Dixie
I’ve found a delightful surprise in the bookstore: “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.”
This new book (it was published September 30th) is a successor to Joel Garreau’s The Nine Nations of North America (1981) which has been a subject of much discussion on this website. It seems that we weren’t alone here in writing about the United States and Canada as dysfunctional multinational federations which are giving way to emerging ethnostates.
According to Woodward, there are 11 regional subnations in North America:
(1) New France – Quebec and Louisiana.
(2) Greater Appalachia – Scots-Irish Upper South/South Midwest.
(3) Deep South – Core Confederacy.
(4) Tidewater – Eastern Virginia, Northeast North Carolina, East Maryland, South Delaware.
(5) Yankeedom – New England, New York State, North Pennsylvania, Northwest Indiana, Western Reserve Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Eastern Dakotas, Far North Illinois, Eastern South Dakota, Eastern North Dakota.
(6) New Netherland – NYC, North New Jersey, Southwest Connecticut.
(7) Midlands – Ontario, Central North Dakota, Central South Dakota, Iowa, Eastern Nebraska, Central Kansas, Western Oklahoma, Northwest Missouri, Central Illinois, North Indiana, North Ohio, Central and Southeast Pennsylvania, South New Jersey, North Delaware, North Maryland.
(8) El Norte – North Mexico, South Arizona, South Texas, East New Mexico, South Colorado, Southeast California.
(9) Left Coast – Synonymous with Ecotopia.
(10) Far West – Synonymous with Empty Quarter. Montana, Wyoming, North Colorado, Western North Dakota, Western South Dakota, Western Nebraska, Western Kansas, Utah, North Arizona, Nevada, Idado, East California, Western Oregon, Western Washington, Alberta, Saskatchewan, East British Columbia, West Manitoba.
(11) First Nation – Indian region of North Canada
Four introductory essays to this book can be found here, here, here and here which describe all the subnations.
In 2008, with the U.S. divided between red states and blue states, then-candidate Barack Obama called for unity over division, a common shout-out among politicians and others determined to preserve America’s under- siege, allegedly shared values. Yet such calls ignore the fact that there are no shared “American values.” We’ve always been divided. And not truly along state lines.
America’s most essential and abiding divisions stem from the fact that the U.S. is a federation composed of the whole or parts of 11 disparate regional cultures — each exhibiting conflicting agendas and the characteristics of nationhood — and which respect neither state nor international boundaries, bleeding over the borders of Canada and Mexico as readily as they divide California, Texas, Illinois or Pennsylvania. The differences between them shaped the scope and nature of the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and, most tragically, the Civil War. Since 1960, the fault lines between these nations have been growing wider, fueling culture wars, constitutional struggles and those ever- present pleas for unity.
These “nations” have been with us all along.
In this book, Garreau’s “Ecotopia” has become Woodward’s Left Coast, Garreau’s MexAmerica is Woodward’s El Norte, Garreau’s Empty Quarter is Woodward’s “Far West” minus the Indian sections of North Canada, Garreau’s Dixie has been subdivided into Tidewater, Deep South, New France, and Greater Appalachia, Garreau’s New England has been expanded across the Deep North to the Dakotas, Garreau’s Quebec has been hitched to South Louisiana as New France, South Florida isn’t addressed, and Garreau’s Foundry has been cannibalized and reduced to “Midlands.”
The greatest mystery that strikes me is how Dixie has been subdivided into Deep South, Tidewater, New France, and Greater Appalachia. After flipping through the book, my first impression is that there is an intelligent explanation for this.
“The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Islands, and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain, each with their own religious, political, and ethnographic characteristics. Throughout the colonial period, they regarded one another as competitors – for land, settlers, and capital – and occasionally as enemies, as was the case during the English Civil War, when Royalist Virginia stood against Puritan Massachusetts, or when New Netherland and New France were invaded and occupied by English-speaking soldiers, statesmen, and merchants. Only when London began treating its colonies as a single unit – and enacted policies threatening to nearly all – did some of these distinct societies briefly come together to win a revolution and create a joint government. Nearly all of them would seriously consider leaving the Union in the eighty-year period after Yorktown; several went to war to do so in the 1860s. All of these centuries-old cultures are still with us today, and have spread their people, ideas, and influence across mutually exclusive bands of the continent. There isn’t and never has been one America, but rather several Americas.
Woodward accurately explains the last 150 years of American history as a clash between a “Dixie bloc” and a “Yankeedom bloc.” The various subregions within Dixie such as New France, Greater Appalachia, and Tidewater have consolidated since the demise of slavery in the War Between the States.
I have long made this argument:
“The United States had Founding Fathers, to be sure, but they were the grandfathers, great-grandfathers, or great-great grandfathers of the men who met to sign the Declaration of Independence and to draft our first two constitutions. Our true Founders didn’t have an “original intent” we can refer back to in challenging times; they had original intents. . .
Few have shown any indication that they are melting into some sort of unified American culture. On the contrary, since 1960 the fault lines between these nations have been growing wider, fueling culture wars, constitutional struggles, and ever more frequent pleas for unity.
The War Between the States and the “Second Reconstruction” (a term explicitly used by Woodward) is explained as a fundamental collision between the Dixie bloc and the Yankeedom bloc.
“The Deep South was founded by Barbados slave lords as a West Indies-style slave society, a system so cruel and despotic that it shocked even its seventeenth-century English contemporaries. For most of American history, the region has been the bastion of white supremacy, aristocratic privilege, and a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was a privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. It remains the least democratic of the nations, a one-party entity where race remains the primary determinant of one’s political affiliations.
Beginning from its Charleston beachhead, the Deep South spread apartheid and authoritarianism across the Southern lowlands, eventually encompassing most of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana; western Tennessee; and the southeastern parts of North Carolina, Arkansas, and Texas. Its territorial ambitions in Latin America frustrated, in the 1860s it dragged the federation into a horrific war in an attempt to form its own nation-state, backed by reluctant allies in Tidewater and some corners of Appalachia. After successfully resisting a Yankee-led occupation, it became the center of the states’ rights movement, racial segregation, and labor and environmental deregulation. It’s also the wellspring of African-American culture, and four decades after it was forced to allow blacks to vote, it remains politically polarized on racial grounds. Having forged an uneasy “Dixie” coalition with Appalachia and Tidewater in the 1870s, the Deep South is locked in an epic battle with Yankeedom and its Left Coast and New Netherland allies for the future of the federation.
There is a lot of truth in this book – especially as it relates to the “Ecotopia” subnation of the West Coast, and the peculiarities of Yankeedom. We are going to spend at least a week discussing this and comparing and contrasting American Nations with the Nine Nations of North America.
What’s the Left Coast? This is the only place where “West Coast White Nationalism” could possibly thrive:
A Chile-shaped nation pinned between the Pacific and the Cascade and Coast mountain ranges, the Left Coast extends in a strip from Monterey, California, to Juneau, Alaska, including four decidedly progressive metropolises: San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. A wet region of staggering natural beauty, it was originally colonized by two groups: merchants, missionaries, and woodsmen from New England (who arrived by sea and controlled the towns) and farmers, prospectors, and fur traders from Greater Appalachia (who arrived by wagon and dominated the countryside). Originally slated by Yankees to become a “New England on the Pacific: – and the target of a dedicated Yankee missionary effort – the Left Coast retained a strong strain of New England intellectualism and idealism even as it embraced a culture of individual fulfillment.
