Alabama
Demonization as a political and social stratagem knows no temporal or geographical bounds; it is a ploy as old as civilization itself. The objective of the game is to dehumanize an opponent (an individual or a group) in order to gain public support for his marginalization or destruction. Modern America abounds with examples of the demonization process, most of them perpetuated by the Left (which includes Trotskyite neo-conservatives) against the traditional, populist Right. The Oklahoma City bombing, black church burnings, the Atlanta Olympics pipe-bombing, and the ever-present and ubiquitous citizen militia movement have all been used by the government and its lap-dog media to portray anyone to the right of George W. Bush and the Republican National Committee as a clear and present danger to the public weal. But the boogie-man singled out to receive the lion’s share of the liberal/neocon opprobrium is the battleflag-waving Southern “cracker” or “redneck,”who is uniformly presented by the media, the academy, and popular culture as Old Scratch incarnate. Unfortunately, the demonization of Southerners and their region is not of recent origin.
Though Southerners of both high and low estate contributed mightily to the founding and advancement of the American Republic, they have been subjected to a long-running process of demonization that has turned them into national whipping-boys in the latter half of the twentieth century. The demonization of the South did not begin, as some may think, with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, though it did take on a particularly hostile tone during those decades. Rather, the campaign to portray the South as the sole blot on an otherwise pure and shining “City on a Hill” began in earnest in the 1830s with the rise of the Yankee reformist impulse (i.e. Abolitionist, women’s rights, temperance, anti-tobacco, and other like-minded movements) and fears that the so-called “Slave Power” of Southern aristocrats threatened American Democracy. The three decades from the publication of William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator in 1831 to the outbreak of The War for Southern Independence in 1861 witnessed a virulent crusade to vilify not only the South’s culture and institutions but Southerners themselves.
To properly understand why the Yankee thought it necessary and profitable to demonize the South, we must trace briefly the dichotomy between a rapidly-changing antebellum North and a stable, conservative South. Southern men-of-affairs, especially South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun, rightly understood that unchecked consolidation and the campaign against slavery would result in either the destruction of the South or in the dissolution of the Union. The gathering forces against which the South had to contend were indeed foreboding. The sweep of “progress” was already gripping the North (especially New England), urging it toward finance and industrial capitalism and the exploitation of “free” labor. William H. Seward warned the South that unless it voluntarily discarded its old ways–particularly an outmoded adherence to states rights and the “peculiar institution”–it would later yield them amidst a sea of blood. Such threats to the well-being of their region caused thoughtful Southern leaders to consider what sort of checks might be imposed against an increasingly hostile North.
But progressive Northern leaders were in no mood to be checked by a numerical minority in the slaveholding South. Undermining the Southern way of life would be the first step in the triumph of the Yankee worldview, and to accomplish this the South had to be demonized in the eyes of a majority of Northerners before the radicals could hope for its actual physical destruction.
Revolutionary change in the North’s economic and political systems had been accompanied by European-style reform movements of every stripe. Indeed, New England and parts of the Midwest now produced a breed of perpetual reformers in whom emotion trumped commonsense and hard experience. Eventually, all the reformist strands were woven together into the rope of Abolitionism, and by the 1830s the anti-slavery movement had become a messianic, apostate religious crusade. Radical Abolitionist propaganda found its way not only into the literature and public oratory of the day, but into juvenile story books, church hymnals, and even almanacs, as well.
The milder form of Abolitionism that existed until the late 1820s in both the North and South called for gradual emancipation under conditions to be determined by those closest to the institution. Few men condemned the actual physical conditions of slavery; instead, they criticized the institution on the grounds of principle. In 1827 New Yorker James Fenimore Cooper told a French audience that “the American slave is better off, so far as mere animal wants are concerned, than the lower orders of the European peasants.” Moreover, both sides in the debate were aware of the problems inherent in the manumission of several million Africans who lacked experience with self-government. Many, if not most, early advocates of emancipation favored one or another plan for the separation of the races. The American Colonization Movement, for instance, proposed to transport out of the country those slave freed by their masters. Until the beginning of the 1830s, then, there was little overt hostility between the pro- and anti-slavery factions. But the first issue of Garrison’s Liberator changed the nature of the slavery debate forever.
The Liberator gave Garrison a platform from which to stoke the fires of sectional hatred against the South, and he wasted no time in doing so. In the first issue of 1 January 1831, he declared: “I do not wish to think or speak or write with moderation. I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” And so he was. Garrison and a vocal minority of New Englanders agitated unceasingly to distort and fictionalize Southern society and to make hatred of slavery synonymous with hatred of all who inhabited the slaveholding South. Southerners were described as “thieves and adulterers . . . who trample law and order beneath their feet; . . . ruffians who insult, pollute, and lacerate helpless women; and . . . conspirators against the lives and liberties of New England citizens.”
Like many New Englanders who wrote about the South during the middle third of the nineteenth-century, Garrison possessed virtually no first-hand knowledge of the region. Along with Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose only visit had been a brief one to a model plantation in Kentucky, and arch-Abolitionist Wendell Phillips, Garrison created a simplistic and false portrait of a South whose social system was much more complex than they were willing to admit. Phillips the orator exceeded Garrison the editor in his ability to tug on the heartstrings of New Englanders over the slavery issue. He contended that the institution was not only evil, but that it represented a direct threat to the political and economic well-being of the North. The South’s aristocratic Slave Power, as he called it, stood as an obstacle to the onward march of American Democracy, and if the North was to avoid contracting this contagious disease, it must remake the South in its own progressive image. Unlike Garrison, who preached a philosophy of non-resistance, Phillips conjured for his audience “scenes of blood through which a rebellious slave population must march to their rights.” Long before Lincoln made his “House Divided Against Itself” speech, Wendell Phillips had already convinced many New Englanders that the slave and free sections “cannot live together.”
Anti-Southern Abolitionist vitriol also found expression in the writings of some of New England’s most popular men-of-letters: John Greenleaf Whittier, James Russell Lowell, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, to name but three. Though none but Emerson had actually traveled to the South, all confidently scorned the region as a benighted cultural backwater where sloth and stagnation prevailed. Just how susceptible to hear-say and rumor these men were can be gleaned from Whittier’s The Narrative of James Williams. Williams, a run-away slave, told of being “sold down the river” by his owner in Virginia to a cruel master who foreshadowed Mrs. Stowe’s Simon Legree. Whittier scandalized his readers with Williams’ tales of his new master’s barbarism, which included raping female slaves, whipping pregnant women until they miscarried, and shooting escaped field-hands in the back.
The work was published by Boston’s Anti-Slavery Society in 1838 and quickly went through six editions before being withdrawn after it was discovered that Whittier had not bothered to verify the truthfulness of Williams’ fantastic tale. Nonetheless, Whittier’s book made its mark. Even after learning of its fabrication, many Abolitionists still held that the narrative gave an accurate description of slavery in the Deep South. Howard R. Floan’s The South in Northern Eyes, 1831-1861 (1958) tells us: “In considering the reception of The Narrative of James Williams, it is not hard to understand how, after twelve years of conditioning, the American mind was well prepared for Uncle Tom’s Cabin. . . .”
James Russell Lowell, though largely uninterested in the great political questions of the day that loomed over both North and South, was quick to assert that the preeminent struggle was one between the forces of enlightened Northern progressivism and Southern traditionalism. To Lowell, the South was “King Retro,” stubbornly clinging to an unnatural and hierarchical worldview that eventually must bring it to ruin. The region’s only salvation, he believed, was for it to adopt the prevailing ideologies of mid-nineteenth-century New England, especially egalitarianism. His depiction of the typical Southerner as an idle ruffian and an ignorant hypocrite created in the popular imagination, according to Floan, “a villain who the people of the North would soon be quite willing to meet in battle.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson, before joining the ranks of the radical Abolitionists in the mid-1840s, had opposed Southern slaveholders on principle but did not sensationalize the alleged cruelty of master to slave as did Whittier and Lowell. Emerson wrote in the late 1820s: “For it is true that many a slave under the warm roof of a humane master, with easy labours and regular subsistence enjoys more happiness than his naked brethren in Africa.” He also expressed a grudging admiration for the masculine fighting qualities of Southern men and thus feared they would outmatch Yankees in the contest of politics. “The Southerner,” he noted, “always beats us in politics. . . . [He] has personality, has temperament, has manners, persuasion, address, and terror. The cold Yankee . . . has not fire or firmness. . . .” Emerson’s view was representative of a growing Northern resentment of the South’s strength in national affairs.
Once Emerson joined the Abolitionists, he radically altered his view of the South. Most of his literary venom he saved for South Carolina, comparing it to contemporary Algiers. “We must go there,” he fretted, “in disguise, and with pistols in our pockets, leaving our pocketbooks at home, making our wills before we go.” South Carolina’s chief rascal was, of course, the Nullifier Calhoun, whose voice, Emerson claimed, spoke for the state.
