Amurrica Series: Constructive Solutions

New York

Lawrence Auster writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Black crime is the inevitable consequence of black freedom.

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

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

Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1843.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is this foe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disunion is the solution.

About Hunter Wallace 12369 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Non-discretionary spending is probably the determinant for what will happen. Nothing as long as it continues, but then once it is over America likely will be as well.

  2. Is it well said, then, that the few “good Yankees,” like the few “good negroes,” always turn out (eventually snapping back) to be bad — and that Yankees have a disease, an inherited depravity, like negroes do, only possibly worse?

  3. Joe, as vehement as my rhetoric may be, I do acknowledge how the truth has been hidden away in the official narrative. There are simply layers upon layers of deception behind this narrative.

    Mosin, the Anglo-Celts? Are you referring to the Scots-Irish settlers of western Pennsylvania? The Irish post-famine immigrants? The German post-1848 immigrants? The first two (Celtic) were most certainly duped by the Yankees.

    The last (German) ardently embraced Yankeedom as the fulfillment of the failed liberal revolution they experienced in the Europe they left behind, giving us the “progressive” state of Wisconsin, birthplace of both kindergarten and the GOP.

    Yankeedom is a malignant culture based on a patently false ideology. It is a substitute for religion among its adherents. An extremely virulent, anti-white egalitarian death cult based on worship of the noble savage (preferrably black).

    If you think you may be infected, seek deprogramming as soon as possible. Once it sets in, you’re gone for good. Just because you live in the North doesn’t mean you have to be a Yankee, but if you stay there too long, your chances of becoming infected increase substantially. It’s way worse than getting AIDS.

    Deo Vindice

  4. Re: “the Anglo-Celts? Are you referring to the Scots-Irish settlers of western Pennsylvania? The Irish post-famine immigrants? The German post-1848 immigrants? The first two (Celtic) were most certainly duped by the Yankees.”

    I was referring to the original (earliest) northern settlers who WERE Anglo-Celts (not Irish or German) — the original settlers of ALL the colonies, all from the same homeland, all the same race and DNA.

    Re: “if you stay there too long, your chances of becoming infected increase substantially”:

    Sounds like a call for the mass emigration, total evacuation, of all racially-aware, as-yet-Yankee-disease-uninfected whites from north of the Line. But are y’all really prepared to TAKE IN the huddled masses of racialist, Yankee-disease-uninfected northern whites who might take you up on your invitation? That is, assuming that there really ARE some as-yet-uninfected, genuinely good ones.

  5. The Union could have been a force for conservatism and racial progress, as it was from 1789 until 1861, when it was controlled by the South because of the 3/5ths clause, with the brief exceptions of the John Adams and John Quincy Adams presidencies.

    When America was controlled by the South, we conquered everything from the Appalachians to the Pacific, and if the Yankee hadn’t finally become ascendant under Lincoln, the expansion would have almost certainly continued into the Caribbean.

    When did the wheels come off America? In 1861 when Lincoln was elected president, in 1863 when slavery was abolished, and in 1865 when the South was destroyed and America became a consolidated liberal democracy, a despotism under the thumb of the Money Power.

  6. Disproportionate black crime is the product of a disproportionate black presence. This is supported by Phillip’s “Slave Crime in Virginia”, where the state reimbursed slave owners for onerous pecuniary losses from conviction/execution for criminality and the fact that even when blacks are incarcerated they commit crime, just not against free whites (although apparently incarcerated whites are targeted). The Jewish effort was revolutionary in the effect that it turned government protection of the right of the individual to discriminate into state protection of the groups right not to be discriminated against. It was a restriction of freedom not an advancement of freedom.