Today it combines the Yankee faith in good government and social reform with a commitment to individual self-exploration and discovery, a combination that has proven to be fecund. The Left Coast has been the birthplace of the modern environmental movement and the global information revolution (it is home to Microsoft, Google, Apple, Twitter, and Silicon Valley), and the cofounder (along with New Netherland) of the gay rights movement, the peace movement, and the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Ernest Callenbach’s 1975 sci-fi novel Ecotopia imagined the U.S. portion of the region as having broken off into a separate, environmentally stable nation at odds with the resent of the continent. The modern secessionist movement seeks to create the sovereign state of Cascadia by adding in British Columbia and southern Alaska as well, creating a “bioregional cooperative commonwealth.” The closest ally of Yankeedom, it battles constantly against the libertarian-corporate agenda of its neighbor, the Far West.
Garreau and Woodward are both in agreement that the American North is several different places: it is Yankeeland, Nation of Immigrants/Midlands/Foundry, Ecotopia/Left Coast, and the New York City metropolitan area which is a city-state.
What is Yankeeland?
Yankeedom was founded on the shores of Massachusetts Bay by radical Calvinists as a new Zion, a religious utopia in the New England wilderness. From the outset it was a culture that put great emphasis on education, local political control, and the pursuit of the “greater good” of the community, even if it required individual self denial. Yankees have the greatest faith in the potential of government to improve people’s lives, tending to see it as an extension of the citizenry, and a vital bulwark against the schemes of grasping aristocrats, corporations, and outside powers. For more than four centuries, Yankees have sought to build a more perfect society here on Earth through social engineering, relatively extensive citizen involvement in the political process, and the aggressive assimilation of foreigners. Settled by stable, educated families, Yankeedom has always had a middle-class ethos and considerable respect for intellectual achievement. Its religious zeal has waned over time, but not its underlying drive to improve the world and the set of moral and social values that scholars have sometimes described as “secular Puritanism.”
From its New England core, Yankee culture spread with its settlers across upper New York State, the northern strips of Pennsylvan ia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa; parts of the eastern Dakotas; and on up into Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Canadian Maritimes. It has been locked in nearly perpetual combat with the Deep South for control of the federal government since the moment such a thing existed.
Yankeeland’s greatest achievement since the Emancipation Proclamation and the Progressive Movement and the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement and the Great Society … was the election of Barack Hussein Obama, our first black president, in the year 2008.
For 150 years, Yankeeland has been opposed by Dixie which has resisted every single one of these utopian social engineering schemes from abolitionism to civil rights to women’s liberation to gay marriage.
What is the Cracker Nation? That’s where the Hoosier Nation is located.
Greater Appalachia was founded in the early eighteenth century by wave upon wave of rough, bellicose settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands. Lampooned by writers, journalists, filmmakers, and television producers as “rednecks,” hillbillies,” crackers,” and “white trash,” these clannish Scots-Irish, Scots, and north English frontiersmen spread across the highland South and on into the southern tiers of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois; the Arkansas and Missouri Ozarks; the eastern two-thirds of Oklahoma; and the Hill Country of Texas, clashing with Indians, Mexicans, and Yankees as they migrated.
In the British Isles, this culture had formed in a state of near-constant war and upheaval, fostering a warrior ethic and a deep commitment to individual liberty and personal sovereignty. Intensely suspicious of aristocrats and social reformers alike, these American Borderlanders despised Yankee teachers, Tidewater lords, and Deep Southern aristocrats. In the Civil War much of the region fought for the Union, with secession movements in western Virginia (creating West Virginia), eastern Tennessee, and northern Alabama. During Reconstruction the region resisted the Yankee effort to liberate African slaves, driving it into a lasting alliance with its former enemies: the overlords of the Tidewater and Deep Southern lowlands of Dixie. The Borderlander’s combative culture has provided a large proportion of the nation’s military, from officers like Andrew Jackson, Davy Crockett, and Douglas MacArthur to the enlisted men fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also gave the continent bluegrass and country music, stock car racing, and Evangelical fundamentalism. Greater Appalachia’s people have long had a poor awareness of their cultural origins. One scholar of the Scots-Irish has called them “the people with no name.” When U.S. census takers ask Appalachian people what their nationality or ethnicity is, they almost always answer “American” or even “Native American.”
Woodward seems to envision a late twenty-first century world where North America has broken apart like the Roman Empire and national lines are redrawn around the subnations which emerge from the wreckage like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
Let’s get started!
It is one thing to blame Yankees for the Emancipation Proclamation (which was simply a war measure) but to blame “Yankees” for the Great Soicety (Which happened under Texan LBJ) or the New Deal (widely supported in the then democratic South) and finally Barack Obama is just stupid. States in upper New England (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont) are the whitest in the country.
They don’t have problems with race mixing like the South today because they never imported cheap non-white labor. I’m not trying to start an argument, but this sort of regionalism is just ignorant.
Colin Woodward is a Yankee from Maine.
He is taking credit for the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction, the Progressive Movement, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and the election of Barack Hussein Obama … as a Yankee.
As for New England being relatively white, no one has ever disputed that; Quebec is also overwhelmingly white, but it is the most liberal part of Canada, just as New England is the most liberal part of the United States.
Europe is White … but it is also Britain, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, etc. No one would ever confuse Poland with Germany or Britain with Greece.
Similarly, North America is subdivided into “White” nations: Dixie and Quebec are the most obvious ones, but there is also Ecotopia, Nation of Immigrants, and Heartland at a minimum, and Aztlan if you count the Mexicans in the Southwest/Northern Mexico.
In the Northeast, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey never had anti-miscegenation laws in their entire history. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1844, and the rest of the Northeastern states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws by 1887.
In the 1850s, Whites in New England used to riot when Southerners came to capture fugitive slaves! In the 2010s, these same people have passed gay marriage laws and support the DREAM Act and are the “firewall” of support for Barack Hussein Obama.
Dixie alone had anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 … when they were all struck down in Loving v. Virginia by the U.S. Supreme Court which, as one might imagine, was dominated by non-Southerners who had been appointed over the previous thirty years.
New England has been forcing “racial equality” on America ever since Charles Sumner penned the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and his fellow Black Republicans made blacks U.S. citizens as part of their scheme to rule America with the black vote.
Guess the whole black Republican vote thing sort of back fired!
States like Connecticutt only repealed miscegenation laws due to the lack of blacks, even today Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are over 95% white. Mixing was never a serious problem. I think that the percentage of whites as a population does matter, New England states that are almost entirely white are have the highest IQs whereas Deep South states that are half black have the lowest.
I should have made myself clearer, I fully agree that different regions of the US should secede and form their own nations and have different cultures.
I do however think New England gets a bad reputation. Vermont is a state where due to environmental laws, places like Walmart don’t appear. Carl Horowitz penned an excellent article on Vermont on VDARE several years ago that is worth reading, in it he pointed out how because of laws like these immigrants would never want to settle there.
As for Colin Lindell he is a dumbass who wants to take credit for these things. It always amuses me to hear people say the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the union together plain and simple as Lincoln himself said.
I am not a New Englander myself. My ancestors where Appalachian whites who fought for the confederacy. Theres nothing wrong with loving your region I just don’t think that should involve badmouth other white regions.
I am a bit confused about the slave thing, are you saying you don’t mind the fact that nonwhites were imported to the country and think New Englanders should have had to return them. It seems that these slaves caused more problems than “Yankees” ever did. Its one thing to blame progressives, but another to blame a whole region.
yankees have been forcing one damn thing or another on us since about 1820 & i’m sick of the bastards
(1) The Black Republicans succeeded in their mission to emancipate the slaves, overturn the hated Dred Scott decision (which affirmed the racial basis of American citizenship), turn blacks into American citizens, and to force the South at gunpoint to ratify the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment, which is the constitutional basis of racial equality in America.