The decade of the 1850s further convinced Emerson that, if unchecked, the South’s “slaveocracy” would render New England impotent in American politics. Many of his fellow Northerners were lured into sympathizing with the South, he thought, by “the ascendancy of Southern manners.” Alarmed at the prospects of Southern political dominance, Emerson discarded whatever objectivity he once may have had and increased the fury of his attacks on the region and its inhabitants. He called upon his fellow Abolitionists to help foster a climate in New England that would produce future Negro leaders in the mold of Toussaint, Douglass, Nat Turner, and Denmark Vasey. Such men, he believed, if unleashed on the villainous South, would bring more positive results than all the white anti-slavery societies then in existence.
But not all Northern men were of the same cut as Garrison, Phillips, Whittier, Lowell, and Emerson. For instance, Oliver Wendell Holmes, though he opposed Southern slavery in principle, refused to demonize the Southern people as “racists” as do the politically correct in our own day. Rather, Holmes believed in the natural superiority of white Southerners over blacks, and that should the South’s social system, including slavery, be forcibly dismantled by radical Abolitionists, the egalitarian forces unleashed would eventually work to undermine the superior position of the New England Brahmins in their own region.
Like Holmes, Nathaniel Hawthorne viewed the emotionally-charged, anti-South rhetoric of the Abolitionists as harmful to the nation’s social and political stability. Aware of the unbridgeable cultural gap between the regions, Hawthorne advised a Constitutional approach to the problem of slavery. He was indeed horrified to hear Emerson proclaim shortly after the execution of John Brown that “the death of this blood-stained fanatic has made the Gallows as venerable as the Cross!” Hawthorne joined most Southerners in thinking that Brown had received justice at the hangman’s noose.
The literati of New York City also kept their distance from the rabid Abolitionism of New England. Business and marriage alliances between New Yorkers and Southerners served to soften the former’s perceptions of the latter. Herman Melville, William Cullen Bryant, and Walt Whitman, though surely no lovers of the South or slavery, all refused to engage in the general demonization of the region and its people. As Floan points out, “one must find in New York a body of opinion which objected to slavery without cursing the slaveholding South.” When one looks closely at the demonization of antebellum Dixie, it is clear that New England, and particularly Boston, lay at the root of the movement.
Boston in the mid-nineteenth century was the center of a Unitarian-Universalist revolt against traditional Christianity in which sinful mankind was transformed into a creature of innate goodness and light. If mankind was inherently good, then all social problems were external ones that could be eradicated by one sort of reform or another. Perhaps even the Southern slave-driver could be redeemed if only he could be made over in the image of the sturdy, democratic New Englander and his cousin in the Midwest who knew the proper interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. To these abstract idealists, the South seemed woefully out of step with the idea that “all men are created equal.” While New Englanders called down the wrath of God’s “terrible swift sword” against the South, western men in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, writes historian A. O. Craven, “had a way of viewing evil as something there ought to be a law against.” This combination of sanctimony and the appeal to laws that surely would be enacted by Randolph of Roanoke’s “King Numbers,” served to unite the disparate elements of the white South and gird them for the impending conflict.
The war waged from 1861 to 1865 was precipitated in no small part by the Abolitionists who had for thirty years fanned the flames of hatred against the South. When the fighting broke out in April, 1861, they all rejoiced, some at finally being rid of the South and others at the opportunity of destroying her. One of their own, Julia Ward Howe, while in Washington during the early days of the war, penned the lyrics to what became the Unitarian-Abolitionist anthem–”The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Her words hailed the advent of a holy war against an evil South and equated the crucifixion of Christ with the present crusade against slavery. The South Carolina Presbyterian divine, Rev. James Henley Thornwell, well understood the nature of the “irrepressible conflict” waged against his homeland. He wrote: “The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground, Christianity and Atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity the stake.”
Four years of Jacobin-inspired warfare devastated the South. In addition to some 450,000 Confederate soldiers killed and wounded, the region’s civilian population suffered horrendously, especially during the final campaigns of the conflict. The last months of the Confederacy were filled with arson, robbery, rape, and murder, crimes perpetrated more often than not with the approval of Union military officers and civilian officials. Much of the destruction was pure vandalism directed against defenseless women and children and represented a deliberate policy to strike terror in the hearts of the Southern people. What General William T. Sherman called the “holiest fight ever fought on God’s earth” made little distinction between black and white. A reporter for the New York Herald, who witnessed the sack of Columbia, South Carolina, in 1865, noted that “Negro women were for the most part victims of the [Union] soldiers’ lust. A number of them were woefully mistreated and ravished.”
In the wake of this carnage, Northern business interests began a systematic and wholesale economic plundering of the South that would continue through Reconstruction. Oppressive taxes were levied on cotton, and in just three years (1865-68) over $70 million was expropriated from the Southern economy. As late as 1880 the value of Southern agricultural lands was only two-thirds of what it had been in 1860. Gross farm income did not rise above 1859 levels until the early 1880s, though the South’s population rose nearly fifty-percent during that period. In the decades following the war, the South became an economic colony at the mercy of Northeastern plutocrats who exacted enormous sums of capital through usurious interest rates, stole lands and resources through tax foreclosures, and rigged local elections at the point of a bayonet. Famine and pestilence stalked the land, and it was common to see homeless widows and orphans begging bread from door to door and once-proud veterans reduced to destitution. Indeed, Wendell Phillips summed up the situation well when he remarked after the war: “This [the North’s victory] is the new dispensation. This is the New Testament. 1860 is the blank leaf between the old and the new. . . . We have conquered not the geographical but the ideal South . . . and we have a right to trample it under the heel of our boots. This is the meaning of the war.” So it was.
The sort of destruction laid upon Southerners can be sold to the public only if the targets of that destruction are demonized to the point of having their humanity stripped away. Then they become non-persons against whom the vilest depredations can be righteously excused. For decades before the war Southerners were stigmatized as a brutal and backwards people in dire need of punishment and repentance. Thus all that was done to them they deserved. Both public and private organs in the North perpetrated a false image of Southern “savagery:” the murder of Union prisoners on the battlefield; the unique horrors of Andersonville prison; and the complicity of Jefferson Davis in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. By such lies and distortions, the War Department and the Congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War place the mark of infamy upon the South. Northerners who took a less emotional view of the South also had ulterior, mercenary motives: the restoration of the former Confederate states to the Union as markets for Northern goods and capital. They hoped that through contact with the North the region could be morally regenerated and brought to see the benefits of Republican rule.
The South’s defeat in 1865, as Thornwell predicted, cleared the way for the triumph of a Jacobin worldview in a consolidated American Empire. Wasted by war and military occupation and swindled by crooked Carpetbag and Scalawag “entrepreneurs,” the Southern people could do nothing to halt the centralizers’ juggernaut. One would think the demonizers’ work done at this point. But after a truce of sorts prevailed for several decades, especially during times of war when the American nation needed the services of Southern manhood, the demonization of all things traditionally Southern resumed apace in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement.
The on-going assault on the South is reminiscent of the Abolitionist campaign of the mid-nineteenth century in that it seeks to vilify an entire people on the basis of lies and half-truths perpetrated by men with little knowledge of the subject about which they write. I could give countless examples, but I shall limit myself to a rather recent one from popular culture. In the early 1970s, Canadian singer Neil Young wrote and recorded a neo-Abolitionist tune called “Southern Man,” in which he whines: “I heard screaming, bullwhips cracking, how long, how long?” Young’s musical diatribe was quickly answered by a group of battleflag-waving, good ol’ boys known collectively as Lynyrd Skynyrd, whose “Sweet Home Alabama” remains the favorite of many an unreconstructed Southron. Lead singer Ronnie Van Zandt growled a challenge to Young and his ilk: “I heard Mr. Young sing about her, well I heard ol’ Neil put her down. I hope Neil Young will remember, Southern man don’t need him around anyhow.” Van Zandt’s lyrics may lack a certain eloquence, but they say simply and directly what demonized Southerners have been thinking for the last 160 years.
Michael Hill
Killen, Alabama
Once again, the negro is not the problem; by himself, the negro could have never taken over Birmingham or New Orleans or Memphis in a million years.
The negro is moving on from merely conquering and destroying formerly great American cities. Now he is on the cusp of conquering entire states. Why? Because of the existence of the Union! 🙂
Alas, the Union exists. It’s no use trying to rewrite history about what might have been if the South was an independent state. It’s a moot point. And in all likelihood the Union will continue to exist to 2020 and beyond.
By 2020, Georgia will be about 52% white and 34% black. Blacks already control the Georgia Democratic party and as their numbers continue to grow so will their power within that party. After the 2020 redistricting, they, along with their Hispanic, Asian and white liberal allies, will be in position to overthrow the GOP and create a new, semi-permanent ruling coalition in Georgia.