  7. @Hunter Wallace: a war of liberation between an independent South and the United States,

    …would never happen. Instead it would be the U.S., NATO, and the United Nations against an independent South. We would have to literally whip the world in order to secede now. “UNSOUTHFOR representatives in Atlanta say that a major push toward the rebel capital of Columbia, South Carolina is underway. The US 7th Cavalry and elements of the 4th Infantry Division are pushing inland along I-95 from their beachheads along the coast near Charleston with heavy air support by RAF Typhoons from NATO’s Western Mobile Air Wing. Meanwhile the 82nd Airborne has broken out of the rebel encirclement south of Fort Bragg, North Carolina and may link up with airborne troops from Germany as soon as tomorrow. Meanwhile, Coalition forces rule out any further use of tactical nuclear weapons, specifically against against white supremacist strongholds in the Georgia mountains. “The terrain in Texas favored the use of special weapons,” said one UNSOUTHFOR representative. “But in northern Georgia it’s just too rugged.” However, when asked the spokesman refused to rule out the further use of VX against racist terror cells…”

  8. Going to war with the union in the now would be a bad idea. However who knows what will occur when the federal govt goes bankrupt. I see the hard times coming as our time to act. When White men are broke, their children are hungry, but they can’t drill for oil/ gas off our coast and negros/ mexicans etc have federally mandated hiring advantages, … While that’s going on negros will go on the chimp out of all chimp outs because their welfare is cut or done away with, more negros praying on White folk and the govt doing even less to protect them and the media lies more and more about crime…Who knows?

    In some ways now is the best time for a race war because we have a large pool of experienced White men to rely on. The fighting branches of the military is predominantly rural and Southron White men. Those vets would be able to train regular men. On the other hand, you can be damn sure that if we tried right now, while the world economy is still relatively intact Europeans and other nations would jump in and support the feds.
    ….I couldn’t say exactly when this is going to happen, but I think we’re in the beginning stages right now, what with the precarious economy, runaway national-debt, and racial powderkeg population-demographics. So I think rather than strategize about how to artificially the process, we should develop our respective regional/national identities and prepare for being on our own.
    I see it much the way Chris does. We don’t need to agitate, we need to work, low key and steady in our own small part of the world. Make plans, put away some basic tools and spare food and when things go bad, you’ll be the calm voice with ideas. Other men will turn to you for leadership. Once they do, and you do things well, they will be more ready to follow your lead in other areas.

    I’m fair certain America will break up into only 3 or 4 nations. Size does mater; nations need ports and the like

    We are seeing succession every time Southron states make their own immigration laws or cleanse their voter rolls despite the feds saying don’t.

    There will be no coup. Generals become generals because they support BRA. It s a civilian board of govt workers that help pick who gets promoted in the military. It is safe to assume that the more rank a trooper has, the more politically reliable they are

    Well said Apuleius

  9. This is the key to succession see Stonelifter commend below, not war. Just look at the USSR break up. It broke up due to a centralized economy based on Marx, just where we are today. Europe is also broke and we support their troops so when there is no money no either side of the Atlantic they will not be able to support a war against the south.

    Stonelifter says:
    Going to war with the union in the now would be a bad idea. However who knows what will occur when the federal govt goes bankrupt.

  10. I don’t know why secession is something that is still under discussion after the South’s last two temper tantrums backfired miserably.

    Instead of waiting Lincoln out and allying with Northern sympathizers to take control of Congress to constrain him and his abolitionist buddies, the South threw a hissy fit and left the Union which led to the War of Northern Aggression which effectively destroyed any Southern power or influence and ultimately led to desegregation by gunpoint.

    Even then the South could have played passive-aggressive with Lincoln and his cronies and told them they would be glad to free their Negroes but only if the North took them. I guarantee you that the first trainload of Negro freedman crossing the Mason-Dixon line would have been met by mobs of furious White Yankees and federal soldiers.

    The second disastrous temper tantrum was staged by the Dixiecrats who turned their back on the sizable power and influence they still wielded in the Democrat party to be marginalized into the weak, namby-pamby checked-pants conservative Yankee Republican set. Marginalizing ALL Whites with them.

    Have “youse guys” learned nothing?! Why does it always come down to secession with “youse guys?!” The obvious answer has always been under your noses. Instead of trying to get away from the Boston Brahmin liberals who are determined to rule YOU, get off your collective asses and take control of the USA so YOU can rule THEM! Take over the joint!!!