(2) Reconstruction was a national project led by the Black Republicans in the Glorious Union.
In the South, Reconstruction was overthrown by interminable racial conflict in 1877 when federal troops were withdrawn from Dixie in exchange for supporting Rutherford B. Hayes in the Compromise of 1877, and the Jim Crow South was formally born after 1896 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Plessy decision that segregation was legal.
(3) In the North, Reconstruction was never overthrown, and from the 1860s until the 1880s, every state in the North with the exception of Indiana repealed its anti-miscegenation law, banned segregation, and legislated racial integration at the state level to get in sync with the 14th Amendment.
(4) The North repealed its anti-miscegenation laws, repealed its own black codes, and banned segregation in order to create a utopian society in the region – it also tried to force this consensus on the entire country, unsuccessfully in Reconstruction.
In 1910, 90 percent of blacks lived in the South. In 2011, only 57 percent of blacks live in Dixie. The rest of them moved the Northeast and Midwest in the Great Migration and Second Great Migration.
(5) Because New England is racially homogeneous, “ideology” is more important than racial identity to the “whites” who live there, who don’t see themselves as “White people” like Southerners, which is they have supported every single bad racial idea of the past 150 years, and have taken their ideology to the next destructive level with issues like gay marriage and women’s liberation.
(6) To be sure, New England has great ideas for its high IQ population to boast about … the entire project of racial integration and transforming America into a non-White society country is a “progressive” project which has been run out of New England ever since the War Between the States.
(7) Vermont has the distinction of being the state where more Whites voted for Barack Hussein Obama than any other state – almost 70 percent of Whites in Vermont supported for Obama, and they send the Jewish socialist Bernie Sanders to the Senate, and it is by far the most liberal area of the country, even more liberal than The Left Coast.
(8) Much of New England, most of the Northeast, and most of the American North has been transformed into a “Melting Pot” and a “Nation of Immigrants” – a description which refers to that vast area north of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, where there was a “Gilded Age” and a “Roaring Twenties.”
(9) Abraham Lincoln was a Cracker from Illinois – the last thought on his mind was “freeing the slaves” for they could move to the Midwest. He wanted to deport them to Latin America or Africa and made a real effort to accomplish that objective.
OTOH, New England, the Burned Over District in western New York State, the Western Reserve, and the other parts of Yankeeland, which are not synonymous with the North, they were the Radical Republicans within the Republican Party, and for them the War Between the States was an ideological crusade against Dixie, which really was about “freeing the slaves.”
After Lincoln was assassinated, the Radical Republicans got into a conflict with Andrew Johnson, who was a Tennessee Unionist, and that famously culminated in his impeachment, the election of Ulysses S. Grant, and the triumph of the Radical agenda in Congress.
(10) We need to stop lying to ourselves and pretending that there is such a thing as “White America” when in reality there has never been such a thing and the myth of “White America” is contradicted in every election cycle, and even more persuasively by American history.
(11) It was New England that imported “non-Whites” into the South – Rhode Island was the capitol of that particular slave trading empire, it was in the same business as the British, Spanish, and Portuguese, and it sold the vast majority of its slaves to markets in the Caribbean and South America.
(12) As someone who lives among millions of blacks, I know for a fact that they are less of a problem than the “Disingenuous White Liberals” who are the real force behind Black Run Amerika, who fought the bloodiest war in American history to “liberate” the slaves, and who spent the next thirty years trying to force racial equality on Dixie, and who resumed the project in the 1950s and 1960s.
(13) The only reason that blacks have gotten away with destroying our cities and the only reason they have been idolized as noble savages and put up on a pedestal over White people … (1) is because of the context of the Union and (2) the struggle of Yankeeland for supremacy over Dixie within the Union and (3) Yankeeland’s progressive ideology which has fooled millions of Yankees and White Northerners into believing that negroes are the “equals” of White people, and that “racism” is responsible for their condition.
(14) Of course this destructive Yankee ideology has done just as much damage to the North and West as it has to the South – the transformation of the West into Aztlan, for example, is fundamentally driven by the naked electoral calculation that expanding the Hispanic population in the Southwest will turn the Western states into California which will vote with Yankeeland within the Union.
(15) Yankees opposed the Louisiana Purchase, opposed the annexation of Texas, and opposed the acquisition of California and the Southwest from Mexico in the Mexican War – because of the fear that it would dilute the power of Yankeeland within the Union.
(16) Yankees wanted to build a commercial empire. They didn’t want to conquer new territory for White settlement – that was always a Southern project. It was Southerners who came across the Plains in wagons on the Oregon Trail. They were the ones who banned black settlement in Oregon’s territorial constitution.
That is why the boundaries of the continental United States were set in stone in the 1850s after the Gadsden Purchase. It explains everything from “opening Japan” to the conquest of Hawaii to the refusal to annex Cuba to the acquisition of all the shitty islands in the South Pacific to the Open Door Policy with China to “Dollar Diplomacy” in Latin America and finally to the Spanish-American War and TR’s mistake to acquire Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
@Stonelifter
Arrogant, greedy, lazy Southerners were too good to pick they’re own cotton, so they imported and bred litterer upon litter of niggers , without the slightest forethought, and now White people everywhere pay for it in blood. Southerners attacked Fort Sumter without provocation and got smashed for it, now they cry like Jews as if they were innocent in the whole affair, and blame “Yankees” for all of their own self-created problems. I’m sick of YOU bastards, too. Asshole.
I admire your posts and I’m not trying to argue that a certain region is better than another, I do believe secession is the best way for whites to survive as a group .
I never said I believe there is one ” White America” I believe there are parts of America that are largely white. The US will break up along ethnic lines just like the USSR.
The black republican comment applied to blacks today. New England was the main driving force behind the Immigration Act of 1924, they didn’t like the nation of immigrants coming in from New York and worried it would flood their homogenous English region. I’m sure New England did play a big part in the slave trade. However, at least they banned slavery in their states, and another big slave port would be Charleston SC also home of America’s oldest Jewish community. Don’t blame Yankees for Civil Rights blame the Jews they were the driving force behind getting black to register to vote in Mississippi, they control the media and our political system. Yankees did not cause this flood of illegals in our southern border, our treasonous government did. Yankees don’t run our government Jews do. It is true that Yankees did oppose the war against Mexico, however they sure as hell didn’t give it back to Mexico as our government is today. Yankees didn’t cause the country to be integreated Jews did. Yankees never forced race-mixing on the South. The real culprits are Jews.
Quebec is the indigestible wrecking ball within Canada – the fundamental cause of Canadian liberalism and multiculturalism. It is largely because of Quebec’s influence within Canada that Toronto is always performing fellatio on the “First Nation” and welcoming hordes of immigrants from Europe and Asia.
For centuries, New England has been the indigestible wrecking ball within the United States. It has played a similar role here. Ever since the days of the Federalist Party, New England has struggled for supremacy within the Union.
The most obvious symptom of New England’s self aggrandizement at the expense of other Americans can be seen its long term alliance with Southern blacks, its opposition to Indian Removal under Jackson, and its more recent alliance with Asians and Hispanics in the West, and now with homosexuals and women who are counted among the ranks of the virtuous and the victimized.