This won’t be like Obama’s victory in 2008. The vast majority of Obama’s voters were non-black. The vast majority of Democratic Representatives and 100% of Democratic Senators were also non-black. Obama is merely the mulatto figurehead of the Judeo-Honky-run national Democratic party.
This won’t be the case in post-2020 Georgia. Imagine a black governor being elected along with Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate. The vast majority of these Democrats will be black and the vast majority of the voters who elected them into office will also be black. What we call BRA today is more of a prophecy than a reality. But Black Run Georgia–with blacks running the executive and legislative branches, followed by the judiciary and bureaucracy–could become an entrenched reality less than ten years from now.
And once BRG is established, an exodus of conservative whites will surely follow, further entrenching black Democratic rule in Georgia. It’s the ultimate negative feedback loop from hell. That’s why a single election could permanently change Georgia from being a white conservative to a black leftist state, almost as dramatically as the 1994 election changed South Africa.
What can be done to stop this from happening? For one, secession. But the Confederate model was tried and failed in the 1860s, wasn’t even tried in the 1960s, and has virtually no popular support today. There’s no time to keep banging away on this failed scheme, hoping beyond hope that it will ever catch on. It won’t. Other ideas are needed quickly and desperately. Or else the Deep South states will begin to fall to black-rule like dominoes.
Let’s review the history of Georgia:
Sherman’s March – Yankees
Abolition – Yankees
Civil Rights Act of 1866 – Yankees
Military Reconstruction – Yankees
14th Amendment – Yankees
15th Amendment – Yankees
Force Acts – Yankees
Civil Rights Act of 1875 – Yankees
Elections Bill of 1890 (Failed) – Yankees
At this point, the North gives up on Reconstruction, and the Plessy decision paves the way to segregation. Blacks are swiftly disenfranchised in Georgia and other Southern states.
Jim Crow – Southerners
Smith v. Allwright – Yankees
Brown decision – Yankees
Civil Rights Act of 1957 – Yankees
Civil Rights Act of 1960 – Yankees
Integration of UGA – Yankees
Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Yankees
Immigration Act of 1965 – Yankees
Loving decision – Yankees
Civil Rights Act of 1968 – Yankees
IRCA Amnesty of 1986 – Yankees
Immigration Act of 1991 – Yankees
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (2006) – Yankees
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (2007) – Yankees
Obama (2008) – Yankees
DREAM Act (2010) – Yankees
Obama (2012) – Yankees
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (2013) – Yankees
But hey, the REAL Problem in Georgia … is blacks! The blacks (and now the Hispanics) have never been anything more than a tool for Yankees and their Jewish allies to dominate and control the federal government.
Every advance that blacks have ever made in Georgia is due to one thing: Yankee interference in our society. The arrival of Hispanics in Georgia and other Southern states is a symptom of the existence of the Union.
Obama is president. Eric Holder is Attorney General. Chuck Schumer wrote an amnesty bill which passed the Senate. Diane Feinstein wrote a gun control bill that passed the Senate. The existence of the Union is the only reason this is a threat to us.
Get rid of the Yankees and their Union and one stone kills over a dozen birds.
@Hunter Wallace:
“What would happen to the blacks? A push-pull effect would be created by dismantling BRA in Dixie. Blacks would have no incentive to stay put in a society that no longer revolves around them. They would move en masse to the Northern states.”
Several months ago, when you were expounding on the benefits to the South, you kept dodging my question about how you thought the South would dispose of its “agricultural equipment” once technological advances made using Negro slave labor obsolete?
You see, I know how the rich elite of EVERY country works and I couldn’t see the elite planter class of the CSA digging into their own bounty to repatriate their former slaves back to Africa. In view of the Southron Fire-Eater tradition of Edward Ruffin, I couldn’t see the average Southron allowing the elite planter class of the CSA to defer the costs of repatriating Negros back to Africa to them via higher taxation.
Thank you for finally answering my question. The animus that generated the War Between The States was NOT one-sided. It is evident to me, that in the back of their minds, all of those Southrons who enjoyed the benefits of Negros via slavery had every intention of throwing those same Negros over the Mason-Dixon line into the laps of the North once technology rendered having them around a hot, smelly mess.
I am NOT opposed to Southern secession. In fact, if there was a national referendum, I would vote for any state that wanted to secede being allowed to do so. But with this caveat. IF FEDGOV ceases to exist and all the states form smaller countries along regional interests, then I go with the George Washington school of thought.
We do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. The South is responsible for taking care of its own garbage. How Southrons do so, as long as they do so within their own borders, is their own business. But remember this. The North will NOT be your dumping ground! So kindly disabuse yourself of that notion right now and we will ALL get along a whole lot better, okay?
True, Clytemnestra. There have even been suggestions here of offering the blackest, poorest, Black Belt Africans financial incentives, assistance, to move out. Positive incentive combined with negative reinforcements really could cause millions (and millions!) to move north of the Line if our urban-dominated states let them. This line of thinking shows extreme weakness or lack of white racial identity and common American Anglo-Celtic identity (OD is teaching southerners that they are
an entirely different people) and no sense of Christian morality (“Do unto others”) and it CANNOT lead to a successful separation from the tyranny of the global Elite. Wrong cannot create right. Confession before secession. Repentance before independence.
Anti-Yankee is Anti-White, you all will recognise in due time. Wrong cannot make right or create good. Hate is weakness and self-destruction, haven’t you learned from Pickett’s Charge?
Anti-Yankee is just what the global tyranny wants you to be. Hell is internecine strife.
Hunter nailed you with his last post. lol
It’s the same way with the Jews.
There are Jewish outliers who are sincerely pro-White. There are Jews who are commercially oriented and who pay no attention to racial issues. It isn’t necessary for EVERY Jew to be Tim Wise for a destructive relationship to exist.
Someone posted an excerpt from the Nixon tapes in the comments. Nixon was exasperated that all the communists seemed to be Jews with the exception of Chambers and Hiss. There were “good Jews,” but they were the exceptions to the rule.
The great mass of Jews were agitating against him. They were subversives.
Every Yankee doesn’t have to be on board with the anti-White agenda. I have never once said ALL Yankees are bad or ALL Southerners are good. That’s not necessary for a destructive relationship to exist.
Once upon a time, there was a White Republic. The Dred Scott decision said that only Whites could be American citizens. The negro had “no rights” which the White man was bound to respect.
Yankees were outraged that their black citizens (Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire) were no longer citizens. After the War Between the States, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to make ALL blacks into U.S citizens.
Since Dred Scott had said that black citizenship was unconstitutional, Yankees had to impose military governments on the South and rewrite the Constitution itself with the 14th Amendment to destroy the White Republic once and for all.
Yankees are anti-White. They are the ones who dismantled Dred Scott and rewrote the Constitution. They destroyed the Confederacy in which no blacks were citizens. In the 1960s, they destroyed the Jim Crow South.
Due to the radical leveling tendencies in their culture, Yankees are unable to coexist with racial hierarchies. They tear down these hierarchies by themselves. They tore down every anti-miscegenation law in the North and then made it a point to pass comprehensive civil rights laws that banned segregation.
As early as 1910, Yankees were passing laws that banned “racial defamation.” The system that was imposed on the South in the 1960s had been maturing in the North since Reconstruction and in parts of New England long before that.
Of course not ALL. There are always outliers and exceptions, in nature and human nature. But the generalisation and the strategy is wrong, I think.
“We need the Southern masses to have a loathing of those people (…) It is long past time that we demonise” — demonise “northern”, “Yankee” WHITES !
“Due to the radical leveling tendencies in their culture, Yankees are unable to coexist with racial hierarchies. They tear down these hierarchies by themselves.”
Half the truth. White people love freedom. The problem is NOT our love of liberty, but the greed and selfishness of African-and-mulatto enslavement (and of multi-ethnic, non-Protestant eastern and southern European and Hispanic WAGE slavery) that created a mixed population.
Teaching the small minority of the descendants of the original white colonists above and below the Line to “loathe” each other works to our DESTRUCTION!
Re: Mosin
1.) Yankees love their liberal abstractions. “Liberty” and “equality” are universally good. “Democracy” is universally the best system of government. There can never be any limits to liberty, equality, and democracy.
2.) It was already apparent to antebellum Southerners that the Yankee system of government was tending toward our destruction. We tried to break away from it and create a new system that rejected such abstract “notions.”
3.) The problem for us is the existence of the Union. The problem with Yankees is the diseased Puritan-Quaker cultural legacy which instinctively tears down every form of restraint and assaults and levels all social distinctions.
4.) Slavery is responsible for our racialism and conservatism. All the problems we have with blacks is the result of the existence of the Union which is the means through which Yankees have been imposing their utopian fantasies on us for generations.
