Regional Meetings

By Hunter Wallace

I’m on the way home from our first regional meeting. Here are some quick thoughts:

1.) We don’t need to hold a public protest, which usually wears everyone out after three hours in the cold or the sun, in order to have a public gathering.

2.) The enduring value of the protests was always mainly in the networking, building relationships, recruitment, etc.

3.) Lots of people who wouldn’t attend a public protest would be more interested in semi-public gatherings – meet up in some public location, and then leave to go a private venue.

4.) This would cut out the media and the anti-fa stalker trolls.

5.) These meetings could easily be hosted all over the South without any problems: Montgomery, Birmingham, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Nashville, Memphis, Knoxville, Charleston, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Charlotte, St. Louis, Little Rock, Richmond, etc.

6.) This could be combined with an annual invitation only private conference, probably in a centralized location like Tennessee, that could also cut out the media and anti-fa stalker trolls.

7.) There’s no reason why this couldn’t be combined with the protests.

About Hunter Wallace 12381 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

101 Comments

  1. Hunter,
    I assume you are talking about League of the South protests.

    I’m not a member yet and have not yet been to any of their functions, but your points 1 thru 7 make perfect sense to me. Networking and camaraderie are key–The rest can flow outward from there. People willing to do public demonstration could always join in after the main event and go out to the streets, while those uninterested could simply go their own way.

    I have also been thinking of how much more effective things would probably be if events were more festive, like “Dixie Pride” rallies or parades, or fairs or whatever. I especially like the idea of having a “Dixie National Fair” which could be combined with parades or whatever. It seems like a lot more people would be willing to show up for a party than to stand on a street corner. Look how successful all those gay pride parades were, and they only represent about 3% of the population!

    I can’t help but think of a Christmas parade in my area that started in a small unincorporated community by 3 families as a prank, but quickly grew into a large function for people in the area just because they were having a good time, year over year.

    Of course the core management would have to do their homework to keep it a function for the benefit of white “Dixians” and only attractive to Dixians. This might be done by having certain keynote speakers or displays that make nonwhites and nonsympathizers feel “uncomfortable”.

  2. Just following up on my post above:
    If we had a “Dixie National Fair” then there are many attractions that wouldn’t be that hard to include, such as:
    –dunking booths
    –popping balloons w darts, bb guns, ping pong ball in the goldfish bowl, high strikers, and other county fair mainstays
    –bbq contests
    –ugly dog contests
    –pony rides
    –volleyball/softball matches

    Things that would be attractive to whites but not so attractive to most nonwhites might include:
    –adult target shooting contests aka “turkey shoots”
    –gun shows
    –horse shows
    –antique farm machinery shows
    –antique car shows
    –hunting themed attractions
    –Confederate flag fashion contest (like ways to display the flag on your person) I suppose swimsuits, underwear and tattoos wouldn’t be counted.
    –a tasteful, pro-white “Miss Dixie” pageant

  3. This is a subject on which I want to be respectful, since it’s not like I would be an attendee.

    I think you are right in suggesting a private meeting. In fact, other than possible excursions (e.g., to a battlefield) why would you not go entirely private? I do not understand how you derive any advantage from trying to organize a march, etc.

    The one substantive suggestion I have concerns the ideas for presentations. Hunting & Confederate flag waving is cute, and I’m sure appeals to many. But what about educational opportunities? The history of the American South is a fascinating subject. And not just ante bellum. In addition, the South has a great literary and artistic tradition. Southerners can and should be proud of these accomplishments.

    I was considering volunteering my time to give a short presentation on Judah Benjamin, but I don’t really know enough about Jefferson Davis’ most capable cabinet member.

    • Oh, I’m all about imparting a little knowledge w speakers, presentations, tracts, and the like, but I think a celebration will attract more people than an academic style setting or a protest.

  4. The protests are useful in attracting publicity and notoriety, but there are also drawbacks. It is expensive to put up billboards and not everyone who is interested in our ideas is up for participating in a protest.

    • Re Hunter,

      I think something more along the lines of a fair/fundraiser should fit that bill just fine, and might actually be self supporting or financially profitable. If you do something like parades or pride rides, then it should be a good way to raise awareness.

      Also, is there any reason you couldn’t rent a small event center for a day and buy an ad in the local paper? For that matter, how much land does the League own at its headquarters?

      Whatever final product brews out of this, I think it will be great to replace some or all of your protests with some kind of festive or pride event. I reiterate: Look how successful all those gay pride parades were, and gays are only about 3% of the population. Why on Earth do we not take this page from their playbook. Once you have a crowd, you can set up displays, give out tracts, bumper stickers, whatever you want.

    • Re Hunter:
      “These meetings would basically be dinner at a restaurant followed by an informal party.”

      Oh, sure, that would be a great way to network and bat ideas around, but what would you do to get the word out?

      If you’re going to do that, why not do a picnic/cookout in a municipal park? It would give kids a chance to play on playground while adults had their meetings. The risk of course would be bad weather. Could even throw in a little horseshoes or corn hole if desired.

  5. Get togethers held at the picnic areas on, or near Civil War or Revolutionary War historical sites might be fun and draw a crowd too.

  6. Just another thought to add to my previous comment:

    Why does the League not declare a holiday for ethnic Southerners, ascribe the official meaning of it, and peg it to MLK day so that we automatically get the day off work rather than trying to get state/federal recognition for it?

    Such a holiday would be the ideal time to hold such an event.

    Would be funny if you came up with a name for it that abbreviates to MLK, though that might do more harm than good due to confusion. I like the idea of “Dixie Nationals Day” since it would be hard to re-interpret the meaning of it for pc reasons.

    • I’ve been doing a little reading about the history of various groups like yours, advisors, opinions, etc. Not in any way to lampoon your efforts, but instead to look at what some of the sharpest minds involved recommend.

      Based on what I’ve seen so far, I urge you to utilize your next meeting to begin the purge of antisemitism from your group. It’s been interesting to see that quite a few of the most capable leaders of the WN movement have at various times suggested this. Based on what they have written and what I’ve seen on my own, I can see why some of the more far-sighted people have said not to go down the anti-Jewish rabbit hole.

      The most easy problem to understand is the kook theories that get thrown out during antisemitic tirades. Surely some of you have noticed the reaction amongst educated or intelligent people when you roll out the loon stuff. It’s crackpot stuff and most everyone gets extremely turned off by the Protocols of the Elders stuff.

      The other effect I’ve noticed is the effect of extreme antisemitism on basic morality. This was evident in some matter where a guy named Glen Miller went out and shot a few people. He was a virulent antisemite who went to a Jewish center to kill some people. He was known to the WN movement and inspired by some over the top creep named Linder.

      Even though what Miller did was inhuman, almost all WN posters either made excuses for him or came close to making excuses for him. It didn’t start out that way, but it ended that way after various members were willing to pose idiotic theories, etc.

      There were no excuses for that guy. He was one of you, known to you, and inspired by extreme anti-Jewish rhetoric. Miller did exactly what the inevitable outcome of the Linder talk leads to. He got a gun and went out, “to kill him some Jews”. Instead he shot and killed two Gentiles. A 14 yr old and his grandfather. You ought to have taken that in and learned from it, because as I understand it your aims are not supposed to include killing Jews. Or, am I wrong.

      No advantage can be gained from your virulent antisemitism. The only people it attracts are criminal minded and maladjusted. Some not only sociopaths, but perhaps even psychopathic! Why didn’t you learn from that matter? And please do not assert you did take some lesson in humanity. I have read hundreds of postings by adherents and the death of those White Protestants did not teach any of you a darn thing.

      Yes, I’ve read some statements about people. Jack, Hunter, etc., but I can draw my own conclusions and don’t necessarily need the help of “experts” with the SPLC. Some of the statements about criminals and killings associated with your groups is scary, and wonder if you can comment on whether those charges are credible. The charges sound a bit too extreme-?

    • No Hunter, your responses and opinions were morally weak. Don’t take my word for it, go back and read them on your own. That some fashion of lightbulb did not go off over your head after that incident does not speak well of you. There are situations and circumstances that implicate a moral imperative. Do you honestly not see the straight line running from the people and ideology involved to the murder of innocent people?

      Even if it had been a 14 yr old Jewish boy and his Jewish grandfather walking home after playing chess, backgammon, whatever, they would have been innocent and blameless. The fact the victims were actually Christian should act as a Divine slap to the head as in, “hey, Hunter, do you get it now?”.

      On that day, under those beliefs, but in a different location the innocent victims could have been your child and your father. There is someone just like you in that city who thanks to Miller lost his son and father. How can you not understand the moral dimension and your responsibility? Are you afraid what some of your fans will say?

      • 1.) I never approved or endorsed Linder’s “exterminate the Jews” rhetoric and condemned him multiple times for that reason over the course of a decade. I also publicly debated him on that question, outlined the exact episode which eventually unfolded, and warned people to stay away from all those morons and psychopaths.

        2.) Fighting “anti-Semitism” is not a moral imperative. Exterminationism, however, is immoral.