As for the Jews, they are allied with Yankees and hate the South because they share the same common agenda of centralizing power in Washington and using the power of the federal government to “perfect” and “transform” America into the image of their utopian vision of society.
Chris,
You’re forgetting here that the transatlantic slave trade was outlawed in 1808, slavery hasn’t existed in the United States in almost 150 years, and that the War Between the States wiped out the planter class in Dixie … so what exactly is the problem?
Why are there so many blacks in the Northern states? Why are the put up on a pedestal above White people? Why is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the law of the land? Why is interracial marriage between blacks and whites so common? Why are hordes of aliens from every corner of the world pouring into America?
It is because … it is because that is the type of society that the North wanted, especially New England, which the North created when it won the War Between the States, and the type of society that it forced on the South in the 1950s and 1960s, which had existed in the North since the 1870s and 1880s.
You make it sound like Southerners made Northerners welcome millions of blacks into their states. Before Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Oregon and so forth had been transformed into Yankeeland/Nation of Immigrants, those states all had Jim Crow laws which OUTLAWED the settlement of blacks, because they were settled by White Southerners.
Do you remember the Dred Scott decision? It established that blacks were not U.S. citizens under the American Constitution. In the name of the “higher law,” the Black Republicans burned the Constitution and called it a pact with the devil. The Northern states passed their “personal liberty laws” in order to thwart the fugitive slave laws.
Ethan,
(1) First, the Jews in the South are mercantile Sephardic Jews from Portugal and Spain, and they have always operated here like the Indians and Pakistanis who now own all the gas stations and hotels – as economically driven traders and businessmen who have never taken much interest in disrupting the racial status quo here.
(2) Second, as zealous as the South has been about maintaining the color line, it is highly significant that Southern Jews were never identified as the primary threat to Jim Crow.
Instead, the real threat was always perceived as coming from the fanatics of New England, from the “outside agitators” in the mold of John Brown and Ted Kennedy, who were determined to destroy our society.
To my knowledge, no one has ever blamed Southern Jews for Reconstruction or the Civil Rights Movement.
(3) It is a myth that Jews were behind the Civil Rights Movement.
To be sure, Northern Jews were involved in the Civil Rights Movement, but the “Civil Rights Martyrs” who can be seen in Selma were Viola Liuzzo, Jonathan Daniels, and James Reeb, and it was people like James Zwerg who came here as the Freedom Riders.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was also the most sectional vote in American history – over 90 percent of Northern senators and congressmen supported it, while anywhere from 90 to 100 percent of Southern senators and congressmen were opposed to it.
The “Civil Rights Movement” goes back to the Reconstruction era when no less than three “civil rights acts” – the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Anti-Klan Act of 1870, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were passed to integrate America.
(4) The flow of immigrants had been overwhelming the North and transforming it into a “Nation of Immigrants” for most of the 19C and 20C … it was JFK who came up with that phrase, who wrote “Nation of Immigrants” as an essay for the ADL.
In the 19C, Asians were flooding into the Western states before concern about the “Yellow Peril” was sufficient to tilt the Western states toward the South, which led the decline of Asian immigration and the “Great Wave” of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
(5) We can sit here and lie to ourselves that “the Jews” are behind immigration when it was our liberal immigration laws that allowed “the Jews” to immigrate here in the first place, the Asians to immigrate to the West, the Japanese to take over Hawaii, and when the Northern states passed the Immigration Act of 1965 in the name of “civil rights.”
(6) To this day, it is the Northern states that put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House, who made Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader, all of whom voted for the DREAM Act and “comprehensive immigration reform” which have been repeatedly blocked in Congress for a decade now.
(7) It is Dixie and Heartland that have blocked the DREAM Act every single time it has been introduced by senators and congressmen from the Northern states. Just like it was Dixie and Heartland that killed the Bush amnesty on two or three occasions.
I could just as easily argue that Dixie caused the entire black problem with its support for slavery, I don’t see how that is different from todays immigration crisis. Nonwhites get paid less and take jobs whites would in both cases.
Yankees from Massachusetts may be for centralizing power, but Vermont and New Hampshire have large seccessionist movements. I just can’t stand some redneck calling me a Yankee when my ancestors fought for the South and their state is full of race-mixers. Whose fault is that? Mine because I live in the North. The North did have segregated neighborhoods these weren’t unique Southern feautures. The American War Between the States isn’t the reason we have civil rights today.
My point is New England isn’t responsible for the modern civil rights bullshit. A born and raised Texan LBJ caused not only the immigration diasaster but also the Civil Rights Act.
So what if some senators from New England are allied with the Jews there are plenty of Southern neocons.
If a handful of the most liberal states in the Deep North were expelled from the Union, namely Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Minnesota, would the loss of 10 Senators have a positive or negative effect on the racial balance of power in America?
Alternatively, if South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana were expelled from the Union, would the United States be more or less liberal on “civil rights,” gay marriage, and immigration?
If just the Southern states had a federal government, what do you suppose our policy would be on immigration, civil rights, affirmative action, gay marriage, multiculturalism, and race?
Alternatively, if just New England had a federal government, what do you suppose its policy would be on these issues?
Ethan,
No, you really couldn’t.
New England was the commercial and naval section of the Union in those days. Just as it was the commercial and naval section of the Union when the Union Navy was used to blockade the Southern coast in the War Between the States.
Who was involved in the transatlantic slave trade? New England was massively involved in the slave trade with the both the slave markets in West and Central Africa and the slave plantations in the British West Indies.
From the 1770s until the 1830s, the North divested itself of slavery, but that was only after it had become the biggest player in transatlantic slave trade in the Early Republic, and only after it been right up there with Britain, Spain, and Portugal in transporting countless numbers of slaves to the Caribbean and South American.
A whopping 5 to 7 percent of slaves ended up in British North America … the vast majority of them went to the Caribbean and South America. Slavery existed in the Northern states for almost two hundred years.
The North finally rid itself of slavery … about thirty years before it was abolished in the South! What about the previous 200 years?
New England wasn’t pro-immigration, it was a Vermont native Calvin Coolidge who stopped the tide of immigrants with the 1924 Immigration Act. The Kennedy’s are true New Englanders in the sense that the McCain’s are Arizonans. They are the New England equivalent of Carpetbaggers.
It was Dixie that pioneered “anti-miscegenation laws” … the first ones were passed in Maryland and Virginia in the 1660s.
From the 1660s until the 1960s, with the brief exception of Reconstruction when the South was under Yankee rule, the anti-miscegenation laws were enforced across all of Dixie, even into peripheral areas like Oklahoma, Indiana, Delaware, and Maryland.
In stark contrast, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey never passed anti-miscegenation laws, and the entire North (with the exception of Indiana) had voluntarily rid itself of anti-miscegenation laws by the 1880s.
As for integration, it is often forgotten that the South and West were the segregated sections of America, whereas the Northeast and the Midwest were integrated way back in Reconstruction.
The 14th Amendment was enforced in the North and every Northern state (including Indiana) had laws that banned “racial discrimination” and which outlawed segregation in public facilities and housing … the “Civil Rights Act of 1964” had existed in the Northern states at the state level for almost a century before it was imposed on the South.
It is completely false to say that the North is not responsible for integration … when it took a supermajority in Congress to overcome the Southern filibusters against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, not to mention the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The only people in America who wanted the “Civil Rights Movement” were living in the North where it was overwhelmingly supported by a 9 to 1 ratio.
