilate the American negro based on the assumption that racial differences are the result of prejudice – a project which has failed miserably since the Brown decision in 1954 – have only succeeded in dissolving their own identity and culture. If our blacks are finally absorbed and fully made equal in America at the cost of erasing us at the genetic level, Rich Lowry is fine with that too.

“The conception of America as an ethnic nation, dominated first by British American Protestants, then more broadly by white Christians, and buttressed throughout by a racial caste system, wasn’t sustainable and shouldn’t have been sustained.”

The South is still dominated by White British Protestants.

It was sustainable here and it should continue to be sustained too. Forever.

If America is to have a future, then it will have to be dominated by our version of American nationalism, which is equally American, not by Rich Lowry’s flaccid Eastern conservatism. We need to return to the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and plain spoken populism, not Alexander Hamilton’s elitism. The only nationalism and conservatism that we need is that of our ancestors here in the South – one that is more mindful and respectful of the rights of the states – and I suppose in the Midwest too which has been wisely cautious about foreign wars.

Can someone please tell Rich Lowry that he is not a negro because he listens to jazz? Both the Southern White man and the Southern black man find that hilarious.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Lowry’s “brazilian nationalism”: miscegenate, consume product, and quietly disappear. I don’t think I will. I resolve to work toward making lowry and his ilk disappear.

      • 🙂 Good one 69. And ANOTHER awesome article by the great Wallace !!! Keep exposing these Judas’s. On the other side of Nationalism, ( eg., our side, ) I argue no one’s DOING anything. I mean ZERO. Not even getting the Confederate CONVERSATION … for crying out loud man … a lousy CONVERSATION going. It’s sad, but … better late than never.

        We are IN the end times. We NEED a FORT of a nation. We need A VERY ENLARGED CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA FOR WHITE CHRISTIANS ONLY … and we need it yesterday. Things are going to get WAY worse, and we need to fort up. What’s coming ? 🙂

        Watch part one, then part 2, then get this guys film at Vimeo. Also remember Rebecca Sterling, ( also at Vimeo – Diary, ) claimed (((they))) are extra DIMENSIONALS not extra terrestrials. It doesn’t matter if you believe. This IS happening and we need a FORT from which to live free and well in these last days …

  2. This is one of the best cases of “I read it so you wouldn’t have to” I have seen. Thank you for your uncontrollable intellectualism.

  3. “If America is to have a future, then it will have to be dominated by our version of American nationalism, which is equally American…”

    I would defend the proposition (and it’s probably a minority view, even in our circles) that the Southern Nationalist doesn’t have an equal claim to being American; he has the superior and only claim.

    • HW, and all True Americans. We Whites need to take a lesson from the Eastern Orthodox. When it is decided that someone (say, like Origen) is a heretic, he is FOREVER a heretic.


      DEATH to the Jew World Order.

  4. According to this effete, politically correct pansy the South wanted independence from the Union because of slavery. That disingenuous statement renders the rest of his argument invalid.

  5. No, Lowry is a big problem for America (which is named after a slaver). He believes that slavery is a sin and justification for dispossessing white people. No, it is NOT!. The South needs to put a stop to this Second Reconstruction and take all Southern white children out of these anti-White liberal indoctrination (education) centers and teach them OUR history based on OUR values and build our civilization back up to where it should be. The South is the only region that can stop this takeover of America by these (latent?) homosexual anti-White demons.

    God Save the South!

  6. American freedom was initially about economics; making money while not being under the English aristocracy’s interfering thumb. Some, like Hamilton (as you suggested), wanted a “natural,” homegrown aristocracy here, though. For them, having a limited “kingdom” like under a feudalist state would preserve their hegemony. The wanna-be aristos conspired against the Articles because of that desire. The populist angle was that even the plebes could have their own farms, or strike out on their own in the wilderness to avoid being fucked with by the elite planters and slavers. That viewpoint came to the fore under Jackson, as you pointed out. The utopian element represented in the northeast was always the one that verged on the chaotic. Many of those states almost left the union early on, more than once. It would’ve been better for us if the US had broken apart into separate nations. There then wouldn’t have been the concentration of federal power that led to 650,000 men dying over the issue of secession.

  7. neverending utopian quest to assimilate the American negro based on the assumption that racial differences are the result of prejudice

    What’s the old saying? Southerners don’t mind living next to Negroes as long as they aren’t uppity. Northerners don’t mind Negroes being uppity as long as they don’t live next to them.

    I’ve long been amused at how, say, Vermont is the “least racist” state, while Alabama is the “most racist” state. They say that “racism” is caused by “ignorance” yet Whites who actually have daily interactions with Blacks are the “most racist” and the states with no Black people – like Vermont – are “not racist” – because they are literally ignorant in the dictionary definition sense of the term.

    In any case, White vs. Black is an unsolvable problem and right now, in America 2019, the major issue is mass immigration, most of whom are not African/black. Yet the “Victim Status” that American Blacks get because of slavery is being transferred to Indian H1-B visa tech guys, ultra-rich Chinese investors, and Mexican cartel mules.