        3.) No, I got it well before it happened. Many years before. So did lots of other people who shunned Linder and Miller long before the shooting spree in Kansas City.

        4.) That’s absurd. I never met Glenn Miller or had any inkling he was planning an atrocity. I never approved of Linder’s exterminationism. I spent years, nearly a decade, clashing with that guy over that very issue. Both Linder and Miller are responsible for their own actions which was motivated by exterminationism.

        • Sorry Hunter, I can only judge from your contemporaneous postings.

          If you don’t understand the point, or you don’t care to understand the point, I’m not going to twist your arm. You seem to have learned nothing from the situation. It should not take personal tragedy, G-d forbid, for you to get the message.

  7. “almost all WN posters either made excuses for him [Glenn Miller] or came close to making excuses for him” -Warspite

    That’s quite a blood libel you are making against WN’s, O Poisoner-of-Wells.

  8. Brad, you were so happy to get rid of Spelunker and now he’s back as Warspite, “…almost all WN posters either made excuses for him or came close to making excuses for him.” Pretty broad brush there, Jewperson.

  9. Oh Yeah! Our enemies would love for us to give up our protesting. But, hell no! I live and breathe for our protests. I would rather
    be out protesting for what I believe than to: dine at a restaurant, shop at a mall, attend a concert, etc. etc.
    Heritage events are great; but they cost money. Don’t go a-knockin’ our demonstrations!!! If I were a millionaire, I’d finance one every day of the year for the League of the South!

  10. Whenever you have regional meetings, you could always combine them with a small pride ride since people are already in their vehicles anyway. Of course most probably wouldn’t be driving pickups suitable for big flags, but you could come up w something like the small flags they make especially for cars.

    This touches on another subject. I think we need an official anthem and “I wish I were in the land of cotton” isn’t going to cut it. Informal meetings like these would be a great way for those with musical talents (not me) to have jam sessions where they just might come up with something. We need good chest thumping music, not like most renditions of Dixie that I’ve heard.

  11. I don’t think that attacking or purging other Southern nationalist over “anti-semitism”would be the most productive strategy.

    • Re Harold Crews:

      I don’t think it would help either. The only people we need to purge are the loose cannons that might go out and do a Dylan Roof job. There are plenty of other ways to make a splash.

      • Jeff, take that idea & run with it. What ideas & advocacies led to WN people committing murders or other serious crimes? You need to take personal responsibility (I don’t mean you personally) for mistakes. Even when you want to blame someone else.

        Ideas can be dangerous and you have no clue what is going on inside someone’s mind. Advocating freedom of association is one thing. What do you think happens when you condone denial of the Shoah, or calling for killing various groups? What is wrong with using responsible language, purging the kooks & paying attention to the ideas of some of your more capable leaders?

  12. Maybe have a definite block of time scheduled for the protest, like 2-3 hours, then a following block of time for the meetings. That way people can show up for one, the other, or both. Much like Sunday school and church. Then throw in a lap around the neighborhood for a pride ride while you’re all convened.

  13. It would be fun to walk a Civil War battlefield with the League of the South…”and over there is the tree that my great-great-great grandfather hid behind”…it would really be an original.

    • Mr. Ag Sec, wouldn’t it be more fun to walk part of Gettysburg and listen to the choices Lee had on Day 3, and whether his choice was sound?

      Btw, if you go a time of year when the ticks have died off or gone away & walk the field of Pettigrew & Pickett’s men, it’s a real experience.

    • Mr. Buttnik, you need me here. You have plenty of representatives of enlisted men, but are short on the more educated & aristocratic types who became officers, cabinet members, etc.

      I do appreciate your invite to go being both polite & showing a sense of humor. Maybe you are right.

  14. Hunter, the resident Chosen One is telling you to purge the kooks. I think you should listen to that advice. You can start by sanitizing the site and scrubbing it clean of the anti-White droppings of Warspite.

    Were you even thinking about Jews when you originally wrote this? Were you thinking about about the effect on the delicate sensibilities, self-serving attitudes and paranoia of Jews, or was your intent to throw out an idea that could help organize Whites? I think I know the answers, but “The Jews” is all it’s about now. Hell, I absolutely abhor and don’t trust Linder even a fraction of a percentage, but I’d rather have to deal with his crap than the predictably numbing, monotonous agenda of anti-Whites like Warspite.

    • What’s with this anti-white stuff? Just because I am not a WeeNie does not mean I’m not a proud Caucasian. Not only am I darn proud of being White, I’m proud of the Western tradition. Admittedky, I don’t read the Enlightenment out of Western Civ like the lemmings, and periodically Senor Celeste-meow, which does separate my experience from those of you who would re-draft the Constitution, Decl of Independence, Va & Ky Resolutions, a certain letter of G. Washington’s, and various other documents of which any American ought to be proud.

      I have even had the occasion over my life/career in Atlanta to actively oppose affirmative action and set-aside bs, amongst other actions of which you would approve. I have not just sat on my butt, though I admit not being the level of advocate that would match up with the ideas generally set out by various posters. Anti-White my a**!

      Interjection: have you ever gone back and read postings of the lemming & Co. crowd. There is nary a subject that does not have the Jews slipped in. Just a mention of the media opens the torrent of “Jewish control”. And here’s another bonus fact, there’s little if any difference between Linder’s rhetoric and the vast majority of rhetoric herein. He is one of you. Are you proud of your company?

      I’m going to very quickly run through the Bill of Rights in my head. First, gone; Second, stay; Third, stay; Fourth, gone; Fifth, gone; Sixth gone; Seventh, gone; Eighth, uh, that’s the one… bail, right. Gone; Ninth, stay; Tenth, stay.

      In a multiracial, multiethnic society, your crowd would toss the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th Amendments. The 3rd Amendment has never come before the Su Ct, and the 9th & 10th are similar in preserving state powers, defining federalism, etc. The only Amendment from the Bill of Rights that deals with a personal right that absolutely passes muster is the Second Amendment. I just do not think James Madison, a brilliant Southerner, would feel your guys are trying to preserve certain Southern traditions.

      To be fair, in a nation 90% Caucasian (my 70-20-10 scenario) it is my opinion you at least would have little trouble with any of the first ten amendments.

      In my reading I actually came across some kook WeeNie who opposed the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments! I didn’t write down his name, but he was a guy who wrote some blog. It is hard to believe there is any American citizen who in 2015 opposes the Amendments ending slavery, etc.

  15. As I said above, there was nothing to learn from the experience because I had always condemned Linder’s psychopathy and exterminationism. I even publicly debated him on the matter and asked him pointed questions like whether or not he could murder a Jewish child.

    • What was there to learn! Surely you jest, Hunter. Do you not recognize there is barely any difference between Linder’s rhetoric and that which often appears on your blog? In fact, some of the rhetoric is identical, and you are a moral wet noodle about it. You just want to be popular, I guess.

      Btw, I did find one of your stories/essays downright disgusting. Beyond offensive. It was one from maybe 5 yrs ago on the modern Congo (former Zaire) vs. the Belgian Congo under King Leopold, etc. That article is shameful and you ought to apologize. Maybe you already have, I hope.

      You obviously want to be taken seriously by more than the 50 or so people who would publicly march around some small Alabama town with a Reb flag. At least I think you do. What you wrote was so factually putrid and morally deficient that I hardly knew what to think. Did you actually make any effort to learn about what went on in the Belgian Congo (which I know Leopold ran as his own possession for a few decades)? You seem to think that because things are horrible now they must have been better then. While this is in many (or most!) cases true in Africa, not so the Congo.

      Sure, the Belgians (once they officially got the country) made some efforts to improve things, but those efforts followed many decades of some of the worst conditions in the world. There were so many horrible things that went on, from the way the rubber plantations worked to the despoiling of the land, it’s hard to just pick out one horrible aspect of what it was like.

      I get what you were trying to do, but you picked the wrong sub-Saharan country. Angola would have been a good tale. It’s capital, Luanda (I may have thus spelling wrong), was apparently beautiful. People actually wanted to go there. Now it’s every bit as bad as you can imagine.

      • 1.) Linder is a principled exterminationist. There are plenty of people who dislike Jews here, but we don’t promote or advocate killing anyone. I’m no more responsible for what other commentators believe than the shit you are saying here.

        2.) What about the Congo? Yes, I have most of the English language books about the DRC in my own personal library.

        3.) LMAO.

        When the Belgians “officially” got the Congo, it was nothing but a matter of diplomatic recognition. The country existed on paper. It took years to build the railroad from Matadi through the Crystal Mountains to Stanley Pool.

        The Democratic Republic of Congo is a country the size of Western Europe and much of it was covered by impenetrable tropical rain forest. At the height of the “red rubber” controversy, it was barely explored. That went on for less than 20 years and there were at the very end a maximum of maybe 2,000 European administrators and civilians in the entire country. There was nothing resembling a functioning state in place with a civil administration that kept accurate statistics for decades many after that either.