5.) I reject the WN idea that mixed societies are bad and homogeneous societies are good. Compare Vermont to Mississippi. It is Vermont that is self destructing and which is a negative influence on Alabama.
6.) The so-called “Free States” have always been in the driver’s seat of our national decline and now their negative influence is global and spans the entire West.
“It’s the same way with the Jews.”
NOT the same way as with Whites, either north or south of the Line. Talmudism as such is ANTI-Christian, and Christianity (NOT slavery) is the true base of white civilisation.
White Christians north of the Line have been called “worse than Jews”.
No successful secession without confession. No independence from tyranny without repentance.
Re: Mosin
1.) Few Jews have even read the Talmud. Of all the Jews, the Orthodox Jews have caused us the least problems.
2.) In the previous posts, I established that Southern Jews haven’t caused us nearly as many problems as Yankees. Northern Whites “unleashed” the negro, made him a citizen, and gave him equal rights.
3.) I’m familiar with your society: as early as the 1790s, you had free negroes running around Pennsylvania, voting in your elections, intermarrying with White women, owning property and doing almost all the things negroes do today.
Benjamin Franklin was disputing Thomas Jefferson’s racial theories. The Quakers were already agitating against slavery and against other examples of hierarchies. They were trying to build a multiracial utopia with the local Indians. What you call “True Christianity” had the already set the wrecking ball in motion.
Later in the 19th century, there were race riots in Philadelphia. Free negroes were notorious even then for their criminality. Blacks lost their citizenship in Pennsylvania in the late 1830s as other groups like the Scot-Irish and Irish became more powerful. Thaddeus Stevens represented Pennsylvania in the House of Representatives.
Read about the Scot-Irish Paxton Boys vs. the Quaker multiracial utopia:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxton_Boys
See also here:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/10/05/scots-irish-vs-quakers/
“The Borderlanders may have technically moved into colonies controlled by Tidewater gentry and the great planters of the Deep South, but in cultural terms their Appalachian nation effectively cut Tidewater off from the interior, blocking the West Indian slaveocracy from advancing into the Southern uplands. Not until after the revolution would they control any formal governments; places called Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia did not yet exist.
“Indian wars and other violence in Appalachia had profound effects on the other nations, particular the Midlands. We’ve already seen how the Lenni Lenape invasion in the 1750s forced Quakers to relinquish much of their control over the region, but this was merely a dress rehearsal for a much more destabilizing series of events during a later conflict. In December 1763, a Scots-Irish band from in and around Paxton, Pennsylvania, attacked and burned a peaceful Christianized Indian settlement on Penn family land, killing six individuals on the spot and butchering fourteen more at the Lancaster jail, where Midlanders had brought them for protection. Among the dead were two three-year-old children who had been scalped and an old man who’d been hacked up with an axe in the jail yard. After the killings, these so-called “Paxton Boys” rallied together an armed force of 1,500 Scots-Irish neighbors and marched on Philadelphia, intending to murder more peaceful Native Americans who had fled there for their safety on the invitation of Governor John Penn, the late founder’s grandson.
The result was a tense military showdown between Borderlanders and Midlanders, with control of what was then British North America’s premier city hanging in the balance. When the Paxton Boys arrived outside Philadelphia on a rainy day in February 1764, a thousand Midlanders rallied to defend the State House. The city militia deployed a row of artillery pieces on the parade ground of their garrison, each loaded with grapeshot. As the Borderlander army surrounded the city, 200 Quakers actually set aside their principles and took up arms. On the city outskirts the Paxton Boys, dressed in moccasins and blanket coats, “uttered hideous cries in imitation of the [Indian] war whoop, knocked down peaceable citizens, and pretended to scalp them,” according to an eye witness. With German citizens generally remaining neutral and the Scots-Irish underclass in Philadelphia sympathetic with the invaders, the Midlands stood on the brink of occupation.
In the end Benjamin Franklin saved the day, leading a negotiating team that promised to address the Borderlanders’ grievances if they agreed to go home. A party of them was allowed to inspect the Indian refugees in the city but was unable to identify a single enemy combatant among them. When they later submitted their demands to Penn, foremost among them was to be given proper representation in the provincial assembly. (At the time, Midlander counties had twice as many representatives per capita as Borderlander ones.) Philadelphians were horrified, the governor dallied, and the city was “daily threatened with the return of a more formidable force.” Quakers turned to London for help, and kept a standing military force posted in the city for the first time in Midlands history. Only the end of hostilities with the Indians farther west allowed the situation to normalize. But the Paxton Boys’ actions had revealed fault lines across Pennsylvania and other colonies that would break open during the American Revolution.
“Slavery is responsible for our racialism and conservatism. All the problems we have with blacks is the result of the existence of the Union which is the means through which Yankees have been imposing their utopian fantasies”
Yet there is another (ethnic Christian) conservatism that does NOT depend on or spring from the practice of slavery.
“I reject the WN idea that mixed societies are bad and homogeneous societies are good. Compare Vermont to Mississippi. It is Vermont that is self destructing and which is a negative influence on Alabama.”
Vermont is effectively run by, and is an alternate bedroom community of, wealthy rootless cosmopolitan elites of New York and urban New England. Rather make the comparison to Brazil, the logical end result of your brand of slave-based cultural, caste, multiracial conservatism.
“The so-called ‘Free States’ have always been in the driver’s seat of our national decline and now their negative influence is global and spans the entire West” —
“Free States” being a euphemism here for whites north of the Line? The real FOCUS OF EVIL not only in America but ACROSS THE GLOBE is the small Christian white remnant of the original settlers of seven colonies, isn’t it?
“Few Jews have even read the Talmud.”
Very true, but it all comes down to it.
“Of all the Jews, the Orthodox Jews have caused us the least problems.”
So it is “Yankee” whites, genetically or through their “diseased” culture…? “Southron” whites are always right, never even “made a mistake” by importing Africans.
I’m familiar with history of the massacres, Hunter. My German family remained neutral then, as in Lincoln’s War.
When there were not enough Welsh Quakers to settle the land, William Penn invited Germans, NOT the Ulsters, to settle the land without disturbing the course of “The Holy Experiment”.
Re: Mosin
1.) What is this ethnic Christian conservatism? In Pennsylvania, the Quakers from the beginning attempted to build a multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural utopian society. By the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it was already spiraling out of control.
That place was the exact opposite of the racially exclusive, religiously exclusive, culturally exclusive, ethnically exclusive society you are making it out to be. See the Indians that the Quakers converted to Christianity and who they protecting from the Scots-Irish when they were in Pennsylvania.
2.) Vermont has always been that way. It even refused to ratify the Constitution on anti-slavery grounds.
3.) Modern Brazil hasn’t been part of the “Golden Circle” in over 130 years now. Brazil, the Caribbean, the South and that entire region, even Sub-Saharan Africa, was remade in the image of Britain and the Northern United States.
4.) The free labor system, liberal democracy, industrial capitalism, anti-racism, anti-slavery and various other pet -isms were imposed on Brazil and the rest of Latin America by international pressure.
5.) The Northeast dominates the United States which dominates the South and North America and the Western hemisphere and the rest of the Western world. It is indisputably the trend setter.
6.) Don’t care.
It is obvious to me that our problems here emanate from the Northeast. That’s its center of gravity where the true believers live, not the South, not the Lower Midwest, not the Great Plains, not the Southwest, not the Interior West.
What’s true of the South is also true of other places like, say, Wyoming or Nebraska. These other places are also pulled along by the weight of the Union.
“Yankees” don’t exist anymore, and neither does “the South” as Hunter imagines it to be. White Americans in the northern states today have zero connection, ancestral or otherwise, to the Yankees of the Civil War & pre Civil War-era, and White Americans in the southern states consider themselves Americans before anything else. Secession is a long dead & buried, failed idea that no one takes seriously.
@Hunter Wallace:
“Yankees were outraged that their black citizens (Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire) were no longer citizens. After the War Between the States, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to make ALL blacks into U.S citizens.”
And which Yankees were those, Hunter? Do you honestly think that honest, hard-working Whites up North, like my yeoman farmer ancestor, had the time to worry about the plight of some Negro they never wanted up there in the first place? Or is it that hard to wrap your brain around the fact that they were too busy trying to feed their families by slaving away in factories, toiling on their farms, or running their businesses?
No, Hunter. Leftist Yankee journalists claiming to represent the views of those who did not give a damn expressed outrage that Negros living in the northeast were disenfranchised by the Dred Scott Act. Just like the media of the sixties decided that college hippie radicals spoke for everyone in my generation, even those that did their patriotic chore and went to Vietnam like Senator Jim Webb.