  11. we don’t want to rule yankees we want to be free of yankees. It’s revealing that some one wants to take over and rule White men, and what it reveals is not pleasant

  12. Clytemnestra calls for a UNITED front and says: “Take control of the USA so YOU can rule THEM!”

    Stonelifter regards this as a call for conservative whites to rule over other white men, but does Clytemnestra saying “THEM” actually mean whites, or THOSE non-whites who are now ruling over and oppressing whites?

  13. “Instead it would be the U.S., NATO, and the United Nations against an independent South.” – Most of our military happens to be in not blue areas, and libya revealed critical weakness on the part of Europe to project power into its own back yard. There won’t be a war this time(well what we’d consider a war), just collapse.

  14. Instead of trying to get away from the Boston Brahmin liberals who are determined to rule YOU, get off your collective asses and take control of the USA so YOU can rule THEM! Take over the joint!!!

  15. But, Stonelifter, what does Clytemnestra mean and think that “THEM” ARE (the so-called “Boston Brahmin liberals,” an expression that’s new to me) who rule over and behind BRA, WRA, etc. — Are “THEM” whites or not really whites?

  16. the term applies to the upper, upper class, old scion families of Boston. its been awhile since I dissected a sentence for grammar class but… the proper noun followed by “them” strongly implies to rule over yankees. And either which way, we don’t want foreign people in our nation, or to be aligned with foreign people, which yankees are. That’s another thing yankees don’t seem to grasp.

  17. In any case, I mean that Clytemnestra must know our current rulers/oppressors are mostly NOT wealthy descendants of the early Anglo-Celtic settlers of New England — and must be referring to the global elite, who are of not only Boston and Harvard, but also Princeton, and New York, San Francisco, London and elsewhere, who are mostly not REALLY white.

  18. The Anglo-Celts who settled in New England came from basically the same racial stock as the Anglo-Celts who settled in Maryland and Delaware and southwards. If nearly identical DNA counts for anything, there is little basis to call them foreign.

  19. Regional pride, as well as local pride, love and caring for the sanctity of one’s home land and birth place, is natural, I think. But it can be carried to an unnatural extreme.

  20. I don’t know how you’d classify someone like me. I was born in a Confederate State but my parents are what you’d call damn yankees. But they got there as soon as they could. I have an ancestor who was drafted by the Union to fight Johnny Reb. Interestingly enough, he had to fight WITH Johnny Reb when he got cut off from his unit. The men who nearly caught him thought he was from Louisiana because he had a French accent. So he stayed with them and fought with them until he made his way back.

    My maternal line were Catholics from Eastern Europe who emigrated to Anglo America not only for the opportunities, but because they saw it as a superior culture. They made a point of paying extra money for Catholic schooling to learn English and acquire enough skills to make them palatable to Anglo American employers. They bought etiquette books written by Anglo Americans like Emily Post to assimilate into the dominant culture. Of course, it helped that the Anglos back then had ethnic confidence in spades.

    You understand with the Negros of Zimbabwe, but you don’t get that this is also the case with certain Whites, that you must always keep the upper hand with them. Really, it’s better for BOTH of you if you stay on top of them. They will survive and even prosper under YOUR rule, but if you don’t stay on top of them, they will roll over and flatten you even if it eventually kills them.

    And no, I’m not “naming the Jew,” I’m naming the Yankee “soul of merchants” Elite who collaborate with them. Without these scoundrels, the American Jew would be nothing. Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson himself who observed that merchants have no country? Well the blue-collar working class and middle class Yankee hates that bunch with the fire of one thousand suns.

    They loved the strong Southern leader like Andrew “Old Hickory” Jackson. The guy who killed the bank and kept this country free until the New England White Liberal, Woodrow Wilson sold us all out to the Federal Reserve. Note that it was Andrew Jackson who made it clear that HE would not countenance secession and would invade them militarily when it was threatened by that hot-headed temper tantrum-throwing state, South Carolina, and IMO he was right to do so.

    It never made any sense to me for the real, original Americans to break away from their own country that they had invested the most blood, sweat, and tears in founding. IMO, secession was Harold Covington’s Pacific Northwest scheme of the nineteenth century. It was a form of White Flight – albeit burdening yourselves with millions of Negros. It was just a very misguided move on your parts.