        4.) Life in the DRC was vastly better in 1960 than in 2015. Among other things, the Belgians suppressed slavery and cannibalism in the Congo and pushed the Zanzibari Arabs out of the country. Had the Belgians not taken over, it would have become a massive slave state, which is what the eastern Congo already was when Stanley and Livingstone first set foot there.

        5.) No, the Belgian Congo was a far greater leap forward than the Roman conquest of Britain. The Belgians built nice modern cities and industries there and the country was doing great until it became an epic failed experiment in liberal democracy.

        6.) The current state of Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, Rwanda and almost every country in sub-Saharan Africa suggests that Belgian colonialism isn’t responsible for Congo’s dysfunction. Most of these countries had a similar trajectory regardless of their European metropole.

        • I respectfully suggest, Hunter, you have a problem with perspective. Rather than 1960, how about 1940? Or 1920? Or 1900? You cherry pick the very end of the Belgian presence because it is the only time that fits your problem of going in with Confirmation Bias. Start pulling back & gain a wider perspective of the Belgian presence rather than focusing on the “best” period of Belgium being in the Congo.

          Anyone who has read about Leopold’s cruel exploitation of the Congo could never argue the area received benefits from European rule. In fact, because of its strange beginnings as Leopold’s personal fiefdom, don’t you think it better to argue the (Belgian) Congo is an outlier, and Angola, Kenya, South Africa, Rhodesia, etc., etc., the norm? This is an honest suggestion from one amateur historian to another,

          Here’s a btw that will disturb many lemmings. South Africa and Rhodesia of old, though very different in certain aspects, hold a certain amount of hero worship amongst many here. Even the Denise character/symbol. I’ve spoken to many emigre’s from those nations and it was universally agreed that Jews were… White! Yes, it’s true. Not to say pretty extensive freedom of association was not present in folk’s personal lives, because it was. But Jewish people were still 100% kosher White folk.

          In many ways South Africa of the 1960’s through early 1970’s is the “role model” for the more intelligent amongst the WN crowd. Extremely advance and educated amongst it’s White population, as well as culturally sophisticated and militarily potent. It was more or less a republic for the White people, and “White people” certainly included Ashkenazi Jews (I don’t know if there was a distinction with Sephardic Jews, or even how many Sephardic Jews were in South Africa). However, whites could exercise freedom of association to not mix with Jews socially, or even live in the same neighborhoods. Note, there was also a separation amongst Whites between Afrikaan and English. Then there was a group of Asians (mostly Indians), as well as Colored before you get to Black. Is this not the type of society desired by the most “realistic” thinking of WeeNies?

          • 1.) There were only two periods: the Congo Free State, which was controlled by King Leopold II from 1885 until 1908, and the Belgian Congo, which was the Belgian colony that lasted from 1908 until independence under Lumumba in 1960.

            2.) As I said above, it took years to build the railroad from Matadi to Stanley Pool through the Crystal Mountains which opened up the interior of the country to the Atlantic coast.

            3.) The so-called “red rubber” era went on for about 15 years and even then rubber was only harvested in certain parts of the country. Katanga, for example, is largely open savannah.

            4.) During that time, there were at most about 2,000 Europeans in a country the size of Western Europe, the majority of which was an impenetrable, uncharted jungle with zero infrastructure. There was nothing resembling a modern state in the Congo which kept accurate statistics until many decades later.

            5.) I’m sure you read one of the many atrocity stories about King Leopold II and uncritically swallowed it without reading more broadly into the sources.

            6.) Specifically, the end of slavery and cannibalism are two of the most obvious benefits of Belgian rule. You can also add to that list preventing the entire country from being taken over by the slavetraders pushing west out of Zanzibar.

          • The trajectory of the Democratic Republic of Congo doesn’t strike me as being any different than, say, Angola and Congo-Brazzaville, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Uganda in Central Africa. It has less oil than Angola, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, but is just as corrupt.

          • Every place in Africa is corrupt, just as every place in South America is corrupt. Wait, there is one, is it Namibia or Botswana, I always get confused? The corruption in Nigeria is probably no worse than Burundi, it’s just that Nigeria has technology & some universities, so has some far more sophisticated corruption.

            You’re not going to get any defense of Africa from me, or any calls for tossing $$ into the continent. I recognize wrongs done to Africa during the past by European colonialism including lying or destroying information about past African civilizations. But people who think it’s ok to offset those wrongs by lying about history (i.e., the minimal impact on Western or any other advanced civilization or culture by Africa) are little better than people who destroyed archaeological evidence.

            And I concede falling into that unfortunate habit of when discussing “Africa” wrongly focusing only on sub-Saharan Africa. That’s allowing myself to be manipulated into when I hear “Africa” wrongly thinking “Black”.

          • Actually, during the period when Leopold was being such a humanitarian it is estimated no more than 500 Europeans were there.

            I’m certainly no expert on the history of the Congo, other than being amazed at Leopold wrangling it. Fortunately, what I do know came via one of my kids who did his work at one of those elite universities you deride. (Stanford & Chicago count, right?)

            Knowing his work & sources versus your work while holding down a job, working w/o any direction, and desire for Confirmation Bias, I’ll side with the folks at Univ of Chicago.

            Not to say some good must have been done in the Congo by the Belgians, esp after 1950. But in totality actually lauding the Belgian presence in the Congo presents a question of judgment on your part.

            There are numerous examples you could have chosen to demonstrate how European colonial presence brought enormous and underrated benefits. The fact you chose the Congo to make this argument does little more than demonstrate your racial agenda. You are not recounting history, you’re disseminating propaganda you know is what your crowd wants to hear.

          • You just can’t stop can you? Why don’t you practice up your social skills and then have some chats with all the Jewish South African emigrees! What you write is stupid and ill-informed.

            You think because 5% of Afrikaaners were anti-apartheid, 10% of English and 20% of the (size able but still small minority) Jewish community, “Jews undermined apartheid”. I’ve met so many Jews who FLED South Africa that your statement is offensive and stupid as well as wrong. It’s really a dumb and uneducated thing to write.

            Further, so much of your lemming strategy depends on questionable links to Judaism. You equate Russian Communism with Jews because of people like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc. But those people were not practicing Jews. In most cases they despised all religions and denounced Judaism. Their Communist beliefs were incompatible with any religion. So cherry picking South African Communists with “Jewish names” is low brow.

            You and the lemmings ought to keep in mind for your “always a Jew” analysis who is in your intellectual. And moral boat. Comrade Stalin, Chancellor Hitler, et al.

  16. May I suggest a topic for your meetings?

    Please stage Awareness Raising events for Open Borders for Israel. Israel is WAAAY too Jewish, and needs Diversity in order to survive. Israel would DEFINITELY benefit from racial/cultural diversity.

    PLEASE help the Jewish people to experience the joys of racial diversity!

    • Denise. How nice to hear such a typically intelligent statement.

      I also came across a series of back & forths between Denise & someone over some silly issue. Maybe something about White Southerners being an ethnic group? No, that can’t be it, but it’s something about “white” Southerners.

      Either you were just starting out, Denise, or it was a predecessor at work, because somebody wiped the floor with you. You didn’t curse or anything, which was good, but the person made you look like a total moron. You became so flustered you actually had to pull out, “are you a Jew”, even though it had nothing to do with what was just said. The person put his boot up your uh, you know, until it protruded from your mouth. As you became more & more nut so, the person was more & more calm, which wound you up even more. You looked like I would if I tried to debate something in advanced physics!

      Of course, that was some years ago and as noted it might have been a coworker or predecessor, or maybe you’re just much better at your job. (Between you and me, is it a GS-15 position?)

  17. Warspite
    ‘Btw, I did find one of your stories/essays downright disgusting. Beyond offensive.’

    Hunter, why do you put up with this maggot?

    It’s one thing to have free discussions.

    Quite another to allow this jew weasel to insult you on every thread.

    Do us all a favor and throw it down the well.

    • SAM, you really hurt my feelings.

      Why don’t you educate yourself, read Hunter’s story & tell me if you think I am wrong. It does you no honor to condone wildly and even maliciously wrong facts. If you think the essay accurate I am willing to listen. Don’t we want an intelligent and civil exchange of ideas between mature gentlemen?

    • Re: Sam

      My own amusement. There’s not going to be any code of conduct here with a rule against “anti-Semitism.” Instead, we will bounce people on a case by case basis. If they are obviously a potential Roof or a potential Glenn Miller, they will be blocked.

      • Hunter, a potential Roof or Miller? I have a note here that you claim never to have seen Miller’s action coming. If true, and I believe you were being truthful, how are you going to identify potential murderers?

        Your code of conduct should be savvy enough to prohibit kooks and conspiracy nuts. Anyone who believes Jews have semi-annual meetings on running the world, or blacks pull the strings of power in the US is useless to you. You fancy yourself an amateur Historian and budding political commentator. Fair enough. Why would you then not acknowledge the general intellectual uselessness of people who don’t care about facts? Not to say such people don’t have any use, but Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Mao, etc., all recognized political power doesn’t derive out of being stupid. Hitler did not speak and behave with “industrialists” the same as he did when speaking to a crowd from the Kapp Putsch days. And, btw, Hitler knew his history. Only fools believe him to have been an unintelligent madman.