    “Anti-racism” isn’t pro-Black, it’s just anti-White.

    Ann Coulter is the only (nearly) mainstream Republican who gets this. Fine, black slavery. But whatever “victim status” American Blacks get from slavery obviously doesn’t translate to foreign non-white “immigrants.” That is simply anti-whiteness.

  8. As I have written about this matter regarding R. Lowry’s nationalism.

    For what ever reason Lowry cannot complete the proverbial ‘circle’ of nationalism.

    For us in Europe especially in Southern Europe, nationalism can only have one identity, meaning.

    Nationalism is the socio-political – ideology if you like – that promotes the interests and well being of the Ethnos ( a term to describe a homogeneous society made up of people with common culture, lineage, traditions, language and common outlook/philosophy of the Cosmos/World view – Identity).


    Ethnos is the plural identity of that racially specific people that make up that plural homogeneous society.

    In other words:

    Race = Ethnos = Nation

    in the Hellenic language we do not have the word ‘Nation”. For us, ‘Ethnos’ has the same meaning as Nationhood does for the English speaking people.

    • And the same applies to the false understanding of the “Great Commission.” “All the Nations” means ALL THE TRIBES of ISRAEL that were dispersed during the Assyrian and Babylonian Captivity- it NEVER meant the inclusion of the Non-White, Non-Adamic, Non-Christians races of the ‘Ecumene’- the In habited world of the first century. Christendom= White Europe= God’s Israel.

      Non-Whites=Esau=Edom=Khazars= Satan’s seed. Gen. 3:15, Gal.

        • He was a EUNUCH. I would be happy if all nappy-headed ho’s were EUNUCHS, too.

          Moreover, the term ‘Ethiopian’ is NOT coterminous with the modern nation of African Ethiopia. Your Biblical illiteracy is showing. Unless, you are one of (((them))). Then, sorry. But no. As the Christogenea website makes quite clear:

          ‘Cush (Genesis 10:6). Before beginning a discussion of Cush (or Kush), it is quite important to acquire an understanding of the word “Ethiopian”, as the Greeks called the Cushites, as the word Kush is often translated in our Bibles, and as we call the people found inhabiting the land of Kush in Africa today. Our “Ethiopian” comes from the Greek word ?????? which properly means “shining face”, “glowing face” or “sunburnt face”, and was certainly not used by the earliest Greek writers to describe the naturally dark races. There are several words used to describe “black”, “swart”, “dark” etc. in Greek which are often applied to people, among them being ?????, ????????, ????? and ?????. Other words meaning “dark” but apparently not applied to people are ??????, ??????, ??????, ??????, ????? and ???????.

          A word akin to ?????? is ?????, which the large 9th edition of Liddell & Scott defines as “burnt…II. shining…red-brown…”. The 1996 Revised Supplement to this edition inserts after burnt “perhaps black- or dark-complexioned”, and emends shining to bronze-coloured. The black I must reject. Red-brown describes a sun-tanned Caucasian, and not a dark-skinned negro who only gets blacker in the sun. It seems that the definition of these words have indeed, over time, been politically corrected.

          Other words related to ?????? are: ????? “fiery, burning…of metal, flashing, glittering…”; ???? “to light up, kindle…”; ????? “clear sky, fair weather”; ?????, the closest, “fiery-looking, of metal, flashing; of wine, sparkling” but according to Liddell & Scott (the source for these definitions), someone in the Greek Anthologies, a late and wide collection of Greek inscriptions and miscellaneous writings mostly from well into the first millennium A.D., either translated or used ????? as “swart, dark” however this is clearly contrary to the true spirit of the word’s meaning. Applied to Kush, a White man, or his White descendants, it could only mean “sun-burnt” as in bright red or brassy-colored, which is something which happens only to Caucasians in the outdoors, and is exactly what one may expect Kushites in Ethiopia to look like!

          Moses fled Egypt, as recorded in Exodus chapter 2, and met with a tribe of the Midianites, descendants of Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2) from whom he took a wife. These Midianites lived in the land of Kush, as can be discerned from Numbers chapter 12. Abraham had originally sent his sons by Keturah “eastward, unto the east country” (Genesis 25:6) and surely this “east country” is that land which is called Kush (Ethiopia in the A.V.) at Genesis 2:13. [Wherever we see Ethiopia in the Bible, the Hebrew word is Kush.] Nimrod, the Kushite, founded the first Adamic empire (Genesis 10:8-12) which evidently spread far and wide, beyond Mesopotamia to where we have the Hindu-Kush mountains of today. The river of Genesis 2:13 “that compasseth the whole land of Cush” in Moses’ time may even be the Indus, if not some other lost river, for it is evident that the events which caused the Deluge of Noah may have changed the geography of the area. Moses certainly did not go to Ethiopia in Africa for his wife, and there are no Midianites ever spoken of as being there.