    Maybe I am what Lincoln and his cronies would have called a copperhead. My dad was military and most of his assignments were in the South and I fell in love with the people and the customs of that region. But I have never understood the odd need of Southerners to have an alien race do their manual/menial labor. Call me crazy, but I’d rather make my own bed than be murdered in it.

    That said, I believe the Southern culture is not only superior to but more quintessentially American than the Northern culture and that is what should dominate. There is nothing inherently evil about actively trying to impose a real American culture on the rest of the country that calls itself the United States of America.

    So, if I could wave a magic wand, I’d resurrect Old Hickory and have him lead like-minded Southerners in taking control of the country, but only with the stipulation that all Non-White labor be repatriated back to their continents of origin. The Africans would be shipped post-haste back to Africa, the Asians back to Asia, the Mestizos back to Mexico and the Jews could be encouraged to move to Israel or Birozhiban, if they preferred.

    However, if we are ever in a position where technological advancements are not enough to fend off a labor shortage, we need to look to White Christian enclaves in Europe to fill that need and then do everything we can to make them assimilate to Southern culture.

    If you die-hard Johnny Reb types must, envision the United States, and hopefully Canada, too, as an expanded Confederacy with Southern customs, civility, and charm from California to Newfoundland, from the tip of Texas to the northern tip of Nunavut. What so violates your principles about this scenario that makes it seem so evil to you?

    Since I don’t have a drop of Anglo ancestry, I prefer to think of it as an American Reconquista. The Southerners as the ORIGINAL Americans reconquering North America. You better do it before the Mestizos beat you to it and they already have a good head start on you.

    From the American experience, both with the War Between The States and the mishap with the Democrats, secession not only marginalizes every White in America, it has created a void of leadership for the wrong type of Whites – disingenuous, cosmopolitan, global elitist liberals with the souls of merchants – to fill the void and the entire White Western world has suffered.

    The American Empire was inevitable. The Southerners were America’s true aristocrats. They deposed themselves with secession from the United States in the nineteenth century. They clawed their way back only to depose themselves again when they abandoned the Democrats for the milquetoast Republicans.

    Not only is there nothing to be gained from turning the clock back to the Civil War, there is everything to lose … again. Southern men compose the best, bravest and brightest fighting men we have had in our entire history. Yet paradoxically, they prefer to play defense rather than play offense. It’s not enough to preserve your own territory; you must take the entire field. It’s that simple.

  21. Re: Clytemnestra

    (1) I would say that the secessionists were “dead on” accurate regarding their predictions of the future course of the Union.

    (2) If the South had seceded in 1850, it would have probably won its independence.

    (3) If the South had remained in the Union, it would have lost parity with the North, and become a submerged minority within a consolidated liberal democracy, where all the vital decisions about the future of the South are made by non-Southerners.

    In effect, if the South had not seceded, we would have had exactly the system that we have today.

    (4) The preservation of the Union ultimately led to abolition and desegregation and things still much worse.

    (5) In the 1950s, as a result of the War Between the States, the South was the minority section within the Union, and the minority section within the Democratic Party, which it still is today.

    In 2012, the average Northern state (with the exceptions of Florida and Texas) is much larger than the typical Southern state. The Democratic Party collapsed because Jews, DWLs, and blacks took over its Northern wing and began to demand changes in its racial platform.

    (6) Of course, the only choice left for the South aside from the Democrats was the Republicans, another Northern-dominated liberal party. The preservation of the Union meant always choosing between the lesser of two evils.

    (7) As the minority section in the United States, the South couldn’t stop the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when we voted almost unanimously against both bills in Congress.

    That was before the black vote. The worst fears of the secessionists have been realized. We are now a submerged minority within a consolidated despotism where power is centralized in Washington.

  22. There has been a lot of back and forth on this site over what may be called The Black Question. There is an obvious dichotomy between white northerners and white southerners. A lot of talking past one another. A difference of perspective. Hunter speaks of keeping blacks on a short leash under Jim Crow type laws. Northern racialists whites just don’t want the goddamn niggers. Period.