        I don’t want to speak for Comrade Celestial, but is he advocating a cadre of intelligent, committed, loyal members around which local groups are built? The local groups are somewhat independent, with the cadres having a level of organized connection to one another, the rank and file more connected by social media-? Maybe I am misinterpreting. Plus, as a non-member its really none of my business.

  18. Hunter,

    I know I’m on the outside looking in and maybe not the most qualified to speak due to my having no history of helping, but it seems to me that as long as the weather is nice and the park isn’t too crowded, then you would get more out of going to the park. It should be a lot better deal for people with children, and a little more relaxing since folks have a little more elbow room, those who want to smoke can, and you’re under no pressure to leave after eating so someone else can use your table. Also, the park route could be a potluck event, much like church potluck gatherings. Going potluck could even save a few bucks.

    Also you say that protests and meetings have always been combined, but the emphasis has never been on the latter. Well that should be easy to fix: Just announce ahead of time that the protest will be a defined block of time, followed by a party at a separate location for a defined block of time, or allowed to pitter out as people lose interest. One might as well go ahead and make a small pride ride out of the protest to party convoy.

    A couple days ahead of the event the weather forecast should be known, so if the weather is bad the potluck in the park could be replaced with dining at a tba restaurant.

    Going for one block of time predetermined to be protest, and a second block of time predetermined to be party, people can show for one, the other, or both, much like the model that seems to work for Sunday school/church at most churches. Also in line with the church model is the separate function for kids and adults, since at the park the kids could just go play separately, leaving adults to adult stuff. It would also make it easier for people to break into small groups according to interest.

    Of course if you did this monthly, quarterly, whatever, sometimes you would end up at park, sometimes at restaurant, so that would give you some variety. I also think integrating plenty of fun and games will be a huge benefit for getting things growing and not having too many to drop out. If there is enough interest you could even get some softball games going. When it comes to fellowship we can take a lot of lessons from the church, and when it comes to activism we can take a lot of lessons from the left.

  19. Jeff, don’t overthink it. Put a dozen or so people in the same room at the same time. Casual conversation, food, drinks, bounce around ideas to grow a trusted network, and then slowly try to steer meetings to become larger and more frequent. You need a core group willing to make things happen before putting too much thought into growing.

  20. Celestial,

    I thought there was already a core group?

    How many active members are in the League?

    How many inactive?

  21. Only a very small sampling of the Intelligent exchanges from the well mannered gentleman, Warkike. Hunter, or Runter, as the gay rabbi likes to call him, never responds in kind. I think he should, but he chooses the high ground which is a huge mistake when dealing with shylocks.

    Warspite // October 18, 2015 at 2:17 am //
    Hunter, I just read your interpretation of the rise of Nazi Germany. That statement is stupid, ignorant and wrong. You should be ashamed of deviating so far from actual history, yet thinking you constitute some sort of belief. What is it that bars you from actually reading a few real books on history?
    You telling me that Jack is your partner in this site? Why? There is no excuse for such ignorance, especially when you are so free in your criticism of “Ivy League” schools. I now question if you even know what “Ivy League” means.

    Warspite // October 18, 2015 at 12:17 pm
    I now recognize Hunter for what he is. An SAE @ Southern Miss or Furman who can’t understand why the Jewish kid in class gets higher grades (hint: he studied & is now a CPA).
    There is nothing becoming about Hunter’s anti-intellectual approach. It’s derisiveness towards higher culture and incredible need for mediocrity is frightening. You know little about the American South other than reading one side of an issue. Rejecting analysis based on anything other than a single point of view that mimics yours is not an intelligent, analytical approach.
    The mediocrity of your analyses is stunning, as is your false sense of honor. Again, you mimic someone like Lee, but you fail to understand “why” he was the man you purport to admire. It’s really galling you would reference someone like Jefferson, who would consider you not worth a conversation. Ditto Madison, Washington, et. al.

    Hunter does not know crap about anything negative associated with the antebellum South. Nothing.

    All I read are rantings of a mean, envious wannabe.

    His ideas about “Ivy League” schools, and I presume that includes schools like Stanford, Chicago, Williams, MIT, etc., are pathetic.

    Do you not get he’s a guy who went to Auburn and he’s criticizing Columbia & Duke, etc.? He went to Auburn?? Ha!

    People who couldn’t get into ‘Bama! But he critiques Dartmouth, Cornell or Berkeley!
    I’m not engaging Mr. South until he shows he’s got some guts. I have a standing petition. Recite, discuss, analyze and decide. Demonstrate to all your Stephen Decatur like courage, Zachary Taylor like resolve

    Warspite // October 19, 2015 at 12:10 am //
    Don’t be a maroon Richard. Hunter has proved himself a dishonorable phony-butt.
    He has no understanding of the responsibilities that go along with saying, I’m honorable.
    He is not worth my time. He didn’t have to be smart, just honest.

    Warspite // October 19, 2015 at 1:02 am //
    Hunter, you are really incredibly, dog-ass dumb.

    That you believe such schools are stacked with Reds you are not even Auburn material. You are speaking about subjects where you have zero knowledge.

    Warspite // October 19, 2015 at 2:28 am //
    I’m sorry, Runter, if you want me to engage you will have to be good with History, but also actually r e a d my postings. Are you implying I was critical of Andy Jackson? That’s dorky of you. I admire him immensely. Although he did lose to JQ Adams once. Sort of, thanks to, hey who was that thanks to Runter?
    I do admire what JQ Adams did before & after his presidency. He should be an example to our present day idiots. His father, the “great” John Adams was a fascist pig.
    And Runtolph, my story was based on what Sam Nunn said to me, us. Now, be a good boy & go look up Sam Nunn

    • Ah, sir, but you take things out of context. Hey, isn’t that a… Jewish trick!! Sam is very often a name taken by the sons of Abraham. Are you trying to pretend to be a below average intelligence Gentile, but your innate Jewish brilliance is showing? You’re a sly one, you!

      Actually, I’ve met some pretty GD stupid Jewish people.

      If you will peruse the entire history of October, you will find my displeasure, extreme displeasure, at Hunter’s unwillingness to enforce his alleged “rules”. I mean, the rules are supposed to fall equally on all of us. Like that Shakespeare line about the “quality of mercy”, you know, Sam? Oh, of course you don’t.

      I decided to let Hunter’s little Orwellian rules go at the time because I think forgiveness part of what separates men from mere animals. Now that you’re bringing it all up again and I recall (sort of) what happened, it brings me great displeasure. And, wait a second! I get what you’re doing Mr. Samuel Leibowitz (or is it Dr. Leibowitz?)! You are a sly old Hebrew fox.

  22. Jeff, I was under the impression that the hypothetical regional and local events scattered throughout the South would be more localized and frequent. That means they wouldn’t necessarily be “League” events. They would simply be pro-White people getting together on a regular basis in order to establish some kind of networking. You’re going to have to find “team leaders” for each region in order to pull that off. Some may be League members, some may not. That takes time and some type A personalities supplemented with a lot of Type Bs.

  23. I think it would be a really helpful endeavor, to EVERY-ONE, to get the Black Lies Matter crowd to convert to Judaism, and have them make Aliyah to Israel, because Israel is SO boringly Jewish. Jews would benefit by the liveliness of colorful Negroes. Jewish girls can mate with Negroes, and get back to their roots. Negroes have real sense of style, and it would be such an improvement to get some Bling into those dreary Hassid communities. And the Talmud study universities would gain new perspective on the Universal Human Condition. We can sponsor a trip to for the Mizzou Protestors, to every major city in Israel. It will be beautiful!

  24. O/T but not really – esteemed “right wing” rabbi Dov Lior offered these words of sublime spiritual counsel and heart-warming generosity to the victims of the Parisian bombings:

    The wicked ones in blood-soaked Europe deserve it for what they did to our people 70 years ago,” Lior said.”

    Ahhh! Such a GREAT soul! A Prince of a Self Chosen! This rebbe is the co-author of the King’s Torah. The hand book that advocates killing Goyim babies, if they may grow up to look at a Jew sideways.

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Far-right-settler-rabbi-Paris-attacks-are-payback-for-the-Holocaust-433084

  25. Hunter,
    There are essentially 2 questions to answer:
    1) With or without a protest?
    If you do it without the protest, then you attract different people, and they aren’t tired from protesting. OTOH if you combine it with protest, then those driving long distances get to kill 2 birds with one stone.