By your logic, I can safely assume that every Southerner in America is very, very pro-Amnesty for illegals (not to mention loves gays). Isn’t Lindsey Graham (R-SC) one of the Gang of Eight driving the latest comprehensive immigration “reform?” Didn’t Lamar Alexander (R-TN) vote for it? Can you name me one major newspaper in the South that doesn’t run sob stories about poor, honest, hard-working, humble brown Mestizos who only broke one itty-bitty (but totally unreasonable) law to get here and feed their families?
I hope you were being disingenuous simply to bolster your Anti-Yankee sentiments, Hunter, or are you really stupid enough to believe that we have ever had a free press free of any corporate agenda in this country? North OR South?
Do you honestly expect me to believe that the average Antebellum Southern farmer (who never owned a slave) was so invested in protecting the Plantocracy’s interests in maintaining slavery that he would want to abandon his own homestead, wife and daughters so he and his sons could give up life and limb for The Glorious Cause?! Do you honestly believe that MY ancestor was so invested in forcing a region that no longer wanted to be in the Union to remain that HE would do the same? Hello?!
You make a big deal about how many abolitionists of the time had never visited the South and didn’t know WTF they were talking about. Obviously, you have never spent any real time in the north, because you’d realize that the average Yankee is not obsessed with you! Ironically, Yankees love Southern accents and if they heard yours, you’d have to fend off questions of the curious. If you were a reasonably attractive guy, that Southern accent would elevate you to new levels of hotness with Yankee women.
To paraphrase that rap song, Billy Yank AKA the average Working Class Joe, himself, has ninety-nine problems and the South isn’t one of them. That is the case now and that was the case then before The War Between The States, so kindly get a grip.
The fact is, that the elites on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line had a pissing match and everyone else got swamped. The only way to stop the kind of nonsense that led to The War Between The States and its aftermath is if average Whites on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line stop carrying waters for these bozos and join forces.
Once we acknowledge and eliminate the problem (our treacherous elite), the rest will take care of itself. You want a Neo-Confederacy where Southern traditions are maintained and Southern culture is cherished? By all means! I look forward to the day I can apply for a tourist visa to the CSA and see what that looks like. But you will never get it unless all Whites across what is now the USA work together instead of constantly trying to shove any obsolete “farm equipment” into each other’s laps.
“What is this ethnic Christian conservatism? In Pennsylvania, the Quakers from the beginning attempted to build a multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural utopian society (…) That place was the exact opposite of the racially exclusive, religiously exclusive, culturally exclusive, ethnically exclusive society you are making it out to be.”
But I was clearly NOT describing Quakers or Pennsylvania as examples of “ethnic Christian conservatism”.
Nevertheless now that you brought up Quakers, it is not true that the primitive Quakers were iintending to create a multiracial, multiethnic society — but they intended to live out the full meaning (as they were “convinced” by the Spirit) of the Scriptures — so they were not multiculturalists or relativists (not in the beginning) but rather such rigid, absolute Perfectionists that they were constantly being fined, imprisoned or banished wherever they went, even hung or burned at the stake by annoyed, offended and threatened religious moderates. No other group of such small numbers has ever had such great influence for its size — and they do represent a “rebellious” yet “morally absolutist” ETHNIC (often called “Celtic Christian”) tendency that can be traced back at least to the career of Morwen “Pelagius” and his followers who disturbed the peace of the early Catholic church.
“Modern Brazil hasn’t been part of the Golden Circle in over 130 years now.”
But the thirteen southern states haven’t been “Golden Circle” for even LONGER, and the effects of such large scale racial mixing were bound to last through many generations! Brazil’s present mixed composition is the direct result of its Golden Circle history — just as nearly all (except for recent Somalian and Sudanese refugees, etc.) the present African and mulatto population of the fifty states is due to the Golden Circle past of the thirteen (or up to seventeen) states.
Why would you want to revive “a slave based culture”? Why not seek a CHRISTIAN revival?
Thank you for responding to my questions and comments, Hunter. I now withdraw from this discussion.
Mosin,
White people love freedom.
Since you’re talking about Yankees here, this is an utterly absurd notion. Yankee freeDUMB in action:
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/civil-war-quiz-662×590.jpg
You don’t have to be a Southern Nationalist to see the rotten fruits of Yankee freeDUMB. Ask Iran.
The problem is…[the] multi-ethnic, non-Protestant eastern and southern European and Hispanic WAGE slavery that created a mixed population.
Well, this presents a serious logical problem for you: Seeing as most Yankees are multi-ethnic, many are non-Protestant, and many have Eastern European and/or Southern European ancestry, why exactly are you defending Yankees? Northern Whites aren’t WASP’s. At one point that may have been true, but not since at least 1840 when the Germans and the French poured into the country (followed a few decades later by the “great melting pot”). Yankees are indeed a reconstituted, mongrolized tribe of Europe. I’m a blood member of that tribe, so unlike Southrons, I don’t have an axe to grind (unless you count feelings of disillusionment as a personal axe).
Teaching the small minority of the descendants of the original white colonists above and below the Line to “loathe” each other works to our DESTRUCTION!
Ah, I see. So you’re just defending the descendants of the colonists. And what, pray tell, is your plan for the +150 million Whites in this country who have no colonial roots? I like a lot of what you write Mosin, particularly on Christianity, but your instinctive defense of Yankees is bizarre – especially when you’re not really defending most Yankees anyway. Just the privileged few with colonial roots (or so it seems)
That’s what I get when I mess with HTML. Let me try that again:
Mosin,
“White people love freedom.”
Since you’re talking about Yankees here, this is an utterly absurd notion. Yankee freeDUMB in action:
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/civil-war-quiz-662×590.jpg
You don’t have to be a Southern Nationalist to see the rotten fruits of Yankee freeDUMB. Ask Iran.
“The problem is…[the] multi-ethnic, non-Protestant eastern and southern European and Hispanic WAGE slavery that created a mixed population.”
Well, this presents a serious logical problem for you: Seeing as most Yankees are multi-ethnic, many are non-Protestant, and many have Eastern European and/or Southern European ancestry, why exactly are you defending Yankees? Northern Whites aren’t WASP’s. At one point that may have been true, but not since at least 1840 when the Germans and the French poured into the country (followed a few decades later by the “great melting pot”). Yankees are indeed a reconstituted, mongrolized tribe of Europe. I’m a blood member of that tribe, so unlike Southrons, I don’t have an axe to grind (unless you count feelings of disillusionment as a personal axe).
“Teaching the small minority of the descendants of the original white colonists above and below the Line to “loathe” each other works to our DESTRUCTION!”
Ah, I see. So you’re just defending the descendants of the colonists. And what, pray tell, is your plan for the +150 million Whites in this country who have no colonial roots? I like a lot of what you write Mosin, particularly on Christianity, but your instinctive defense of Yankees is bizarre – especially when you’re not really defending most Yankees anyway. Just the privileged few with colonial roots (or so it seems)
Clytemnestra,
“Do you honestly believe that MY ancestor was so invested in forcing a region that no longer wanted to be in the Union to remain that HE would do the same?”
As is so typical throughout Amurrican history, both Northerners and Southerners will give up life and limb to fight for whatever their crackpot idea of freeDUMB is (see WW2 for the best example). In the War Between The States, it could fairly be said that both Yankees and Southrons thought they were fighting for freeDUMB. Whether they were actually fighting for freedom or not is irrelevant here, because if you successfully convince yourself you’re fighting for freedom, you’ll do whatever suicidal shit the elite tells you to do. As Mass Heimbach said on Traditionalist Youth Network: Why does a kid from the suburbs or the Irish neighborhoods of Boston have a fight with some Iraqi goat herder who lives in a hut? The answer is evident, there is no reason.
I’m not gonna claim that Northerners were fighting for the Negro and Southerners were fighting to continue his enslavement, but I know this: Whatever those hundreds of thousands of Northerners fought for, they crushed any glimmer of hope that the United States might survive as a White Christian Republic. 150 years later, a black man who spent his childhood in Indonesia and had a gay black nationalist communist for a father figure is the President. The fruits of Yankee freeDUMB.
“You make a big deal about how many abolitionists of the time had never visited the South and didn’t know WTF they were talking about. Obviously, you have never spent any real time in the north”
Maybe Hunter hasn’t, but I have. Spent my entire life in Southeast Michigan. Still live there today. I can think of exactly one person in my life who has ever had a positive thing to say about Southerners, and that’s because he dated a Southern gal for several years. Otherwise, the Whites I’ve known in all my walks of life can’t talk about Southerners without making some kind of cheap shot about “backwoods” or “hillbillies” or “inbreds.” Anti-Southern animus is alive and well in the North. Always has been and always will be. It’s not a manufactured media creation. It’s a real phenomena caused by an insufferable superiority complex. In my case, I was told a family story as a child that made me hate Southerners for years. Now I’ve swung to the other extreme as I’ve come to grips with reality.
“because you’d realize that the average Yankee is not obsessed with you!”