    Therefore it is interesting to read two of Stonelifters posts here. He wrote:

    “we don’t want to rule yankees we want to be free of yankees. It’s revealing that some one wants to take over and rule White men, and what it reveals is not pleasant…

    …That’s another thing yankees don’t seem to grasp.”

    Substitute “niggers” for Yankees, and a Northern white’s position is thus,

    we don’t want to rule niggers we want to be free of niggers . It’s revealing that some one wants to take over and rule black men, and what it reveals is not pleasant…

    Substitute “Southerners” in place of Yankees and we have,

    That’s another thing Southerners don’t seem to grasp.

    That is the difference. Interesting, huh?

  23. But I don’t THINK Clytemnestra really suggested white Southrons should rule over white Yankees, though “not naming the Jew” and saying “Boston Brahmins.”

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

    As O’Meara notes in his ‘Toward a WHite Republic” these actions are the secularized version of lacking a means of abolition of sin, from Calvinist filioquists. Same philosophical problem, and an even more useless form of solution. Sin is still sin, and as long as the filioquist paradigm pervades Catholi-Schism and Protestantism, they will continue to either a) fracture or b) accomodate to the ‘spirit of the age.’

    I’ve noted this for six years on my blog. “Plus ca change, plus qui reste la meme.”

  25. Hunter,

    The South had more Northern allies than she was aware of. There was a major reason why Lincoln had to assume dictatorial control of the North, suspend habeus corpus and throw tens of thousands of Northern dissenters into prison during his prosecution of the War Between The States.

    Southerners also underestimate how much under their fulminations against black slavery, Northerners hated Negros and lived in dread of having to deal with a large population of them. The Civil War was less about holding onto the South than containing the South’s system of Negro labor from expanding into the West.

    It worked. The West remained over ninety percent White until the second great Negro migration to the California coast during WWII. During the Civil War, many Northern White laborers supported slavery in the South and only in the South, because they did not want to compete with a free Negro labor class. The first great Negro migration occurred to Detroit thanks to the greed of auto manufacturers who wanted to break White labor’s back. I seriously doubt even they would have gone there had Big Labor had not finally restricted immigration from Eastern Europe.

    When the tensions between North and South started, the North already had areas where they were dealing with the criminal antics of free Negros. It was the age of technological innovation and they knew it was already a matter of time before using Negros as farm equipment would become obsolete. The South would have to free them, because it would no longer be profitable to keep them. That would lead to the inevitable Negro migration to areas like Detroit and we all know what happened there.

    I still maintain that secession was not only detrimental to the South, but totally unnecessary. The South could have done what she was ultimately forced to do anyway. She could have freed the Negros and instituted share-cropping. Better yet, she could have shipped them back to Africa and replaced them with White European peasants who could have become the South’s yeoman and merchant class, giving the South more representation in Congress.

    Mind you, there would have been no opportunity for the Republican Radicals to push through the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, which Ohio and New Jersey – my parents’ home states refused to ratify. Like apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia, the Negros would have never been enfranchised unless the country got stupid.

    For anyone thinking that the North would welcome an exodus of Negro freedmen across the Ohio River, think again! She could have focused on building an industrial infrastructure of her own. She could have privately build warm relations with France and Great Britain.

    Once the North started pushing her weight around, the South could have raised the specter of secession with the full backing of Great Britain and France to bitch slap the North back into her place.

    I also contend that it was a mistake for the Dixiecrats to leave the Democrats. The futility of appeasing Negros became readily apparent to the country soon after LBJ’s Great Society was implemented. I could see the Dixiecrats siding with more conservative pro-White Republicans now and then, but they should have held the line and focused on purging the more radicalist Marxist elements out of the party and booting the back to the Socialist Workers’ party instead of allowing themselves to be relegated to the Baby-Faced Wrestler in the political arena.