    2) How large of a group do you want?
    If your goal is to talk serious business, like strategy or creative solutions to problems, then you’ll want to keep the numbers low and by personal invitation only. Jeff Bezos has a “two pizza rule” for Amazon meetings. http://blog.idonethis.com/two-pizza-team/

    I had a prof that told me when I was a college freshman that it’s good to study in groups but not let the group get over 5 or it turns into a party. Over a long time in university for me, I think the rule has proved true. If you are really trying to put heads together to talk strategy for a common goal, then the 2-4 range is probably optimal. The leader of the group might even prepare with a couple of questions to drop into the discussion if need be. You might even mention topics at the time of invite, but I think that might be a bit too rigid to let the meeting flow since they might feel pressured to stay on topic. If you want to go this route, then perhaps you’d do well to just use something like skype or google hangout to overcome distance and avoid antifas. Ironically, google might even be more private than a restaurant bc there won’t be anybody in the booth next to you to overhear.

    If your goal is to accommodate those w children, increase networking, single mingling and just regular ol’ socializing, then the more the merrier, especially in a park cookout setting. Of course people can naturally break apart into smaller groups according to interest, but there probably won’t be very much “hard thinking” going on with this method.

    • Jeff, Suwanee? The Univ of the South would be appropriate as your college, yes? Though I guess an argument could also be made for West Point.

  26. I’d love a get together. Since our march on Oxford I have turned a great deal of my co-workers on to this site, SBPDL and others. They have become more vocal, losing their fear of being branded “racist”.
    Worse is proving to be better in our case. The more black mayhem the more people wake up, the more mooslime atrocities, the more people wake up.
    But don’t get me wrong, the rate of awakening is far, far to slow to keep pace with the rate of the cultural marxists and open communists operating with impunity in modern FUSA. A massive event will need to trigger a change in thinking.
    Anyway, count me in for a meeting if you have one.
    Deo Vindice

    • Bird, what’s with your “open borders” for Israel thing? Do you not understand the history of Israel & the US is fundamentally different? That Israel is a religious state, the US built on freedom of conscience? That Israel is the size of NJ, surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslim thugs desiring it’s extermination, while the US is rather secure in its existence & always has been?

      The real problem here is this open borders thing. First, Israel does have open borders. It is a Jewish state built on the Right of Return.

      Second, do you somehow believe that American Jews want “open borders”? If so, that’s laughable. Jewish people with a vested interest in the Democratic Party are the same as Gentiles in the same position. They short sightedly seem to like the idea of legal and illegal immigration from the Latin (and Caribbean) world because they see those people as likely Democratic voters.

      Jewish people who are amongst the monied interest in the Republican Party are the same as their Gentile comrades. They see legal and (esp.?) illegal immigration as cheap labor. Short sighted and anti-American. Both the selfish Demz & selfish Repub seem to care less about the unique history & culture of America.

      Ok, now outside of this do you believe Jewish people are in favor of some sort of open borders, everybody come in BS? Ha! You’ve got to be kidding me!! I’m thinking through a few hundred middle class Jewish folks with whom I’ve had contact in the past five years. Hmmm. Very few are inclined towards what you call “open borders”. Now let me think through a few hundred Gentiles. Hmmm. Probably because I’m in Atlanta (certain churches & refugees) I can think of more Gentiles favoring “open borders”.

      The contention that Jews are in favor of what you call open borders is absurd. Even your intellectual precedents upon which you build your arguments are out of date. A few Jewish congressmen or groups pre-WWII had vastly diff motives for allowing in immigrants than the present situation. Any argument positing Jewish groups in favor of East or Southern European immigration in the past versus present immigration concerns about the Latin, African, and third world in general go beyond apples and oranges.

      Why Jews choose to vote Democratic in National elections continues to disturb me. It’s hypocritical and stupid, though nominating weak candidates like Romney hardly helps. Bush II had quite a bit of Jewish support and it could have been built upon. But not when the Republicans put up weak & pathetic candidates, or choose to roll the dice with a VP candidate like the former Gov of Alaska (though I was ok with her, the media effectively portrayed her as stupid & uneducated, and getting her ideas out of the Bible. An excellent strategy for losing Jewish votes).

      What I would like to see is an acid test: Hillary vs. Trump. Let’s see if Jews are so deluded as to vote 51%+ for Hillary the Witch. Problem is the Establishment is really going to try and torpedo Trump in favor of some tool. Would the monied interests rather have Rubio lose than Trump win? Plus, Trump has yet to wrestle with the Religious Right crowd down here & in parts of the West.

  27. “The protests are useful in attracting publicity and notoriety, but there are also drawbacks. It is expensive to put up billboards and not everyone who is interested in our ideas is up for participating in a protest.

    I respond.

    The protests and billboards are useful in other ways – they bring forth individuals who can do things, get things done, who have resources and courage. When I paid for those anti Tyson CEO billboard adverts in Middle TN regular folks in League of the South could see that I was serious and could get something done besides just talking and complaining anonymously.

    I was very impressed with Dr. Hill and other LotS leaders with their organization, discipline, and security – cops and antis and regular folks could see that we could get things done.

  28. I agree that some of Warspite’s comments have crossed the line as he isn’t being respectful enough that he is a guest in a very Southern cause, blog etc.

    My recommendation for Jewish issues is to follow the lead of Vladimir Putin. Jews are free to live in Russian areas, to work, do business and even get rich and do very well.

    Jews are not free to do anti Russian nationalism, insult Russian history, try to do American style Jewish media, support Pussy Riot, flood Russia with Black migrants etc. Putin is fair and neutral to Israel/Palestinian issues. Putin’s Middle East policy might as well be scripted by Pat Buchanan.

    Again, Putin doesn’t persecute, let alone kills Jews in Russia sphere of influence. Putin just puts the word out that Jews had better behave and everyone knows who is boss. Google image what happened to that Yid Yukos Oil oligarch why got out of line and tried to be a Sheldon Adelson Hollywood Yid power player.

    Putin put the Yid in public cage then sentenced him to hard labor in Siberia.

    Many of the worst Yid Oligarchs decided to jump ship and moved to England buying up British Premier Soccer league teams.

    I think we have to do this same with this Yid Warspite. He is bright, well educated, I don’t have a problem with him being pro Jewish, obviously concerned about past persecutions. But, this is our place/space – we ain’t letting any type of Jews do here what the Neo Con Jews did to National Review and Conservative Inc.

    • Let me respond to that in a brief manner.

      1. I refuse to adhere to the Pussy Riot limitation;
      2. I am disappointed to conclude that when you scratch an OD, you find a Nazi (a description I am not just using for effect);
      3. I had hoped I could raise the level of discourse amongst the lemmings, but no one seems prepared to ever question anything;
      4. As a Southerner, and I do have the credentials on that, your organizations represent only a sliver of Southern culture & thought. Unfortunately, the LOS people refuse to adopt any characteristics of Southern culture they do not like. This turns the organization into little more than an excuse to rant against various minorities using very unpleasant words. I see nothing even vaguely reminiscent of what Robert E. Lee stood for, and I think you do his memory and reputation a disservice by not trying to emulate him, and;

      5. Most important of all, it is your organization not mine. Whatever I say or write, true or not, need have no importance at all. Even though the blog is open, I’m still more or less an interloper. It doesn’t really matter what your political beliefs as long as no one is breaking the law.

      The close-mindedness and lack of decency here is often shocking. Let me provide an example.

      The other day I finally decided to do some reading about OD, WN movement, etc. The only scary part were accusations about links to serious felonies, including many murders. Let me tell you my view on that, which I hope (for my sake!) is correct.

      Glenn Miller killed some people. Miller was also a WN guy and let’s say he posted on OD. While I can buy a moral and ethical responsibility concerning the perpetuation of ideas, writing that, hypothetically, “OD is connected to at least 2 murders” because of Miller is ridiculous. That makes it sound like the organization itself was somehow directly involved, which would be a lie. Miller might also have been a member of AAA, so is triple A connected to the murders?

      I think the above sort of characterization by the Various monitoring groups absurd & ridiculous. Supporting the confederate flag is not terrorism, and I don’t think the OD or LOS people are going out there and killing people. The fact a Jewish person who disagrees with 75% of your stuff supports you is a good thing. But you guys want the old 100% follow orders, party line even when what you write is false. And you guys have had several WN or near WN leaders who have told you to drop the anti-Jewish kook stuff. Don’t you think there’s a reason that’s been suggested?

      But, it is very much your club, not mine.

      • Re Warspite:

        “2. I am disappointed to conclude that when you scratch an OD, you find a Nazi (a description I am not just using for effect)”

        There may be some exception on here, but I think I overwhelmingly speak for the majority on here when I say we are neither Germans nor socialists. But you call us Nazis and insist that you are not just using the term for effect. Ridiculous.

        “3. I had hoped I could raise the level of discourse amongst the lemmings, but no one seems prepared to ever question anything;”

        Well Maybe you should just give up and move on and dedicate your time to shopping for your new home in Israel.

        • Jeff, I’ve never been to Israel.

          One need not be a German to be an adherent to Nazi politics and beliefs. Not even prior to May 1945.

          When I write “scratch an OD…”, it’s from the old saying, “scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar”. It’s a multi-dimensional statement which I think largely defensible. Look at what you believe, to start

  29. Warspite:

    “Bird, what’s with your “open borders” for Israel thing? Do you not understand the history of Israel & the US is fundamentally different? That Israel is a religious state, the US built on freedom of conscience? That Israel is the size of NJ, surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslim thugs desiring it’s extermination, while the US is rather secure in its existence & always has been?”