Not true. The average Yankee is “not obsessed” with Southerners in the sense that he doesn’t think about them all the time. But that doesn’t erase his horribly negative sentiments towards them. Like I said, bring up Southerners among a circle of Yankee friends and you’ll get at least one cheap comment about “backwoods.” Yankees few Southerners as more foreign than an Indian tribe.
“Ironically, Yankees love Southern accents and if they heard yours, you’d have to fend off questions of the curious.”
We also love British accents. Yet, every year on July 4 we celebrate the war of “independence” we fought against them. The fact that we like an accent doesn’t mean we like them as people. It just means we think their accent sounds cool.
“But you will never get it unless all Whites across what is now the USA work together instead of constantly trying to shove any obsolete “farm equipment” into each other’s laps.”
We can work together to dissolve the Union. Beyond that we don’t share anything in common other than our (weakly felt) racial background. Yankees and Southrons are practically different species, and one of those species is the constant predator while the other is the constant prey. Me being a member of the predator tribe (a Yankee), I’m of the mindset that treason to Yankees is loyalty to blood, soil, and tradition.
Honest objective study of the history, character, faults and virtues of white people above and below the Line is more helpful toward successful secession . . ..
It serves a purpose but it will not turn a lot of people into radical nationalists. The Southron masses won’t be ready to throw the Yankee colonists out of our country on account of reading the political disadvantages of our forced connection to the USA.
Technically speaking, Hunter’s arguments against the forced union are not nationalism since his focus is more on politics than on blood.
We’re not going to throw out every single White person of Northern ancestry in the South. We’re not going to get into breaking up marriages and scouring through family trees to find remote Yankee ancestors either. That’s exactly the kind of thing that would provoke a war or crippling economic sanctions if secession were ever achieved.
My focus is on getting Alabama out of the Union. I spent the afternoon in Selma yesterday with Michael Hill and several other members of the Alabama League of the South. I’m working with people in the real world to make that happen. That’s what we need to be doing at the moment. Arguing with Northern WNs on the internet is just a distraction and a waste of our time.
The example of the Confederacy and Hitler’s Germany vs. Franco’s Spain shows that it is not in our interest to be overly provocative once independence is achieved.
I should add here that I myself argue with Mosin every day in the OD comments, but I understand that it is just a form of entertainment. Nothing is accomplished for SN by arguing with him.
We’re not going to throw out every single White person of Northern ancestry in the South. We’re not going to get into breaking up marriages and scouring through family trees to find remote Yankee ancestors either.
I didn’t say that we will be able to throw out every single Yankee in Dixie or that we need to go looking for remote Yankee ancestors in family trees. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t make the removal of the colonists a major goal of nationalism. It is not an all or nothing situation – an inability to throw out 100% of them doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make it an issue at all. What is more central to nationalism than the demographic makeup of our country? There are millions of Yankees in Dixie and many of our people are angry about our displacement by them. We would be fools to not capitalise on their anger.
Arguing with Northern WNs on the internet is just a distraction and a waste of our time.
I agree, and my comments to Mosin were more directed at other Southrons than at Mosin himself. His opinion on Southron nationalism is of no concern to me. The only thing I can hope for from him is that he never moves to Dixie.
Securing our independence is vital.
If the South becomes a nation, it will no longer be a colony for Northern economic migrants, and they will be free to return home. The culture will move away from those people in a thousand ways and they will leave. I’m not willing to gamble with our independence though by using force to remove the Northern Whites that are already here.
How come? Because, it is unnecessarily provocative, and contrary to our vital interest which is independence. It is a bad move like attacking Fort Sumter – if we had left that stupid fort to rot like Guantanamo Bay, the “Union” might have continued to disintegrate – or Hitler’s invasion of Poland – if Hitler had been more like Franco, FDR and Churchill would have lost power and the war could have been avoided.
Robert Mugabe waited twenty years to go after the White farmers. South Africa will unleash a genocide against the Whites eventually, but the ANC also knows it has time to achieve its goals. Similarly, securing our independence is our vital interest, and our foreign and domestic policies must be tailored to achieving that goal.
If Beauregard had not attacked Ft. Sumter, the Secession Crisis would likely have settled into a stalemate of sorts, with Lincoln’s presidency teetering precariously while radical and moderate factions of the Republican party clawed at each other for control over the president. What direction the Confederate States would have taken I couldn’t say, but I doubt Lincoln would have gone to war absent an incident like Ft. Sumter. He would have presided over a four-year stretch of tedious, ultimately unsuccessful negotiations, probably losing re-election if he even sought it, and would have quietly left office and faded into obscurity, remembered as a strange, mediocre president. History might well have played out very differently.
“I myself argue with Mosin every day in the OD comments, but I understand that it is just a form of entertainment”
But it is not a form of entertainment on my part, but meant seriously, though humour creeps into some comments. We take DIFFERENT approaches, not to be different, but with the best intentions, by conviction, for sake of what we believe is true and right. This is a friendly fencing match, parry and thrust in good spirit, knowing it is NOT a duel or conflict.
“The only thing I can hope for from him is that he never moves to Dixie.”
Sounds like someone does want a duel.
Suppose now I’m rethinking my position on being rooted where I grew up. Do you know any properties for sale near you, Long Live Dixie?
Securing our independence is vital.
I know that we won’t be in any position to throw out the Yankees until we are independent. But in the meantime, without any focus on the Yankee colonists, we risk naively working towards independence only to be thwarted in that effort by the colonists whose presence we are largely ignoring. We should expect them to be the most serious obstacle within Dixie to our independence.
If the South becomes a nation, it will no longer be a colony for Northern economic migrants, and they will be free to return home.
What about the ones who are not economic migrants? I live in an area that is crawling with Yankees. Some of them are economic migrants but many are not. A lot are here just because they like the scenery and the mild weather. Many of the younger ones were even born here. I don’t expect a mass exodus of Yankees unless we make it very clear that they are not welcome here.
Even without throwing them out, just making them feel unwelcome will cause a lot more of them to self-deport than ignoring them will. It will also solidify an us versus them mentality that is necessary to a nationalistic movement.
How come? Because, it is unnecessarily provocative, and contrary to our vital interest which is independence.
Our most fundamental vital interest is our people. I view an independent Dixie as a means towards the betterment of our people rather than as the end goal.
Robert Mugabe waited twenty years to go after the White farmers. South Africa will unleash a genocide against the Whites eventually, but the ANC also knows it has time to achieve its goals.
The differences with our situation are that our colonists are loyal to the USA (which is our largest political foe) and they are intermarrying with our people at an alarming rate (which dilutes Southron blood and Southron identity). Mugabe’s colonists were loyal to the UK but the UK was no enemy of Mugabe and intermarriage was unheard of.
I am willing to put off the removal of Negroes and Mexicans for practical reasons but just ignoring the Yankees and hoping the problem solves itself is not realistic. These people will act as a fifth column and will do everything they can to stop us.
Even when we are independent, we will still be in the process of securing our independence, and that will necessarily require avoiding giving the North an excuse to attack us – as was the case with Fort Sumter – and antagonizing the rest of the world.
While it is true that we can expect Yankee colonists to be a serious obstacle to our independence (if we ever become independent, we will have already overcome that obstacle), we can’t afford to gamble with our independence on an unworkable scheme that would almost certainly provoke a war. In this area, we have a lot to learn from how Lincoln succeeded in provoking Davis and FDR succeeded in provoking Hitler, in order to avoid repeating their mistakes that destroyed the CSA and the Third Reich.
Should we be worried about people who like the scenery and the mild weather? Would those people be such a problem in an independent South we should be willing to risk squandering our independence – our vital interest – by giving the North the excuse it desperately wants to attack us and turn world opinion against us?
There are many ways to make them feel unwelcome without 1.) breaking up marriages, 2.) scouring through family trees to find Northern ancestors, 3.) loading them up on trains and putting them in concentration camps – things which are completely unnecessary to securing our vital interests, and which would provoke a damaging international backlash and almost certainly an unnecessary war with the North.
That’s true.
I see our vital interest as 1.) securing our independence and 2.) ensuring that we don’t end up like the Confederacy or the Third Reich. The betterment of our people will not be secured by gambling with our independence and provoking an unnecessary war over something that is completely unnecessary – think of Fort Sumter, or Danzig – and then losing everything and winding up in a worse situation than before secession.
Yes, they are loyal to the USA, but in an independent South, they would be marginalized in a sea of Southern Whites. That’s why it makes no sense at all to advocate removing these people – gambling with our independence in order to provoke a devastating war, the result of which we can see in the fate of the Confederacy and the Third Reich – when it is much more sensible to let the issue rest.
As for intermarriage, I would argue that it is a solution, not a problem. After the passage of enough time, Dixie would emerge as a homogeneous European nation like Germany or France or Spain or Italy, as long as we control our own cultural institutions. I think it is a mistake to go rambling through genealogies because, if we did that now, we would find out that Americans always been a mobile people and what we would find would only undermine our case for secession.