The point is New England wasn’t in the grip of the slave power who wanted slavery in every new state they acquired. They didn’t let darkies breed to make more darkies to work on plantations. Most Northern states not only abolished slavery, they never had many African slaves to begin with. As for New England being a nation of Immigrants as you describe it they are white immigrants who speak English. Most of the new immigrants were Irish.
And just how is slavery different from illegal immigration?
The “tide of immigrants” that was coming before the Immigration Act of 1924 … were, drumroll, White Europeans who were settling in the Northern states – the Italians, the Poles, the Russians, the Jews, the Hungarians, etc.
In stark contrast, the “tide of immigrants” that has been arriving since 1965 are Asians and Hispanics who are invading the West and the South, and New England is perfectly fine with that, just as Henry Cabot Lodge was supporting “civil rights” in the South until the 1890s before spinning around to become a nativist in New England.
We find it ridiculous for Blacks to blame their condition on slavery. So why all this blaming of Yankees for the 14th Amendment, etc?
And why let Jews off the hook? Jews are and always have been up to their ears in every sort of Negro empowerment and non-White immigration scheme. Do Jews not control the media, Wall Street, and the two parties? Why are non-Southern Whites blamed for so much and Jews excused?
Ethan,
New England was in the grip of the Black Republicans who wanted to abolish slavery in order to create an integrated, utopian society on the basis of social equality. The North had already launched a dozen or so of these utopian experiments.
As for the South, it had been ridding itself of slavery for decades (see Kentucky, West Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland) before Black Republicans became identified with the anti-slavery movement. Previously, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay, James Monroe, and James Madison had been involved in or sympathetic to the African colonization movement.
If the South had been left to its own devices, it would have rid itself of slavery on its own accord, as it had already been nearly abolished in Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. By the 1850s, Georgia and South Carolina were slave exporting states like Kentucky and Virginia.
The original 13 colonies all had slavery … emancipation began in Pennsylvania and New England during the American Revolution in the 1780s. The Midwestern States were carved out of Trans-Appalachia and were created as Free States by the Northwest Ordinance.
If Northerners were so supportive of racial equality, why did the Northern working and middle classes fight school busing so hard? I was there and I remember how much venom was stirred up. All the talk of the Northerner’s support for integration was media bullshit. Ass-liberals and Jews crammed it down our throats, along with affirmative action and non-White immigration, and excusing themselves as always. At the time, the lib-filth insisted that, no, there will never be discrimination against Whites, and no, the racial balance of the nation would not be disturbed. And most people believed them because how could anyone want to do those things? Southerners had an advantage in understanding where all this would lead, due to their experience, but very few Northerners knowingly voted for this multi-cult shit pie. Just as in the South, it was the courts that stuck the knife in. We Yankees and Westerners and Foundry Folk are as much to blame for the racial mess as the average Southern White farmers were to blame for slavery.
Discard,
The Jews arrived in North America en masse from the 1880s until the 1920s.
They came here after the War Between the States … after Yankees had marched into Dixie at the head of black armies to “liberate” the slaves, after the John Brown Raid, after Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, after Sherman had burned down Atlanta, after they had decapitated the Southern state governments, after they had enshrined racial equality in the U.S. Constitution in the 14th and 15th Amendment, after South Carolina and Mississippi had been ruled for a decade by negroes and carpetbaggers, after 4 years of total war and 30 years of resistance in the South to integration, and after every Northern state had repealed its anti-miscegenation law and formally outlawed segregation!
Why are the Jews excused?
Simply because the Jews were not perceived as a real threat to the racial status quo in Dixie … which is why it is still so hard for Southerners to grasp the Jewish Question in 2011.
Every Southerner knows it was Yankees was abolished slavery, who made blacks American citizens, who ruled over the South with blacks in Reconstruction, who integrated the entire country in the 1960s.
It wasn’t the Jews of Charleston, Memphis, Montgomery, and Richmond that launched the Civil Rights Movement. If this was a domestic problem with the Jews internal to Dixie, then it would have been perceived as a domestic problem.
Instead, the Civil Rights Movement was perceived as the work of “outside agitators” who wanted to destroy Southern civilization, and Jews weren’t identified with this movement, although their presence here did not pass without notice.
That’s because Southerners distinguished between Southern Jews – the Sephardic Jews, the mercantile Jews who are like the Indians and Pakistanis today, who had lived here for centuries like the Judah Benjamins without disrupting our social system – and the Ashkenazi Jews from places like Poland and Germany who lived in New York City who were among the leading agitators along with the Quaker pacifists behind CORE and the legions of Unitarians and Congregationialists who were “civil rights volunteers” in Alabama and Mississippi.
Suprise all those Southern states you listed were border states next to the dreaded Yankee. How is slavery different from illegal immigration?
Discard,
It is because the South is Dixie, a relatively homogeneous, biracial ethnostate like Apartheid South Africa, whereas the North is several different places … it is Yankeeland, Nation of Immigrants, New York City, Heartland, etc.
Why did Northerners fight busing so hard? Who was fighting busing in Boston? That was mostly the Northern ethnics like the Irish in Massachusetts and other groups who had recently settled in America like the Italians who came here after the War Between the States and who never had any particular stake in that issue.
The Italians in New Jersey and Connecticut would have never come up with the idea … let’s integrate the South to create a perfected America free of the sins of racism and slavery, we love niggers so much that we ought to make them our equals, and lets bring a gazillion Puerto Ricans to New Jersey and New York City.
Something like that is a scheme which could have only been cooked up in a place like Vermont which pioneers wonderful ideas like “gay marriage.”
Ethan,
Slavery hasn’t existed in 150 years … under slavery, Dixie was a “White Man’s Country,” where nearly every black was a slave, and where every White man was considered a member of the master race, and there were comprehensive state and local laws that prescribed nearly every detail of racial interaction.
The Southern racial caste system is the exact opposite of BRA. That’s not a coincidence either.
The system we live under today: where miscegenation is glorified, where non-White immigrants are lionized and Anglo-Saxon natives are demonized, where illegal aliens are considered oppressed, where blacks are put up on a racial pedestal with “people of color,” where political correctness has become our culture, where women have been transformed into feminists, where homosexuals can marry each other, where it is a “choice” for a woman to divorce her husband and abort her child, where children backtalk their parents and indulge in a libertine culture of premarital sex …
… that system is PROFOUNDLY ALIEN to Dixie, it is TOTALLY ALIEN to Dixie, and it was IMPOSED on Dixie by the federal government and the Mainstream Media, which are widely reviled in Dixie.
We know where it comes from too … it certainly doesn’t come from Mississippi and South Carolina. Instead, it comes from places like California and Vermont and New York City.
As for illegal immigration, Dixie voted down the Immigration Act of 1965, the IRCA amnesty of 1986, the Immigration Act of 1990, the Bush amnesty, and the DREAM Act every single time it has been introduced. Were it not for Dixie, the DREAM Act would have sailed through Congress.
Woodward laments that America isn’t as liberal as Canada on the racial question … because of the presence of Dixie in the United States!
> The system we live under today: where miscegenation is glorified, where non-White immigrants are lionized and Anglo-Saxon natives are demonized, where illegal aliens are considered oppressed, where blacks are put up on a racial pedestal with “people of color,” where political correctness has become our culture, where women have been transformed into feminists, where homosexuals can marry each other, where it is a “choice” for a woman to divorce her husband and abort her child, where children backtalk their parents and indulge in a libertine culture of premarital sex …
It’s also PROFOUNDLY ALIEN to those of us who trace our roots back to the Plymouth Colony.