    I respond:

    I am afraid this Yid Warspite is starting to seriously fall down in to rather typical Jewish lying.

    Israel is an ethno state, not a religious state. Ethnic/racial Jews are allowed, encouraged to live and work in Israel. The Jews are an ethnic group, with some religious cross overs – but all honest people understand who and who isn’t Jewish, somewhat Jewish and the worst Hollywood Jews, Lib Leftist homosexual, Neo Conservative Jews are Jews.

    The United States and Israel are not in fundamentally different situations. And this Yid is simply lying when he states “while the US is rather secure in its existence & always has been?”

    Our roughest BlackRuledAmerican cities like Baltimore, Memphis TN, Birmingham Al are anything except safe and secure. White children can’t go in safety to public schools in almost all of America. Our Southern border hasn’t been safe and secure since President Eisenhower. When Islamic extremist slaughter Americans in the USA we die just as much as when they do so in Israel or the occupied territories.

    Someone do the math – including 9/11/01 have there been more Americans murdered by Islamic terrorists or Jewish Israelis?

    And as we’ve documented American Jews are good at many things including being good students. American Jews and especially the $ billionaire Jewish elites like Sheldon Adelson, Mark Zuckerberg all the Jewish Congressmen and Senators are terrible, worst ever on the issue of mass 3rd world immigration in to the USA. These *#&$# Yids even support mass Islamic immigration in to the USA and Europe – that’s how much they hate us.

  30. I will post some excerpts for your edification:

    “Yet, alongside this overwhelmingly pattern of conformity, a deviant tradition that balked at the established social order is also traceable in the history of South African Jewry. One outstanding early manifestation was related to the struggle for relief from the disabilities suffered by the Indian population from 1906 to 1914. During this campaign the legendary Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi developed his doctrine of active nonviolent resistance, named by him satayagraha and employed year later with empire-shaking effect in India itself. The closest of Gandhi’s white associates were in fact Jews, notably Henry Polak, who had come from England, Hermann Kallenbach, who was Litvak-born but had come to South Africa from Germany where he had qualified as an architect, and Sonia Schlesin, a young Litvak immigrant who served faithfully as Gandhi’s secretary. Moreover, their actions resonated in perhaps the earliest incidence of a publically aired controversy over the moral implications of Jewish complicity in the South African system of racial discrimination. Polak averred that he had been drawn into the Indian satyagraha struggle “as a Jew who has tried to remember Judaism is a matter not only of belief but also of action.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.7

    “Some Jews were also prominent in the Labor Party. The party’s race relations policy rested in essence on protection of the interests of solely white workers. However, the justice and wisdom of this policy did not go unquestioned over the years, and Jews in the Labor Party’s leadership generally were numbered among the proponents of a color-blind policy. As this failed to gain acceptance, several major players moved politically leftward.

    Even more than in the South African labor movement, Jews were prominent in the development of radical socialist groups. A striking early exemplar was Yeshaya Israelstam.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.8

    “Formally founded in Johannesburg in August 1917, it commanded a following of a good few hundred members and fellow travelers. The ISL was a major player in the founding of the united Communist Party of South Africa, which duly became an affiliated section of the Communist International.

    Thus a self-defined Jewish group was intimately involved in the formation of a communist party from the outset – the only political party that opened its ranks to blacks. Once the party was created the Jewish group dissolved itself, but individual Jews continued to constitute a remarkably high proportion of its active white membership. It is an index of the prominence of Jews in the leadership core of the party that, when directives from the Moscow Comitern forced the South African Communists to adopt the slogan – considered by some party leaders as disastrously unrealistic – of a “Native Republic, with minority rights for Whites,” and to launch a compaign against an alleged danger of right-wing deviationists, both the main fomenters and the victims of the purge-like explusions that ensued were Jews.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.9

    “The prominence of Jews in the leadership of the Communist Party continued to be an obvious fact of which the authorities were only too well aware. Thus, a police report delivered to Prime Minister Smuts, listing sixty active leaders, secret and open, of the Johannesburg District of the Communist Party of South Africa in February 1946, contained twenty-three Jewish names, one of which was the chairman Michael Harmel. Paralleling the highly disproportionate involvement of individual Jews in the Communist Party, leftist sentiments and affinities continued to be manifest in the framework of cultural activities conducted by a Yiddisher Literarisher Farein that had been founded in 1912 and in an ephemeral socialist-Zionist group of Yiddish speakers formed in 1919, which also participated in the founding of the Communist Party. Assuming the name Poalei Zion (Workers of Zion), it identified with the socialist-Zionist movement of that name, which was an ascendant political force in the world Zionist movement.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.9

    “Changes in the attitude of the white population, however, profoundly affected the situation of Jews. This became critically evident in the year 1930, when the South African parliament enacted a new immigration law that effectively reduced the flow of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe to a mere trickle. The word Jew was not mentioned, but only the politically blind could fail to see that Jews were the main target of restriction.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.11

    “In late 1936 widespread public opposition rose to a crescendo surrounding the arrival of a ship carrying Jewish would-be immigrants, the Stuttgart, which had been chartered by the Council for German Jewry in London. Prominent among the protestors was Dr. Hendrik F. Verwoerd, a professor at the University of Stellenbosch destined to become prime minister of South Africa and the foremost architecht of apartheid.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.13

    “Verwoerd suggested a quota system by which, henceforth, licenses would be refused and expired ones not renewed, so that Jews would be barred until the stage when they occupied no more than 5 percent of the country’s commerce and industry.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.14

    “As for the attitude of Jews to Katzew’s philo-Afrikaner sentiments, there can be no doubt that the conscience of most morally sensitized and politically aware Jews was troubled, if at all, not by the Afrikaner’s plight but by that of the underprivilaged and oppressed black majority.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.29

    “Chief Rabbi Rabinowitz’s demeanor was quite the opposite of Abraham’s. By temperament far less repressible, he never wavered in demonstration of his ardent Zionism (he was a foremost supporter of Revisionist Zionism) and, at the same time, tended to make his opposition to apartheid increasingly explicit. . . .”Our concern is with the doctrines of Judaism, not the views of individual Jews,” he said, “and we betray these doctrines if we do not proclaim that Judaism teaches, without equivocation, the absolute equality of all men before God.” He pleaded that there surely was a specifically Jewish attitude toward discrimination based on race or creed and that “it was as unreasonable to suggest that it was wrong to denounce theft because some Jews favoured it, as it was to suggest that it was wrong to denounce theft because some Jews are theives.” In his sermons he protested against the deportation of Bishop Reeves, declaring: “It was the sacred duty of all religious leaders to speak out clearly on the ethical aspects of social problems.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.40

  31. “Throughout the 1950s the foreign relations between Israel and South Africa developed cordially enough, although diplomatic representation remained low-key. Only Israel maintained a permanent diplomatic mission. Although by the late 1950s there were already signs that Israel was developing close relations with several African countries hostile to South Africa’s white regime, Prime Minister Verwoerd himself could comment in conversations with Israel’s minister plenipotentairy, Katriel Salmon, that he appreciated Israel’s restraint regarding the international crusade against South Africa. Verwoerd added pointedly that this contrasted with the difficulties he was experiencing with the Jewish community, whose members had disappointed him by mostly voting nay in the plebiscite on declaration of South Africa as a republic.

    A crisis was precipitated in October 1961 when at the United Nations some African states launched an attack on the South African foreign minister unprecedented in its severity. He was none other than Eric Luow, well remembered by Jews as a foremost anti-Semite in the pre-1948 period. Amid the clamorous support of many of the African delegates, the Liberian representative moved that Luow’s speech be struck from the record. Although this did not pass, the General Assembly did roundly censure Luow, and Israel voted in favor of this censure. In white South Africa this news was received with much indignation. With the exception of Holland and Israel, all the Western states had abstained from voting or absented themselves from the debate. This made Israel’s offense against white South Africa particularly conspicuous.

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.47

    “Not long after the Eric Luow incident, Israel took another step toward alliance with white South Africa’s enemies at the United Nations. Whereas a clause calling for diplomatic and economic sanctions against South Africa met with the opposition of the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western States, Israel again conspicuously aligned itself with those who voted in favor.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.48

    “What were the considerations that determined the Israel Foreign Ministry’s policy? There can be no doubt that Israel’s overriding motivation was to gain the diplomatic support of African states as counterbalance to the chronic international hostility it had to face from the Arab States and the Soviet Union and its satellites. This interest was reinforced by moral repugnance for the racism that apartheid signified.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.49

    “When an anxious appeal was made to Minister of Finance Dr. Doenges, he commented sternly that after South Africa had gone to great lengths to be helpful to Israel, Israel had now “slapped South Africa in the face and ganged up with her enemies.”. . .