The solution to that problem is … first, securing our independence; second, avoiding the fate of the Confederacy and the Third Reich; third, reestablishing our cultural hegemony; fourth, working within our new political system to shift an independent Dixie in the way we want to go, which will drive out the subversives; and fifth, the sheer passage of time which will make us more homogeneous.
Even without throwing them out, just making them feel unwelcome will cause a lot more of them to self-deport than ignoring them will. It will also solidify an us versus them mentality that is necessary to a nationalistic movement.
All it would take to make them feel unwelcome, once the League becomes a serious power, is for the Yankee Question to be at the forefront of their mission and their propaganda campaign. So, not just “Yes to Dixie” but also “the Southland for Southrons” and “Yankee go home!”.
There are many ways to make them feel unwelcome without 1.) breaking up marriages, 2.) scouring through family trees to find Northern ancestors, 3.) loading them up on trains and putting them in concentration camps . . ..
1) It’s easy enough for both parties in the marriage to leave. 2) I am talking about people who are known Yankees. I am not talking about people who are 1/16 Yankee. 3) Concentration camps? Let’s not get overly dramatic. I’d rather make it clear that they have no future in our land. If there are stubborn holdouts who refuse to leave, then they can just be dropped off at the border.
As for intermarriage, I would argue that it is a solution, not a problem.
I don’t agree. 1) There are simply too many of them for that to be a solution. Given their numbers, who would be assimilating whom? 2) A very large proportion of them have ancestry that is not traditional to the South (Italy, Poland, and so on). I am not interested in our people becoming a pan-European melting pot; our British heritage must be protected. 3) The majority of half-Yankees (in my experience) have little to no Southern identity. To the extent that any Southern identity exists, it is a geographic identity only. I have only known a very small number of exceptions.
I understand your point about not provoking the USA to attack an independent South. But, I don’t think we need to walk so gently right now. We are a long way from independence. Whether the League, in our own time, focuses more on the Yankee Question or keeps it as a minor issue, has no real effect on whether or not the USA attacks our independent country years or decades in the future. To go off on a brief tangent here – we had better expect that independence means the USA will invade. They are not just going to let us go unless they are in too weak a position to oppose it.
In summary, the advantages of making the Yankee colonisation a major focus are:
1) It puts our movement solidly in the nationalist camp by making the preservation of the people a fundamental goal.
2) It makes the enemy of our people not just the abstracts like progressive politics and the government in Washington, but also the invasive tribe that is in our midst.
3) It will bring in more members by capitalising on the public anger at the large-scale dispossession of our people that is ongoing in several regions of Dixie.
4) In the future when the League is a major player in politics, it will hasten the departure of the colonists and will discourage the arrival of new colonists who might otherwise think they would be welcomed in a tradition-based South.
As I said above, we are not going to sacrifice our vital interest – securing our independence – in order to initiate a futile ethnic cleansing campaign that would provoke a devastating war and international backlash that would unite our enemies, divide our own people, turn foreigners against us, and probably end up blasting us back into the Union.
European immigrants and non-Southerners have been moving here for centuries now. There’s no telling how many Europeans and non-Southerners have “melted” into our own people by now. It is in our self interest to let that issue rest. It is not our self interest to start rambling through genealogies in order to undermine our already attenuated sense of cultural and ethnic unity even further.
Getting out of the Union will protect our British heritage. Undermining our independence and provoking a devastating war and crippling economic sanctions is what our enemies want us to do.
I’m not worried about the issue.
In an independent Southern nation, transplants will die out eventually and their descendants will be acculturated once we regain control of our institutions. They would cease to exist over the passage of time. OTOH, if we learn nothing from history and make the same fatal mistakes as our ancestors, and blast ourselves back into the Union over something as trivial as a rock like Fort Sumter (we had every right to seize it, but it wasn’t worth the cost of taking it), there is no telling what will happen to our descendants.
We’re not even in a position to control a single county anywhere in the South. Why are we even having this discussion? This is all fantasy talk and a waste of our time.
Perhaps.
If we are ever successful in achieving our independence though, we are not going to give the USA an excuse to attack us. We are not going to make that mistake again in light of what it cost us last time. Hitler made the same mistake. Unlike Franco, he allowed FDR to provoke him. If he had done nothing, FDR would have died a few years later, and a Republican president might not have intervened in WW2.
Preparing to defend ourselves and provoking the enemy by playing right into their hands with an unwise and reckless course of action – launching an ethnic cleansing campaign of transplants – is not the same thing. Even the Israelis aren’t bold enough to do that and they have nuclear submarines. They understand that launching such a campaign wouldn’t be worth the cost to Israel.
Actually, rambling through genealogies and ethnic cleansing of transplants would fatally divide our own people and unite and embolden our enemies, who would almost certainly use it as their excuse to attack us and diplomatically isolate us abroad. That’s one of the worst possible things that I can think of doing after we achieve our independence.
Hitler would have been better off doing nothing than gambling his entire regime over Danzig. The Confederacy would have been better off doing nothing and encouraging the North to succumb to its own divisions than firing on Fort Sumter. The fate of Nazi Germany shows that nothing will be gained by launching a pogrom in our midst. The cost of doing so will vastly outweigh the benefits.
On the contrary, the ethnic cleansing campaign would be the most controversial in those areas because those are the places where family, friendships, and business relationships have been established with the transplants. Southern independence will marginalize and alienate transplants who will leave. The problem will disappear entirely after enough time has passed.
The League is focused on securing our independence. If we ever get that far (and we are nowhere near there at the moment), we are not going to risk what is absolutely vital to us – securing our independence – on driving out every last Yankee in the South. It’s not necessary. It will be used by our enemies to divide our own people and as an excuse to conquer us.
If we are going to drive out anyone, it should be the millions of non-Whites that are already here, and even in their case securing our independence will still be our vital interest and number one priority.
“If we are going to drive out anyone, it should be the millions of non-Whites that are already here”
What? Driving out the non-Whites, instead of “controlling them easily” right where they are and using them for various purposes including maintaining white racial awareness that depends on extra-racial contact? You are sounding like a WN once more, rather than a slave-based Golden Circle cultural, multiracial, caste elitist Dixie-ist!
But if Yankee whites really ARE the main source of evil in the world, “worse than Jews”, etc., then they really should be driven out BEFORE non-Whites — and it might NOT “provoke a backlash” at all, since it is perfectly politically CORRECT in the eyes of the world to genocide or banish white people, while leaving coloured and Jews in place.
Re: Mosin
1.) Dissolving the Union is a vital interest.
2.) If we could get rid of the Union, Yankees would no longer be in a position to empower blacks and Hispanics over us in places like Birmingham.
3.) In an independent South, we could easily reestablish control over blacks and Hispanics, which would drastically minimize the problems caused by these two groups, but that doesn’t mean their presence here is desirable.
4.) I’ve already said that we would secure the border, deport the illegal aliens, and gut the welfare state in order to encourage blacks and Hispanics to deport themselves to the remainder of the Union.
I’m not a White Nationalist.
I said all of this in the exchanges with Alex Linder and Jim Giles. If we seceded from the Union and dismantled BRA in Dixie, blacks and Hispanics would self deport to the remainder of the United States.
As for our issues with Northern transplants, I agree with Long Live Dixie that their presence here is undesirable, but I don’t think that initiating a campaign against them would be worth the cost of gambling with our independence. I think it is a much better idea to imitate Franco’s Spain on Gibraltar than the Confederacy on Fort Sumter.
My solution to the problem is time. All the transplants will eventually die off and their descendants will be acculturated. They will be absorbed into the Southern population like all the Europeans and Northerners who came here before them.
I don’t consider blacks and Hispanics to be a real threat.
Blacks and Hispanics are merely the tools by which Yankees interfere in our society. If the Union were dissolved, they would no longer be in a position to get away with it, and could easily enact reforms to rid ourselves of that problem.
OTOH, Yankees would seize on any mistreatment of the Yankees left behind here, not to mention the blacks and Hispanics left behind here too, to demonize the South and unite their own people behind a hostile invasion.
Rather than fall into such an obvious trap, it would be a much better idea for us to do nothing. Let the transplants here die off over time. As long as we have secured our vital interests, we don’t have to be in any rush to deal with that issue.
So you trust in “acculturation” to blend a minority of northern whites and Jews into the Southron white population over time, and discount significant genetic differences between “Southron” whites and “Yankee” whites, and Jews — while other, Non-white people are too different genetically, and/or cannot be acculturated and therefore must be removed eventually?
Do a Welsh-descended Pennsylvania and a Welsh-descended Virginian differ through cultural influence rather than genetically? How can they be “two entirely different peoples” (“Yankee” and “Southron”) if they are of the same blood?