    My big hope is that, now that the Tea Party has been co-opted by the Usual Suspects, the Republicans, like the Whigs, are about to go extinct and that some kind of new coalition between Southern conservatives and White Northern Labor – who always had more interests in common than you think – can be built to combat the Diversity. Even though the Boston Brahmins of his era liked to sneer and look down their noses at Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson, the quintessential populist, was well loved by Americans all over the country, because this White nationalist had street fighting down to an art.

    The problem today is that most of the original Americans are nowhere near as politically active as all these cohesive immigrant ethnic groups have been. Most Americans only vote for every four years in the national elections. Of course, by the time a politician hits the nationals, it is too late for his constituents to control him; he already is owned by other special interests. They pay no attention to local elections where they could position their own man to move up the political hierarchy.

    I will always believe that it behooves all White racial realists with no paper trail to infiltrate the Democrat party or other leftist parties to learn the necessary street fighting skills to defeat them later and then purge them out of the political process. If every Republican had studied Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as assiduously as the Democrats had, this country would have a fighting chance.

    White nationalists everywhere should stop reprogram their thinking from secession to reconquista. Once the latter is accomplished and only then is real autonomy possible.

  26. I wish it was just a regional pride thing.

    Instead, it has become a life or death struggle because the preservation of the Union has made us a permanent minority within the United States, and hostage to every stupid decision ever made by the Northern majority, from abolition to civil rights to letting the Jews into America to Third World immigration to Obama.

    Try looking at it from a Southern perspective: Yankees came here and abolished slavery, destroyed the entire region, and then tried to elevate blacks over Whites across the whole South, only to relent after almost twenty years of resistance.

    After WW2, Yankees came up with the great idea that all the public schools should be integrated, that every restaurant and business in the South should be integrated, and the federal troops should be used to integrate our universities, and then overcame 9 to 1 opposition in Congress to implement MLK’s dream.

    Fastforward to Obama: every Northern state votes for Obama, as transplants and government workers flood into Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina, who align themselves with the blacks they enfranchised in the Voting Rights Act, and the Hispanics they let in with the Immigration Act of 1965, thereby making the the natives a minority in their own states.

    Texas has been invaded by millions of illegal aliens. Florida has been invaded by the whole Caribbean. Every major city in the South from Houston to Birmingham to Memphis to Richmond has been destroyed by the niggers who were allowed to run wild because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    So here we are in 2012, we’re five months away from the presidential election, and the Northern states are revving up to vote as a block for Obama, and to defeat Obama, we have to hold every single Southern state, while peeling away Ohio, and defending the Southwest that is being flooded by Mexicans.

    A handful of Northern states might break ranks: Indiana for sure, Ohio, Iowa, and New Hampshire are possible, and there is a chance that Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin might tip if the bottom were to fall out of the economy.

    Suppose you are sitting here in Alabama where Whites vote 9 to 1 against the Democrats. Why can’t Northerners simply do that? You would get the impression that the “Blue Wall” up there is going to be the ruin of us all.

    If we could only separate from that “Blue Wall,” draw an international border from Virginia to Missouri and down around Oklahoma and Texas, then everything would change within the new boundaries. Things that are unthinkable in the present Union could become possible.

    If Whites in the North have lost their minds, and want to make a bad situation even worse by reelecting Obama, after all the shit he has done with Eric “My People” Holder, including suing Alabama, Arizona, and South Carolina to block our immigration laws, and now suing Florida to keep illegal aliens on the voter rolls, then what can we do about the situation?

    Self preservation requires the dissolution of the Union.

  27. Re: “Suppose you are sitting here in Alabama where Whites vote 9 to 1 against the Democrats. Why can’t Northerners simply do that? You would get the impression that the ‘Blue Wall’ up there is going to be the ruin of us all.”

    Well, RURAL northerners DO “simply do that,” even though we are out-voted by the huge urban centers. But from a distance this fine distinction blurs, and it appears that WE are equally infected with the “Yankee” liberal disease. We who were born and bred north of the Line are not “Yankees who are worse than niggers” (not your quote, Hunter) but equal sharers with you “Southrons” in the same (white) genetic pool — and nearly identically so in rural northern Appalachia and rural New England, though more Germanic than you in most northern rural areas. We are counted with you in the same “permanent minority” that has been “held hostage to every stupid decision” that has ever been legislated and administered against us, over all our objections and our forefathers’ objections — and we are REAL GAPS in the “solid Blue Wall.”