    . . .Since Israel continued to vote with the Afro-Asian bloc against South Africa, reprecussions upon South African Jewry was exacerbated. Die Transvaler, for example, said that the hostile behaviour of Israel toward South Africa destroyed whatever compatibility had ever existed between the dual loyalties of the Jews in South Africa. “The Jews will thus now have to choose where they stand. . .with South Africa or with Israel. It can no longer be both.”

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), p.51

  32. “So much for participation of Jews in conventional white South African politics and what can be surmised concerning the voting preferences of Jews. Turning now to the forces, legal and extra legal, that constituted the vanguard of opposition to apartheid on the part of whites, one cannot but be struck by the extraordinary salience of Jews. Two women, Ella Hellmann and Helen Suzman, exemplified above all other persons the prominent involvement of Jews in the liberal opposition to apartheid, which functioned with them bounds of constitutional legality as laid down by white South Africans.

    Dr. Ellen Hellmann, nee Kaumheimer, was born in Johannesburg to Jewish parents who had come from Germany. She obtained her doctorate in social anthropology at the University of the Witwatersrand, specializing in research on the urban African. This led her into expanding social and political concern within the framework of the Institute of Race Relations. She served as its president in 1954-55 and took a leading part in numerous liberal activities such as the Johannesburg Citizen’s Native Housing Committee, the board of management of a creche in Soweto sponsored by the Union of Jewish Women, trusteeship of the defense fund in aid of the defendants in the great Treason Trial of the late 1950s, which will be discussed shortly, and the similar Defense and Aid Fund Committee in the mid-1960s. Politically, she associated herself mainly with the Progressive Party, serving on its executive committee in the 1960s and also standing for election to the Johannesburg City Council on that party’s ticket in 1962. In all, Ella Hellmann became one of the most prominent and academically authoritative liberal critics of South Africa’s system of race relations. In the retrospective typological spectrum of the so-called “liberation struggle” she exemplifies those who worked primarily through the nonparty Institute of Race Relations, rather than through multiracial political agitation, and who have consequently been described by some observers as “social liberals.”

    Helen Suzman, more than any other political personality, epitomized the white liberal opposition to the apartheid regime in the eyes of the world as in those of South Africans. She is undoubtedly the foremost exemplar of those who worked within the system and used it to attack apartheid intrepidly and relentlessly. In 1953 Suzman commened her parliamentary career – thirty-six years in duration – as the successful United Party candidate for the Houghton constituency in Johannesburg. But before long she came to the conclusion that the United Party was too equivocal and ineffectual an opposition instrument in the face of Afrikaner nationalism’s unshakable determination to institutionalize and fortify white racial domination. In 1959 she was part of the group that split to form the Progressive Party. However, the new party made precious little headway within the white electorate. For thirteen years, from 1961 to 1974, Helen Suzman was its sole member of parliament. In that solitary role she courageously battled each and every apartheid measure, often enduring not only general calumny but also anti-semitic taunts from the government benches. Yet occasionally there was also grudging acknowledgments of her political integrity and courage. Her parliamentary speeches were informed by a rationally articulated humanism. They were models of nondemagogic delivery, finely researched data, and sound reasoning.

    Although holding fast to her ideological convictions as a political liberal, Suzman also played a key role in rendering every form of legal, material, and moral succor to radicals who feel foul of the apartheid state’s laws, whether the accused in the great Treason Trial or political prisoners such as Nelson Mandela and his comrades after they were incarcerated on Robben Island, off Capetown. She retired from her parliamentary career in 1989, shortly before the great transformation of the South African political system, the essentials of which she had consistently and courageously advocated for so many years.

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), pp.58-60

    “The forms of white opposition to apartheid that remained within the confines of formal legality ranged on a spectrum that included the work of the Institute of Race Relations, which conducted research and acted as a pressure group on the government; the Black Sash movement, which mobolized women for protest and social action; the Christian Institute, an ecumenical organization founded in 1963 for promoting dialogue; the Liberal Party that existed from 1953 to 1968l and the Progressive Party, which at first coexisted with the Liberal Party and afterward succeeded it, in a sense by default. All these organizations were composed essentially of an English speaking membership led by major public figures such as Alan Paton, or Margaret Ballinger an Patrick Duncan of the Liberal Party, or “renegade” Afrikaners such as Beyers Naude of the Christian Institute. The role of Jewish individuals should not be exaggerated, although they certainly were involved in numbers disproportionate to the size of the Jewish population, and prominent almost emblematically Jewish assailants of apartheid such as the Liberal Party’s Leslie Rubin or the Progressive Party’s Helen Suzman were perceived in the Afrikaans press as thorns in the side of the positive forces upholding white supremacy.

    But this irritant was a naught compared with the glaring prominence of Jewish names in the radical opposition. Throughout the first two decades of National Party rule, Jewish names kept appearing in every facet of the struggle: in the lists of “named” communists and of persons banned from all public activity, detained without trial, or placed under house arrest; in the courts, whether as defendents or as counsel for the defense; and among those who fled the country to evade arrest or unbearable harrassment. The public prominence of Jewish names was particularly marked in the course of the epic Treason Trial, which captured the attention of the news media throughout the second half of the 1950s. In a concerted effort to crush the antiapartheid resistance the police had dramatically swooped down upon well over a hundred suspects. When the trial opened in December 1956, 156 people belonging to all apartheid-defined racial groups were charged with treason in the form of a conspiracy to overthrow the state by violence in order to replace it with a state based on communism. The accused were mostly blacks, numbering 105, but there were also 21 Indians, 7 coloreds, and 23 whites. It was a glaring fact that more than half of the whites were Jews. They were Yetta Barenblatt, Hymie Barsel, Lionel (Rusty) Bernstein, Leon Levy, Norman Levy, Syndey Shall, Joe Slovo, Ruth (First) Slovo, Sonia Bunting, Lionel Forman, Issac Horvitch, Ben Turok, Jacqueline Arenstein, and Ronald Press. All had been associated with the Communist Party of South Africa at some time before it was banned in 1950, and some were in the clandestine reconstituted party (formed in 1953 and renamed the South African Communist Party). Most were overtly active in the South African Congress of Democrats and in other organizations associated with opposition to the apartheid regime such as the Society for Preace and Friendship with the Soviet Union and the Federation of South African Women.

    The conspicuous disproportion of Jewish names in the list of accused was compounded by the prominence of Jews in the defendants’ legal counsel. In the initial prepatory examination stage, the defense counsel included Maurice Franks and Norman Rosenberg. Jews were also prominent in the main fund-raising support within South Africa in behalf of the accused – the Treason Trial Defense Fund. Alongside author Alan Paton and Anglican bishop of Johannesburg Ambrose Reeves, seven of its initial twenty-two sponsers were Jews, as were also two of its four trustees – Dr. Ellen Hellmann and Alex Hepple. The trial was of unprecedented duration, the state repeatedly failing to establish its case, consequently dropping charges against more and more of the accused, and ultimately changing the indictment against the remainder. By August 1958 charges had been dropped against all but 92 of the accused. With (from the Jewish point of view) a twist of irony, however unintended, the trial was then resumed in a building known as “The Old Synagogue” of Pretoria, a synagogue that had fallen into disuse and been purchased from the local Jewish community in 1952.

    To top it all, at the most critical stage in the trial the defense counsel was led by a prominent personality in the Jewish community, Israel Maisels, assisted by Sydney Kentridge (son of the notable parliamentarian and Jewish communal leader Morris Kentridge), while the prosecutor was none other than the former Nuwe Ordre (New Order) leader Oswald Pirow. The juxtaposition was striking, and quite invidious from the vantage point of the Jewish community’s public relations work: Miasels, the Jew, a prominent leader in both the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Zionist Federation, defending those accused of seeking to overthrow white supremacy; Pirow, the extreme Afrikaner nationalist and former assertive pro-Nazi, defending white supremacy. All in all the trial dragged on for four years and four months. In March 1961 the prosecution finally gave in, and all the remaining accused were released. It was a testimonial to the residual power of the formal rule of law, notwithstanding the fundamentally defective “democratic” polity of South Africa. As such, it was a most frustrating defeat for the governmental apostles of apartheid, who redoubled their efforts to legislate away such legal obstacles as far as was possible by deploying their parliamentary majority.

    Prominence of Jewish names continued to glare in periodically issued government gazettes listing persons banned or restricted in various ways for falling fould of the increasingly sweeping repressive legislation. Sensitive to the implications for the public image of the Jewish community, the Board of Deputies monitored and filed such lists as they appeared in official gazettes and the press. One example is a particularly comprehensive list issued in November 1962, containing 437 names of persons who were suspected of being former officeholders, members, or active supporters of the banned Communist Party. According to a Board of Deputies memorandum, gauging by names alone at least 62 of the 132 whites listed were Jews. A later gazette dated 25 August 1967 listed persons (all white) who had been officeholders, members, or active supporters of the banned Congress of Democrats. Of the 35 names, 18 were identifiably Jewish.

    Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), pp.60-61

    • Since this is not an area where I am familiar with the literature I decided to run your statements by an emigree South African Jew in the ATL who is connected with academia. She is very familiar with Professor Shimoni & speaks very highly of him. He apparently holds some senior academic post and is an expert in Zionism.

      I am told you have misread or misinterpreted Professor Shimoni’s work, and she does not understand how it is possible to draw from his work the conclusion of the South African Jewish community acting in a political subversive manner. (It may be another example of confirmation bias on your part?) In fact, she thinks your missed a very significant aspect of Professor Shimoni’s work (keep in mind I have not read the book).

      South African Jews were actively involved in the anti-apartheid movement, but not exactly in the manner you have conveyed. First of all, and this is a mistake I often see people here make, there is a substantial difference between having a significant number of Jews in important positions as opposed to having a large number of Jews in the anti-apartheid movement. Yes, I am told there were quite a few Jews in important positions and, yes, Jews seemed to be anti-apartheid in numbers not commensurate with their percentage of the population. But what you have not paid attention to are the actual numbers. Jews only made up about 4% of the population. Even if, and I’m told this is very generous, 10% of the Jewish community were anti-Apartheid, 90% were fine with things as is. And that 10% number may have been 12k-15k people. That means 108,000 of 120,000, up to 135,000 of the 150,000 were fine with things the way they were for a very long time.

      Now we get to a very important point, and one which I’m surprised you missed. The major criticism of the Jewish community in SA was its failure to be anti-apartheid! Despite the experiences of WWII & the Shoah Jews in SA were overwhelmingly just fine with their privileges under apartheid. It was not until 1980 that the more or less official representative body of S African Jews came out against apartheid.

      Much of the criticism focused on the fact that since they were “White” under South African policies and therefore enjoyed all the privileges of color, 90% of Jews were all on board apartheid policies until, basically, the end. I Personally would have thought one of your comments after reading the book would have been on the selfishness of Jews under the apartheid system, not any role they played in subverting it.

      That’s the opinion out of academia. I knew very little about this subject and appreciate the opportunity to learn about it, even if it might not be one of the great moments in basic morality & ethics for Jewry.

      • Feel free to go out and retrieve Shimoni’s book. Read it for yourself.

        It has been over a decade since I read it while in college, but my impression was that South African Jews were heavily involved in both communism and the vanguard of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. The fact that it was Shimoni, not David Duke, who wrote that book on South African Jewry was very persuasive.

        Here in the United States, Jews were similarly heavily involved in the Communist Party USA and the Civil Rights Movement. This is not really in dispute, but whereas Jews tend to see it as a positive thing, those who support apartheid and segregation are likely to see the same set of facts in a very different light.

        Everywhere we look Jews seem to be unusually attracted to radical leftwing movements like moths to a flame.

      • For the record, when I was first exposed to the Jewish Question, I tended to discount what the anti-Semites were saying and chose to research the matter on my own. I read plenty of academic sources, most of which were written by Jews on the Jewish community, and those sources pretty much confirmed a lot of what I was hearing.

        • “Jewish Question” is a rather anachronistic term. It also has rather unfortunate historical connections.

          You would be better off heeding some of the advice I read by Ian Jobling, Jared Taylor & some others I came across (maybe someone named LeFevre?) about staying away from Jewish issues. It is a no win issue. Most people you attract with it fall down the rabbit hole of Holocaust denial. Clearly, on the whole WN adherents have difficulty separating American Jews, Israel, the Holocaust, etc. It all gets lumped together and brings a neo Nazi veneer to White Nationalism.

          It ought to be possible to criticize neo-conservative thought w/o that sliding into Holocaust denial! Yet, that does not seem to be the case here. I’ve only seen two people post that, “of course” the Holocaust occurred. I’ve seen over a score deny anything of the sort occurred.

          • I don’t think so.

            I think it is a valid question: what has been the cumulative impact of Jews on American culture? Just how powerful and infuential are the Jewish minority in this country? As a whole, has our Jewish elite been a net positive or a negative for White people?

            Jared Taylor is free to focus his attention on racial issues. Obviously, I don’t believe any topic should be off the table, especially a subject as important as this one. As for the Holocaust, I am just not interested in the subject and never have any reason to write about it. I’m generally not interested in Hitler’s Germany or fascism either. The commentators are much more interested in the subject.

          • Re Hunter:

            “As for the Holocaust, I am just not interested in the subject and never have any reason to write about it. I’m generally not interested in Hitler’s Germany or fascism either. The commentators are much more interested in the subject.”

            I’m not interested either, except that I suppose it’s possible to learn from history, so some comments might be worthwhile for that purpose. But generally no, I don’t care about the Jewish holocaust or how we “stole” the land from the Indians. (I wonder how long it took them to realize we had taken it away. Are they still looking for it?) I don’t care about the African slave trade, except that I regret the presence of negroes in North America, and I don’t really care about the one drop rule, the Dred Scott decision, or Jim Crow laws. I care very little about Civil War reenactments or Confederate trivia unless they are relevant to our future. I don’t care about Maya Angelou, Langston Hughes, Paul Lawrence Dunbar, or MLK either.

            I do care about a future ethnostate for white persons of NW European (especially Anglo-Celtic like myself). That’s why I’m here on OD.

  33. @Warspite:

    “Bird, what’s with your “open borders” for Israel thing? Do you not understand the history of Israel & the US is fundamentally different? That Israel is a religious state, the US built on freedom of conscience? That Israel is the size of NJ, surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslim thugs desiring it’s extermination, while the US is rather secure in its existence & always has been?”

    Did WarSpite really make the nasty allegation that multiculturalism would ruin Israel?

    https://www.facebook.com/openbordersforisrael/photos/a.452318374865647.1073741828.452289104868574/829185580512256/?type=3

  34. What a sick biggot WarSpite is. He doesn’t know that Islam is the Religion of Peace and Muslims are Semitic like him.

    • Bird Richard, why do you believe I am some sort of multicultural advocate? I think it’s a crock. Just as I have for 30 years.

      I enjoy there being many different ethnic groups. It makes America interesting & probably stronger. But there is an American culture that immigrants need to become part of or leave. I have no interest in every different group having beliefs contrary to American ideals as enshrined in the Constitution and expressed in the English language.

      The way I look at it is different groups, in limited numbers, become ingredients in a very tasty American “stew” (i.e., a melting pot). Multiculturalism is akin to vomiting up that stew because dumping in huge amounts of foreign or unpleasant ingredients created an inedible product.

  35. Yes, it ultimately didn’t matter if it was Congo, Zimbabwe, Angola, or Nigeria. All these African countries ended up in more or less the same place regardless of the peculiarities of their colonial metropole.

    Botswana is held up today as the valedictorian of independent sub-Saharan African countries, but lots of African countries had a good run for a while like Ivory Coast and Rwanda before regressing to the mean.

  36. 1.) I was being exceedingly generous with the 2,000 estimate. If there were 500 to 2,000 extremely sick Europeans in a country the size of Western Europe with no infrastructure, most of which was an unexplored impenetratable jungle, well, lets just say that I doubt the Belgian Holocaust narrative.

    2.) I’m sure it came from Adam Hochschild’s pop history book which insofar as any American knows anything about the DRC tends to be their go to source.

    3.) If we grant that even in the 21st century we still don’t know the names of all the Jews who died in Germany in WW2, the most advanced nation in Europe at the time, then what does that say about a place like the Congo Free State circa 1900 where there was nothing resembling a functioning civil administration that kept national statistics until decades into the Belgian Congo?

  37. Warspite:

    “5. Most important of all, it is your organization not mine. Whatever I say or write, true or not, need have no importance at all. Even though the blog is open, I’m still more or less an interloper. It doesn’t really matter what your political beliefs as long as no one is breaking the law.”

    I respond:

    Yes, this is true. I respect Warspite as an intelligent, mostly fair minded person – wish him well. He simply isn’t of our group/tribe – but that doesn’t mean he can’t have a good life or work for lots of things we support.

    Though Warspite charges that we have lots of ill mannered, raving NAZIS here on OD, I don’t think it’s a big problem and we/I do try to maintain civility, good manners on OD comments.

    We do have Jewish readers, somewhat supporters but we have come to the conclusion that we can’t invite supposed “saved Jews” in to our ranks. We saw what happened when National Review and Conservative Inc did that with the Commentary Magazine Neo Conservatives. We will embrace mass migration of 800,000 Black and Muslim male migrants to Europe before we do that again.

    🙂

    • Hunter. I’m going to look more into the Congo situation to make sure I haven’t been the victim of anti-Western propaganda

      • There’s a pop history book called “King Leopold’s Ghost” by Adam Hochschild that is responsible for creating that perception of the Belgian Congo in the United States. Most of the sources that deal with the country are in French and English readers don’t have many options to learn more about the country.

  38. jack ryan // November 16, 2015 at 5:09 pm //
    “We will embrace mass migration of 800,000 Black and Muslim male migrants to Europe before we do that again.

    :-)”

    You are a gentleman and a scholar Jack. A Black Israel is a diverse Israel!

Comments are closed.