“blacks and Hispanics would self deport to the remainder of the United States. As for our issues with Northern transplants, I agree with Long Live Dixie that their presence here is undesirable”
Here we are in absolute conflict. The transplantation of millions and millions of Blacks and Hispanics that you are planning or counting on would be extremely harmful to us. They were transplanted from Africa into the states south of the Line in the first place, and now that they are no longer useful to “create immense wealth”, you must not attempt to transplant them HERE, to take OUR remaining land, and our wealth, to increase yours! WN’s settled north of the Line would consider that attempt an act of war.
Re: Mosin
If Yankees love our negroes so much and desire to create a utopian colorblind society with them, The Holy Experiment ought to be carried on in your own country.
The Union Army confiscated our slaves during the War Between the States. They are now your responsibility. They are your property. To the victor goes the spoils!
You are the different white people who must ultimately bear your own white man’s burden, and work out your salvation — and the Black Belt will remain below the Line.
The blacks here – like the illegal aliens in the Senate amnesty bill – need to be “reunified” with their families in the Northern states. To force them to stay here would be to subject them to racism, classism, and white privilege.
Correct Mosin and that is just another reason succession is just a fantasy held by a few delusional southerners.
As I said above, we are not going to sacrifice our vital interest – securing our independence – in order to initiate a futile ethnic cleansing campaign that would provoke a devastating war and international backlash that would unite our enemies, divide our own people, turn foreigners against us, and probably end up blasting us back into the Union.
You’re assuming that the USA will be strong enough to resist us. We’re getting pretty deep into speculation now, but I don’t think we’ll have our independence until the USA is collapsing and in no position to seriously threaten us militarily.
At any rate, we are in agreement that we should not sacrifice our independence for anything.
European immigrants and non-Southerners have been moving here for centuries now.
There are three substantial differences; the third difference would only be an issue pre-independence. Firstly, we have never had anywhere near as many white immigrants as we have now. Whole sections of Dixie have Southron minorities among the whites. Secondly, what immigrants we have had in earlier centuries were predominantly of British descent and very easily assimilated compared to the Euro-mutts of modern Yankeedom. Thirdly, when we received white immigrants in the past, Southron culture was indisputable dominant. What are our white newcomers supposed to assimilate into today? Secular Americanism?
It is not our self interest to start rambling through genealogies . . ..
In most cases there probably is not a reason to start digging through family trees.
There is a substantial difference between a person who self-identifies as Southron and has a great-grandparent from Iowa and a person who has no Southron ancestry at all and speaks with a New York accent.
Why are we even having this discussion? This is all fantasy talk and a waste of our time.
This issue relates to the direction of the Southron nationalist movement in the present day. Do we want the Southron movement to be more nationalistic-based or more political-based? What type of message do we want to present to the public – both our prospective members and our oppoenents? On that note, what nature should our propaganda take? At the minimum, the League could at least have a flyer addressing the dispossession of our people by the Yankees.
It is also good to know what type of society we are working to build even if we are far from having the power to build such a society. We need goals; they motivate and inspire.
On the contrary, the ethnic cleansing campaign would be the most controversial in those areas because those are the places where family, friendships, and business relationships have been established with the transplants.
That could go either way. A lot of Southrons in my area would love to see them go. Others, such as those whose economic situation depends on the colonists (e.g., people who work in real estate or who manage construction companies) or those who are married to them, would oppose their departure. But, those people probably would not support an independent Dixie at all.
Southern independence will marginalize and alienate transplants who will leave.
A lot of this boils down to what percentage of them will leave on their own. If 99% leave, then maybe we would not have a real problem on our hands. If it is closer to 50%, then we will still have a problem.
If we ever get that far (and we are nowhere near there at the moment), we are not going to risk what is absolutely vital to us – securing our independence – on driving out every last Yankee in the South. It’s not necessary.
Like I said before, this is not an all or nothing situation. I don’t expect we’ll ever get all of them to leave, even by force. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t, right now before we even have political power, make it known to anyone who hears our message that we stand for a Southron Southland. The more real power we get and the more we make known our insistence on a Southron Southland, the more will leave on their own.
If we are going to drive out anyone, it should be the millions of non-Whites that are already here, and even in their case securing our independence will still be our vital interest and number one priority.
If driving the Yankees out will prompt a war and sanctions, then surely this will.
As for our issues with Northern transplants, I agree with Long Live Dixie that their presence here is undesirable . . ..
I am glad we at least agree on this.
But I support southern secession, Sean. Everyone deserves to be free from the evil Empire, and the white people of the southern states have a better chance than most of us. But I think the approach recommended here will lead to a truly SUCCESSFUL secession, true independence and the paradise on earth that they vaguely imagine. It seems foolish to them to suggest that there should be a renewal of Faith first of all, and godly love, white Christian brotherhood, between all white people of common blood both above and below the so-called Line.
“But I think the approach recommended here will lead to a truly SUCCESSFUL secession” should have been “But I do not think the approach recommended here will lead to a truly SUCCESSFUL secession”.
The idea that New England, as the most pro-corporate region in the country in the mid-19th century, was full of “Socialists, Communists, and Jacobins” is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.
Furthermore, when you argue that Abolitionists were anti-Christian, does that not contradict your previous theme that the Abolitionist movement was a product of Second Great Awakening evangelical Christianity?
“The Union Army confiscated our slaves during the War Between the States. They are now your responsibility. They are your property. To the victor goes the spoils!”
An almost perfect argument, Hunter. I almost agree.
This thrust is much weaker:
“The blacks here, like the illegal aliens in the Amnesty bill, need to be ‘reunified’ with their families in the Northern states. To force them to stay here would be to subject them to racism, classism, and white privilege.”
This approach involves, depends on, accepting ANTI-WHITE notions of racism and white privilege, and obfuscation that LETTING them stay where they are, if they want to stay, is “forcing” them to stay. Besides, their relatives in New York and Detroit, etc. are wanting to move back SOUTH now: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25south.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
It was a tongue-in-cheek remark – that makes no sense at all to us, but apparently it makes so much sense to Yankees that they overwhelmingly voted for the Senate amnesty bill. These are considered effective arguments in the Northern states.
As for the blacks who are moving back here, it is because there is more economic opportunity in the South, which is why we have the millions of transplants that Long Live Dixie complains about. Also, there is no great flood of blacks to the South either, only about a 3 percent change in their overall national distribution.
Regarding the Native Americans:
The Quakers may have desired peace with the Native Americans, but the Puritan Yankees definitely did not. Throughout American history, the worst massacres against the Native Americans were committed by Yankees. Nothing in Southern history can match the Pequot Massacre in Connecticut, for example. Later on, during the 19th century, most of the harshest actions against Native Americans were conducted by Northern generals such as Sherman and Sheridan.
Southerners, on the other hand, frequently intermarried with Native Americans (partially due to the gender imbalance in early Southern society) and more successfully assimilated them. Andrew Jackson’s actions with the Trail of Tears was something of an anomaly in Southern history.
I don’t have any true Yankee (New England) heritage, but I respect the early colonists. If the Pilgrims had continued to PROGRESS IN THE FAITH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yHJMPw8RHU instead of falling under the spell of Transcendental, Spinozan, Deistic, agnostic and materialistic anti-Christian influences, they would never have gone to war against their Anglo-Celtic kin south of the Line and many other evils leading to the present condition — and we would not be having this discussion.
“The Quakers may have desired peace with the Native Americans, but the Puritan Yankees definitely did not.”
The Pelagian Celtic tendency versus Augustinian Calvinists who view themselves as the elect who cannot fall.
Re: E C
There’s no contradiction between the two at all.
The mid-19th century North was 1.) full of “Socialists, Communists, and Jacobins” who were forming various utopian communes, 2.) pro-corporate industrialists who backed the Republican Party, and 3.) the beginning of the labor strife which would became a more serious problem during the Gilded Age.
Antebellum Southerners like George Fitzhugh wrote at length about how the “free labor” system and industrial capitalism pits the interests of labor vs. capital.
No, it does not.
Abolitionism was rooted in Enlightenment liberalism (most prominent in France) and evangelical Christianity (most prominent in Britain). In the United States, slaveholders were demonized as wicked sinners who were simultaneously violating the natural rights of blacks to liberty.
I knew it was tongue in cheek, Hunter. Most of us here seem to have a sense of humour.
You agree that more blacks are moving back south now.
Socialism and communism are very specific economic ideologies that call for an overthrow of all private ownership of goods and shifting to a public ownership model instead. Such ideologies were extremely unpopular with New England Protestants. The key supporters of socialism in the Northeast were Catholics and Jews, both of whom had a strong economic justice tradition.
What concerns us most, in that report, is that they are moving out of the urban areas now (“Black flight”) into suburbs and small towns, even farm lands, not remaining concentrated in the northern states, but diffusing.