    Re: “White nationalists everywhere should reprogram their thinking from secession to reconquista. Once the latter is accomplished and only then is real autonomy possible.” I don’t go that far, but think we all need to appreciate the reasons and merits of BOTH approaches, and as the Scripture says: “Let brotherly love continue.”

  28. @Moisin Nagin:

    “But I don’t THINK Clytemnestra really suggested white Southrons should rule over white Yankees, though “not naming the Jew” and saying “Boston Brahmins.””

    “Naming the Jew” is a subject that may be worthy of consideration but blaming the Jew for the antics of our collaborating White elite psychopaths is another thing altogether.

    White Southrons resemble the only true American aristocracy the United States will ever have. Aristocrats have hereditary rulership of a country and then they are the ones who established its cultural norms. If they are deposed, then another order, usually a lower order, like France’s Jacobins or Cromwell’s Roundheads take rulership. if you think about it the American Civil War was pretty much the sequel to the English Civil War.

    I think the Jacobite – interesting name, isn’t it? – North was so vicious to the South because they intuitively recognized that they were dealing with America’s aristocracy much as Cromwell dealt with the Cavaliers and Robspierre dealt with their nobility.
    Just as the English invited the monarchy back, Americans’ temporary mania over the Kennedy Camelot nonsense and enduring fascination with the British royal family reveals a hunger on the part of Whites for a graceful, gracious hierarchy that cannot exist today thanks to the money-grubbing society the Boston Brahmin mercantile class and their allies, the Jews, imposed on America.

    Has anyone here who is fond of “Naming the Jew” ever watched the television series, “Leave It To Beaver?” Wally and Theodore Cleaver have this shady friend by the name of Eddie Haskell. He is one slick character. He is fawning and obsequious to the boys’ parents, Ward and June when they are there, but when their backs are turned, he subversively encourages Wally and Theodore to do all kinds of stupid and self-destructive stunts.

    The show was pretty formulaic, so it seems that, though June and Ward had Eddie’s number, they never clued Wally and Theodore, maybe hoping like hell that they’d figure out Eddie’s game on their own. But Wally and Theodore would never stop hanging out with Eddie. Every episode ended with Wally and Theodore taking ownership of their screw-up, but for some reason June and Ward never helped Wally and Theodore to see Eddie’s involvement as the common denominator in this and all previous screw-ups.

    Though Eddie Haskell could well represent a subversive element like the Jew, White Nationalists tend to think that our White elite are richer, snobbier versions of Wally and Theodore. They’re well-meaning simpletons; stupid and naive. This country only had a hostile elite when those damned Jews took over. Uh, NO.

    Sorry, but I don’t get a warm, fuzzy feeling from any upper class who is content to gorge themselves in palaces while their own damned people starve in hovels or face hanging if they dare to poach a deer or a rabbit in the monseigneur’s forest. The elite has always been hostile to their subjects. But I digress.

    Think of every “Leave It To Beaver” episode as an expulsion. The viewer keeps wishing and hoping that Wally and Theodore will finally buy a clue, realize that Eddie Haskell is bad news, and forever end their association with him. But just like the European elite constantly expelled the Jews only to invite them back once they no longer found the peasants revolting, we see Theodore and Wally still hanging out with troublemaking Eddie in the next episode.

    America’s Ward and June Cleaver have inflicted on their younger siblings – representing a productive White American working class – a Wally and Theodore – representing the Northern White political elite with merchant souls – who are first-class psychopaths that hooked up with a sociopathic element – representing the Jews, if you will. That’s the difference. The only hope is for these younger siblings is for another older sibling, the deposed Southern elite, the REAL American aristocracy, if you will, to to neutralize the former before they worry about the latter.

  29. “I don’t get a warm, fuzzy feeling from any upper class who is content to gorge themselves in palaces while their own damned people starve in hovels or face hanging if they dare to poach a deer or a rabbit in the monseigneur’s forest. The elite has always been hostile to their subjects.” I agree, especially with that last sentence, though I believe there have been some very rare historical exceptions.