Stop placing “southerners” on a pedestal, Hunter. We’re all in this together, now.
Besides, this book is merely an expansion of Albion’s Seed.
Slavery is like illegal immigration in that both import cheap non-white labor which causes white job loss. Don’t lump Vermont (A state where the largest city has a pop. of 50,000) in with New York and California. Vermont is a beautiful state that won’t be trashed by illegal immigrants. It has a wonderful environment and is a great place to raise a family. Vermont has zero military bases , it is a very independent minded state. New York and California are full of non-whites and Jewish media is based in those states.
Dauphin,
If you are saying that modern New England is profoundly alien to Colonial New England, then I would have to agree with you. In much the same way, modern England is profoundly alien to Cromwell’s England, or George III’s England, or even Winston Churchill’s England.
New England started out a lot more like Dixie … it had anti-miscegenation laws, it had slavery, it emphasized racial purity, it was very religious, it was a lot more agricultural, and it was engaged in constant wars with the Indians nations of the Northeast, most famously in King Phillips’ War.
As these things go, nations change over time … New England became more racially homogeneous, whereas Dixie remained multiracial; New England became more secular and later outright atheist, whereas Dixie remained religious; New England became a commercial and manufacturing society, whereas Dixie remained agrarian; New England was transformed into a “Melting Pot,” whereas Dixie remained essentially Anglo-Celtic.
It is not that the South is superior to the North … it is just that the South, unlike the other regions of America, is more conservative and has correspondingly changed less over time.
In New England, the brakes came off in the Great Awakening and the American Revolution, which transformed New England in a fundamental way and steered that region of the United States onto a divergent historical course.
By the time of the Second Great Awakening and the War Between the States, the infection which was present at the time of the American Revolution had become cancerous – you can see it spreading from the “anti-slavery movement” and the “women’s suffrage movement” to all the radical movements that followed in their wake, which often involved the same people.
In our own times, the latest fashionable craze is “gay marriage” or “LGBT rights,” an enormous victory of which was won in the Obama administration’s removal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military.
Ethan,
You keep going on about slavery, but slavery hasn’t existed in America in 150 years, and the planter class hasn’t ruled Dixie since its portrayal in Gone With The Wind, which was produced by Hollywood over 60 years after the demise of slavery.
As for illegal immigration from the Third World, it is simple enough to discern which states support illegal immigration, and which states are opposed to illegal immigration – Alabama being the most opposed of any state in the country right now.
We can look specifically at the 1986 IRCA amnesty (the Reagan amnesty), the Bush amnesty, and the DREAM Act – where Dixie has voted one way, and the rest of the country has voted another way.
But let’s look at the Immigration Act of 1965:
http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/2004southasitsownnation.shtml
The House vote was 75 to 34 in Dixie and the Senate vote was 15 to 10 in Dixie against the bill – the Immigration Act of 1965 was voted down by Southerners in Congress.
OTOH, the Immigration Act of 1965 passed Congress by 76 to 18 in the Senate and 318 to 95 in the House – just 3 Senators from outside of Dixie voted against the Immigration Act of 1965, and 20 members of the House from outside Dixie voted against the Immigration Act of 1965.
The Immigration Act of 1965 passed Congress … because a supermajority in Congress from outside the South, which got an incredible 66 votes in the Senate and 253 in the House from the non-South, something almost unheard of today on such a major issue, was able to gets its way.
Slavery affects the South today, because Southern states are the ones that have to deal with black issues like crime. Blacks make up higher percentage per capita in the South than anywhere else in the country. That is why I keep talking about slavery, but in your opinion it was fine for Jews to trade slaves because they are like Indians who own gas stations today.
Here is the Senate vote on the DREAM Act in December 2010:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/278
Dixie voted against the DREAM Act 21 to 9 in the Senate. Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas crossed party lines to vote against the DREAM Act.
Here is the House vote on the DREAM Act in December 2010 … when the DREAM Act passed the House under Nancy Pelosi in the lame duck session.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/625
Every single Republican in Dixie with the exception of Bob Inglis (who was ousted in the GOP primary and joined the “No Labels” group) and Anh Cao (who was defeated in the 2010 election in New Orleans) voted against the DREAM Act.
At least 12 Blue Dog Democrats in Dixie voted against the DREAM Act. Otherwise, the only real support for the DREAM Act in Dixie in the House came from the black holes in the Deep South which were created by the Voting Rights Act, and the brown holes in South Texas and South Florida, if you count those areas as being part of the South.
A lot of the Democrats who voted for the DREAM Act like Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Chet Edwards, Tom Perriello, and Alan Grayson were knocked off the 2010 midterm elections.
Interestingly enough, there was no support for the DREAM Act in Pennsylvania outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia … every single representative in Pennsyltucky voted against the DREAM Act, as did Ohio outside of Columbus, Cincinnati, and the Western Reserve.
Don’t forget before telling me how the South was such a White Mans Country that towards the end of the war the Confederacy was planning to arm slaves. Luckily the war ended before that. States in the North that voted for the 1965 Immigration Act were lied to, even being told the act wouldn’t alter the country’s racial makeup.
Who wanted the DREAM Act?
EVERY SINGLE REPRESENTATIVE from New England in the House of Representatives voted for the DREAM Act. In the Senate, New England voted for the DREAM Act 8 to 3.
The Maine twins and Scott Brown voted against the DREAM Act. It is also worth noting that the amnesty lobby bombarded Brown, Snowe, and Collins trying to twist their arms to get them to vote for the DREAM Act. They were seen as the weakest link and the key to victory.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281
That same day in December there was a vote to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy … Snowe, Collins, and Brown voted for DADT repeal that afternoon, as did every Senator from New England with the exception of Judd Gregg who couldn’t be found that day for either vote.
3 Senators and 20 House representatives voted against the Immigration Act of 1965 from outside of Dixie … it got 66 votes in the Senate from outside of Dixie, which is enough to kill a filibuster and then some, which is an absolutely incredible number when you consider the fate of subsequent immigration bills like the DREAM Act.
The only reason there is an Immigration Act of 1965 is because the rest of America so desperately wanted that bill that it had to unite in a sectional supermajority under the leadership of – who else, New England – to pass the bill over the opposition of the South.
What about the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
That’s an amazing figure – an incredible 84 to 98 percent of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the most sectional and polarizing votes in American history, which was necessary to overcome the longest filibuster in the history of the U.S. Senate.
What about the Jewish media? Didn’t the Jewish media lie to them? Strangely enough, 0 to 7 percent of Southerners in Congress supported the Civil Rights Rights Act of 1964, so I guess that the South wasn’t fooled!
Every Senator from The Left Coast voted for DADT repeal and to pass the DREAM Act as recently as December 2010 – 100 percent support for DREAM Act and DADT repeal in the Senate from California, Washington, and Oregon.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/278
As for the DREAM Act, every single House member from The Left Coast with two exceptions (Brian Baird and Kurt Schrader) voted to pass the DREAM Act, whereas Oregon and Washington east of the Cascades and all of Eastern California and South California minus LA and San Diego voted against the DREAM Act.
How did the DREAM Act pass the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi? Very simple.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/625
The coalition that passed the DREAM Act was New England, The Left Coast, Aztlan, the black holes in Dixie, the Yankee diaspora in the Midwest (Eastern Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin), and the various big cities of the Midwest and Northeast.
Everyone else was opposed to the DREAM Act – this includes most of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.