          In Hesiod’s Theogony, probably written in the 7th century B.C. [I had dated it to the 8th century BC in the original version of this paper], Memnon, legendary King of the Ethiopians, was the son of Eos, or “Light”. In the Aethiopis by Arctinus of Miletus, written as a sequel to Homer’s Iliad, Memnon the Ethiopian aided the Trojans in their war against the Greeks, only to be slain by Achilles. Herodotus mentions the “Ethiopians of Asia” (3.94), and although he also describes black and wooly-haired so-called “Ethiopians” (3.101, 7.70), I will refer to Diodorus Siculus for a more complete picture below. Herodotus calls Susa, the famed capital city (along with Persepolis and also the Median city Ecbatana) of the Persian Empire the “city of Memnon” (5.53-54), since the Greeks believed that Memnon had founded that city (Strabo 15.3.2). There being abundant proof that the Persians of the Greek histories were White, it cannot be imagined that they thought Memnon to be black. Herodotus was writing at an already late time in Ethiopian history, when the ancient nation below Egypt, and Egypt itself, had already been overrun with Nubians.

          Diodorus Siculus, relating the tradition concerning Memnon, has Ethiopia in Asia sending aid to the Trojans, including Assyrians and “men of Susiana” (2.22.1-5, 4.75.4), although Diodorus also records the claims of the Ethiopians of Africa, that that place was the home of Memnon. Among others, Apollodorus records the myth that Perseus, legendary founder of the Persians, married Andromeda, daughter of the Ethiopian King Cepheus and his wife Cassiepea, after rescuing her from a sea monster, an event said to have taken place at Joppa in Palaestine, which Josephus the Judaean historian also discusses (Apollodorus 2.4.3, Josephus, Wars, 3.9.3 (3:420)). So the Greeks have many witnesses of an “Ethiopia” in Asia, in lands and cities known to be inhabited by Whites, and with people taking part in some of the first events recorded by the White poets of Europe, and the Hebrews have a Kush in a land which may surely be supposed to be the same as the Greek, yet the Hebrew record is not much earlier than the events the later Greeks were recording (i.e. Exodus and death of Moses, c. 1450 B.C.; Trojan War, c. 1185 B.C.), and as a third witness, we have a Kush (the Hindu-Kush mountains) on our modern maps not much further east than where the Greek and Hebrew records tell us that the ancient district was situated.”

          More at:

      • I agree !! Many of your points are spot on.

        It is true that Christ Blessed the Ethnics and the Nations of Man, of which the New Israel or the New Covenant, with God Incarnate i.e. Christ, has been forged.
        The first New Testament was written in Assyrian, next Greek then Latin.

        Almost all of Middle East in the Anno Domini era, those in that region lands that were occupied by Assyrians, Egyptians, Philistines, Sumerians/Babylonians, Minoans(Hellenes), Mycenaeans(Hellenes), Romans, Normans/Saxons, Gauls and a small faction (little Judea) of people from the tribe of Judah.

        Middle East is OURS – Always Has been a European/Christian Land !!

        As E. Michael Jones quite correctly points out, Christians are the New Israel.

        And that is why the Jewish religion which is based on the Talmud NOT on the Torah, indoctrinates its followers to hate Christians.

        Brother in Christ, we need and we shall have, a new modern day Crusade !

        Jerusalem – in Greek how is it written ??
        Then ask, an orthodox or a Catholic priest what meaning is given in the Hellenic Language. Then try to find out why the jewish written language has NO Written VOWELS – but subjectively IMPLIED!!!!!

        (that is why Nationalism in the Southern Europe is a Revisionist Nationalist movement).

  9. I watched an interview on PBS with Lowry- he’s weak! The whole mini-society of journo-pundits, intellectuals, political media figures, former military brass analysts and others like Lowry, Coulter, Levin, Savage, etc. who profit handsomely for not stirring things up too much and producing these mediocre books of shallow and agenda driven commentary every year or two fills me with contempt! Some of them have sweat-ass royalties and bonuses in their contracts! And many of these book deals are simply a return on investment and/or a quid pro quo. Wasn’t that $65 million advance that Obama received a couple of years ago on his book a dandy? Oh! And to have an autographed copy, what a treasure!

    Tired of these weasels peddling their poison!

  10. Thanks for the read.

    I had no intention of reading Lowry’s work because I thought, and you confirmed, it would be Con Inc. trying to get out ahead of our tribal future and redirect it back into Con Inc.

    Same with Hazony’s book.

  11. I did hear him interviewed on the radio. His nationalism struck me as more of the same and cowardly to a certain extent in that he recognizes the Middle East and Africa is chaotic because British and French imperialists drew up the borders containing various tribes or ethnicities who hate each other. And yet when he comes to America he wants one nationalism united by Liberal-Egalitarian Enlightenment era dogma.To the contrary I would like to see all of red state America-not just the South-decouple itself from the United Soviets and become an independent Heartland Republic and a white Heartland Republic at that! After all the Heartland contains the greatest reservoir of German genes on Earth and it was also Southern ex-patriots who help settle it fleeing Reconstruction..

Comments are closed.