    Yet the solution is to replace with another “aristocracy” — or even a monarchy?

  30. “Americans’ temporary mania over the Kennedy Camelot…and enduring fascination with the British royal family reveals a hunger on the part of Whites for a graceful, gracious hierarchy….”

    Yes, and even the Reagans, the Bush lineage, and the Obamas for some, have to some extent satisfied the FLAW of that same demented lust for servility, which the Hebrews also had when they demanded through Samuel that God must give them a king. It never turns out well in the end.

  31. I’m perfectly willing to grant that there are gaps in the “Blue Wall.” Indiana is the biggest such gap. There are other gaps in places like Southern Illinois, Southern Ohio, Western Iowa, Pennsyltucky, etc.

    Greater Appalachia borders Midlands. The Lower North was a disaffected region during the War Between the States because the Scots-Irish settled throughout that region before they were overwhelmed by Germans and other European immigrants.

  32. Turning to the television on to my immediate left … Lawrence O’Donnell is interviewing some ridiculous negro with dred locks about the racist backlash to the black teacher who banned a patriotic song.

  33. With regard to monarchies, many of the founding fathers believed constitutional monarchy to be the most stable long term government and admired the British system.
    Clytemnestra: The results of the Enlightenment, from which was hatched the curse of liberal democracy, was the eventual decapitation (literal as well as figurative) or marginalization of Western royalty and the end of blood and soil as the basis of the nationstate. This process was instigated by the merchant class and banksters and it wasn’t for the benefit of the common man, but to give themselves more wealth and power. The merchants and banksters were great at playing the masses against thier ancient rulers, though.
    America was meant to be a constituational republic but it didn’t last. I would prefer rule by a monarch who shares my blood and culture to liberal democracy’s multicultural cesspool tyrant.

  34. While we once shared a common DNA I doubt we do any longer with all the inter marrying with the ethnic White clans in the north, and DNA only goes so far. We no longer share a common heritage with them. That holds true when you look at voting patterns, church attendances and the rest. We’re different in things we have in common like hunting and how we go about it. We are different people. Foreign just as I am foreign to my distant relatives in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.

    No we cannot take in more yankees. We need to deport most of the ones we have. Every yankee we let it dilutes our Southron heritage. To make a mass immigration of yankees work would require all sorts of compromises, none of which would be good for our people or preserving our heritage. Or we make no compromise and the yankees we import will be pissy and disaffected. We already know how disaffected minorities work. At one point I would have been ok with allowing a small number of yankees in, but reading the post of race aware yankees here on OD has harden my stances on the topic. By allowing yankees to immigrate we would simply be importuning another hostile clan into our nation.

    Any one we do let in needs to be a picked man, DNA test, an extensive background check similar to the one you go through to get a top secret clearance, polygraph test and the applicant picking up the tab. And the immigrant and his offspring should be barred from politics for 3 generations, as in can’t vote, donate money, campaign for anyone voting etc ec.

    For the most part we don’t want to rule over negros either, but as long as they are in the South we need Jim Crow laws. Actually we need a much tougher version of Jim Crow until all the negros leave or die off. Which they would do both in large numbers without govt aide. But the negro problem wouldn’t be a large scale problem without yankees string the pot. I’ve read editorials and the like from the War of northern Aggression, and y’all are simply wrong about common attitudes of yankees during the war. Many of y’all clamored for us to be exterminated

    Clytemnestra is probably a decent man, and I know many yankee kids who grew up in the South because of their fathers military service. I can tell you that is a common story being an army brat and all myself. Sadly for them it normally makes them neither fish nor fowl, not of one nation or another, part of each and out outside of each.

    Eddie Haskell as naming the jew is pretty slick thinking

    I want no king. God warned us against kings, The Ulster Scots came here to get away from royals and jumped at the chance to kill Englishmen and their nobles during our War for Independence. George Washington said no, and those three things are good enough cause for me to reject the idea.

Comments are closed.