The Civil Rights Act was voted for by all parts of the country except the South and was based on the lie that blacks would only get the same rights everyone else had. LBJ was putting affirmative action in place soon after. Don’t ignore the fact that in this democracy Jews pull the strings. Jews were responsible for the decline of the country through their various intellectual movements.
(1) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was hardly unprecedented – it came after the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, Brown vs. Board of Education, and a series of Supreme Court rulings – starting with the Gaines decision in 1938, progressing through Smith vs. Allwright in 1948, and Boynton vs. Virginia in 1960 – that systematically dismantled the Jim Crow South.
(2) LBJ was JFK’s vice president – after JFK was assassinated, LBJ committed himself to pushing JFK’s agenda through Congress – immigration reform and civil rights reform. In fact, LBJ’s winning argument was that it was necessary to pass civil rights reform … as a tribute to JFK’s legacy.
JFK had already used the military to integrate Ole Miss and the University of Alabama before he was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.
(3) “Affirmative Action” goes back to JFK.
(4) JFK was the author of “Nation of Immigrants.”
(5) This whole nonsense about “civil rights” goes back to Reconstruction … to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Anti-Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and to the 14th and 15th Amendments, which is the constitutional foundation of every single bit of this.
(6) It took thirty years of struggle over three generations (1866 to 1896) to overthrow integration in Dixie which was imposed on the region by the Glorious Union in its moment of triumph in Reconstruction.
(7) As to the myth that Jews are responsible for our decline, the North voluntarily repealed its own black codes, voluntarily fought the bloodiest war in America history to “liberate” the slaves, spent 12 years after the War Between the States trying to force racial equality on the South, and another 19 years pushing for “civil rights” at the federal leve, and had voluntarily repealed every single anti-miscegenation law in the North (with the exception of Indiana) and completely banned segregation at the state level before 1887.
(8) As the Jews were stepping off the boat in New York City after passing through Ellis Island, Yankeeland was in the midst of its great project of repealing all its segregation and anti-miscegenation laws, after suffering a crippling defeat with the Compromise of 1877 and the Civil Rights Cases in 1881 which reduced the Yankeeland consensus to a regional consensus on race.
(9) Every single bit of this nonsense was around in the time of Thomas Jefferson who quarreled with the “anti-slavery” theorists of his day like Samuel Stanhope Smith who were preaching the same doctrine of racial equality in Boston and Philadelphia in the 1790s.
(10) As far back as 1780, Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law because of the Quaker influence there. As far back as the 1830s, Massachusetts had repealed its anti-miscegenation law on account of the influence of the Unitarians and abolitionists in that state.
Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a bestseller.
In fact, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was the best selling book of the 19th century, and that incendiary book (which is full of Transcendentalist ignorance and nonsense about race and slavery in Dixie) did more to demonize the South and lionize blacks than any other book in American history.
We can lie to ourselves and pretend the Jews are behind it all … it succeeds only so long as we forget William Lloyd Garrison and Samuel Stanhope Smith and Harriet Beecher Stowe and Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner and John Brown’s famous raid at Harper’s Ferry and the rest of the Black Republicans and the Wide Awakes who burned the Constitution in the name of the “higher law” and who called it a pack with Satan and who were the same people who founded Oberlin College – the first integrated, coeducational university in America – not to mention the entirety Reconstruction and arguably the whole 19th century.
The Jews are not the only ones behind it all, but in the days of pure Yankee dominance, did we have fag marriage and widespread mudsharking? I guarantee you, we did not. Jews have been running the show all of your life, but I grew up before they took complete control. They took some soft, fuzzy White do-goodism and created a nation of degeneracy. Damned right I blame the Jews. I saw what they did when they took over Los Angeles.
As for who fought busing, in Los Angeles, it was the ordinary Whites, not “ethnics”. L.A. didn’t have Polish or German or Italian neighborhoods, it was just Whites, Blacks, Mexicans, Chinatown and little Tokyo. And of course, Jews. The judges that put it over were voted out, lawsuits were filed, the Negro Tom Bradley was beaten in a humiliating Mayoral election, but the People eventually lost and then moved out, rather than send their kids to school with the Darks.
Lastly, Vermont. Vermont was, if I recall correctly, one of two states that never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. It was conservative Yankee to the core. The abomination that it has become is a result of the influx of ivy league vermin since the 1960s. Note that Senator Saunders is a Jew, not a Yankee.
Discard,
(1) We had the precursors of “gay marriage” in the Antebellum era which is the law of the land in Vermont, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey – abolitionism and women’s suffrage.
(2) After the Yankee social reformers succeeded in their push for one radical movement, abolitionism being the most famous of their number, which culminated in the destruction of the Confederacy and Reconstruction, the whole bunch of them moved onto the next battleground, which was the temperance movement, the women’s suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement, and then the progressive movement, and later the environmentalist movement, the gay rights movement, the feminist movement, the civil rights movement again, etc.
(3) I don’t believe the Jews are responsible at all anymore – why are the Jews considered to be so bad?
The Jews are hated because they are pushy, because they are obnoxious, because they relentlessly push the ideal of social equality, because they use the government to impose their worldview, because they are materialistic, because they do not respect racial boundaries, because they believe they are better than everyone else in America, because they hate Christianity.
Who does that sound like?
(4) The fact is, this whole disease was thriving in the Northern states long before Jews settled here en masse in the 1880s and 1890s. Every Southerner knows this because there are monuments all around here that are testimonials to the chaos that was unleashed here in the 1860s and 1870s when the social fabric of the South was utterly destroyed.
(5) I don’t believe Jews are responsible for the liberalism of the Northern states – they were liberal before the Jews got there, they were desperately trying to make blacks our equals before Jews became influential, which was memorialized in The Birth of a Nation.
Jews have certainly contributed to the process. Yet they are singled out for some reason which doesn’t hold up to historical scrutiny. They were operating like a Spartan phalanx with the Unitarians and the Quakers and Northern Congregationalists and much of the Catholic clergy that descended on small towns like Selma in the 1960s.
(6) California used to be the Golden State, a very racially conscious state, a conservative area … until about 1948 when California began its long term decline into a multiracial abyss.
It was the Immigration Act of 1965 which transformed California into what it has become today. Strangely enough, it was one particular part of the country that wanted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Immigration Act of 1965, the IRCA Amnesty, the Immigration Act of 1990, the Bush amnesty, and the DREAM Act.
There is a lot of rancor and ill-will going on here, and maps of the USA detailing election stats aren’t the whole picture. For example, living in ‘Minne-stroika’ as it has been called (when Gorby visited our state, back when) yes, there ARE a lot of liberals. But we also have people like Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, and other conservative elected officials. The Tea Party is not large in this state, but it IS here. Also, the eastern half of the state has been seeing a ‘sea change’ from the Arrowhead on down to the Mississippi in counties ‘seeing red’ as the Obamanation has shown his hand.
The problem is when an entire county, or an entire state’s votes are thrown into the lap of one or the other candidate via the foolish ‘electoral college’ garbage. Those of us who DIDN’T vote for the Obamanation, (for example) literally ‘don’t count’ via that system, so there is a large underground dissatisfaction with the whole system; which, if this ‘breaking up’ into ethnostates is even possible, would rearrange boundaries if allowed to surface. Also, the religious factor needs to be tied into all of this. What once was a monolithic ‘voting bloc’ (i.e., the ELCA- the liberal Lutherans) has fractured severely as they have gone into outright heresy and apostasy (female clergy didn’t seem to matter, but gay clergy DID- even though, as a catholic clergyman, both are tied to the defacing of the Ikon of the Priesthood, so [in my eyes] this whole ‘Let’s have someone other than a white male to lead us’ is merely iconoclasm on a grand scale). That has ‘rearranged’ the whole way many Minnesotans (for instance) view voting, which will show up in the 2012 elections.
Finally, some states (those who have NEVER had ‘diversity’) are merely ignorant, and not speaking from experience, when it comes to having/dealing with the ‘Other’ being in their state. MN is one example: these yokels don’t KNOW how vulgar, annoying, dangerous, and STUPID blacks are, becuase we only have two locales where they have historically been in large numbers, and both are cocooned in the Metro areas, surrounded by all sorts of Scandinavian welfare structures, that were SUPPOSED to be only for the ‘family’ – the Whites who were (temporarily) out of work. Like in Sweden and Norway (for example) who are ‘waking up’ and Demark (who already have changed their tune) the day to day laziness of blacks on the dole is becoming less and less viable.
We are going to experience (I believe) a great awakening, if only all hell can break loose to blame it on Obama, and his Jewish Handlers. Oh… And one last thing…..
http://www.rense.com/general69/invo.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95sep/noi.htm
http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Walter.White/Who.Brought.the.Slaves.to.America.htm
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-genocide-black-holocaust-debate-over-jews-and-slavery.html
Hunter – I am going to be presumptuous, and amend your reply to Discard:
“(3) I don’t believe the Jews are responsible at all anymore – why are the Jews considered to be so bad?
The Jews are hated because they are pushy, because they are obnoxious, because they relentlessly push the ideal of social equality”
It’s not just that. They don’t believe in the idea of social equality AT ALL. They use this con as a snare, for all others. THEY believe that al other are nothing, dirt beneath their heels. All dirt is the same to them. The “social equality” is for the Goy. Not them. They are the Chosen By God. and they have the absolute RIGHT to do with all others excatly as they please. The Goy have NO rights what-so-ever AT ALL, under Judaic Law.
The 1965 Immigration Disaster was 110% kosher. Keenedy was the Tribe’s broken mask
Hunter – perhaps the “good” southgern Jews were laying the groundwork for their mopre belligerent Tribesmen. Did the “Good” Southern Jews call out the Yankee Jews, during the Civil Wrongs Era, and warn them to STOP pushing the Negroes forward, as this will lead to the ruination of the best host the Tribe has ever had?
No one has ever blamed the Civil Rights Movement on Southern Jews – it was not something that was stirred up by the Jewish population of New Orleans, Charleston, Montgomery, Selma, etc.
Southern Jews were a mercantile elite like the Indians and Pakistanis who have bought up all the gas stations and hotels around here. They were content to make money, mind their own business, and as a rule avoided challenging our social system.
WNs like to pin all their problems on the Jews … when, in reality, the Jews were operating in league with a number of groups like the Quakers and Unitarians, who were more visibly active here on the ground than the Jews.
Integration in the North goes back to the 1860s and 1880s – in some areas, integration goes back even further, whereas in the South it does back to the 1960s, and out West it goes back to the 1940s and 1950s.
Well until Whites finally learn to keep others out, and care for our own, exclusively – we will always be subjection to infiltration and subversion.
Did Southern Jews speak OUT against Civil Rights, though? And are Pakistanis and Indians a beneficial influence? Do they HELP Southern Whites? Where are the White mercantile classes? Northern as wel las Southern?
Jews are the elite of the elites, the core of modern leftism. They are to liberalism what the SS was to the Wehrmacht. (Forgive the slander, Gruppenfueher, it’s just a metaphor.) They have no real interest in the beliefs of Yankee liberalism, only in using those beliefs as weapons. They bring a single-minded hatred to the liberal coalition, a desire to exterminate, as they did in the Soviet Union. The sharper among them despise the liberal cattle, the useful idiots. Without Jews, the left collapses into mobs of Darks, queers, and vegetarians.
Discard says:
October 5, 2011 at 5:49 pm
“Jews are the elite of the elites, the core of modern leftism. They are to liberalism what the SS was to the Wehrmacht. (Forgive the slander, Gruppenfueher, it’s just a metaphor.)”
I love you Discard.
Hunter you’ve contradicted yourself, first we agreed no Northerner fought the war to end slavery then you claim then you say they fought a war to end slavery.
1.) Which is it?
2.) Even though all those anti-miscegenation laws didn’t exist the North was not some bastion of racemixing, they never had masses of mulattos like the South.
3.) The North was not founded on racial equality, blacks and whites had seperate neighborhoods just like your beloved South.
Ethan,
(1) You are assuming “the North” is one place which is populated by one people, when that is not the case at all.
(2) The Crackers in the North were fighting to “preserve the Union.” The Irish bitterly resented being drafted as cannon fodder in the conflict. The Germans were stirred up by appeals to patriotism and the promise of free land for their homesteads in the West.
States like Pennsylvania were fighting for the protected market. The Yankees were fighting to extinguish slavery, supremacy within the Union, and for their commercial and financial agenda.
(3) Abraham Lincoln presided over this disparate coalition of groups in the Republican Party and tailored his message of “preserving the Union” to the weakest link which was the Crackers who abhorred the idea of fighting a war against their own kinsmen to “free the slaves” – it was a rhetorical strategy calculated to divide the South, keep the Border States in the Union, and unite the North against the Confederacy.
(4) Actually, the purest negroes – the blackest of blacks in America – are the ones that live in the rural countryside of the Deep South where the plantations were concentrated. The typical planter had overseers running his plantation. He was preoccupying himself with games or showing off in his parlor or something.
(5) The presence of so much White blood in Africans is explained by their migration to the cities in the North and South after the War Between the States where black women commonly prostituted themselves. There was a whole culture of this in the speakeasies of the 1920s.
(6) Why did the North voluntarily repeal every single anti-miscegenation law? Why did they force the 14th and 15th Amendments on the nation? Why did they explicitly ban segregation? Why did they use the Union Army to put down the Ku Klux Klan?
There has to be a good reason that explains this. It can’t be because the Jews made them do it because it happened BEFORE the Jews started coming here in the 1880s and 1890s en masse.
The answer, of course, is that the South was right all along about the Yankee and Quaker fanatics in the North who were agitating for racial equality, which the secessionists had spent years warning about the “Black Republican” threat, which is why the South finally gave up on the Union and seceded from America.
(7) The South was founded by Tidewater and Barbados aristocrats and by the Scots-Irish – the Cracker Nation – who settled the Southern backcountry. ALL THREE GROUPS agreed on the inferiority of the negro.
For over three hundred years, the greatest taboo in Dixie was interracial marriage. There is nothing that stirred up more disgust in Dixie than the sight of White women openly fraternizing with black men. As late as the 1950s, Emmett Till was lynching for whistling at a White girl.
(8) The North was founded by totally different groups which had a completely different agenda – the Quakers in Pennsylvania, the Puritans in Massachusetts, and the Dutch in New York City.
Of those, the Dutch had set out to create a commercial society, and the Quakers and Puritans had settled Massachusetts and Pennsylvania as staging grounds to act out their own dissenting religions.
(9) New England started out a lot more like Dixie than either Pennsylvania or Dixie … it had slavery, it had anti-miscegenation laws, it quarreled with the local Indians, and finally destroyed the local Indians.
From 1750 until 1850, New England began to shed its racialized origins, and it became more commercial like New York City and more open to ideas of racial equality like Pennsylvania.
(10) The sickness of “anti-racism” goes back to the Quakers who formulated the doctrine in the late 18C.