Here’s an excerpt on the racial values of Southerners around a century ago from C. Vann Woodward’s book Origins of the New South: 1877-1913:
“Over the years there evolved along with the caste system a generally accepted credo of race among white Southerners. In 1913 Thomas Pearce Bailey, a Southern educator, set down this “racial creed of the Southern people” with such candor and accuracy that it may serve as the best available summary:
1.) “Blood will tell.”
2.) The white race must dominate.
3.) The Teutonic peoples stand for race purity.
4.) The Negro is inferior and will remain so.
5.) “This is a white man’s country.”
6.) No social equality.
7.) No political equality.
8.) In matters of civil rights and legal adjustments give the white man, as opposed to the colored man, the benefit of the doubt; and under no circumstances interfere with the prestige of the white race.
9.) In educational policy let the Negro have the crumbs that fall from the white man’s table.
10.) Let there be such industrial education of the Negro as will best fit him to serve the white man.
11.) Only Southerners understand the Negro question.
12.) Let the South settle the Negro question.
13.) The status of peasantry is all the Negro may hope for, if the races are to live together in peace.
14.) Let the lowest white man count for more than the highest Negro.
15.) The above sentiments indicate the leadings of Providence.”
Strong stuff.
This isn’t what I was told by modern day Baby Boomer Rainbow Confederates. It also seems to be inconsistent with the eternal principles of True Conservatism which was the deracinated abstract ideology of classical liberalism that was at the heart of the American Founding.
If the “Civil Rights” protesters actually had cared anything about black people they would have stuck around down South after 1965 to try to help blacks. They would have tried to educate and train blacks for decent jobs, teach them not to be violent especially towards women and spent their time, money and talent trying to improve blacks however futile the effort. Instead, after upending society, causing violence and turmoil throughout the South they moved on to new holy causes such as anti-war protests, feminism and gay rights, abandoning the blacks they had supposedly cared about.
They never gave a damn about blacks, they cared about destroying the U.S. through internal social turmoil and blacks were useful for that purpose. The only time Left wing leaders like BHO ever visit the South is to get their pictures taken in Selma on the anniversary of the 1965 march across the Edmund Pettis Bridge. They never ask if life is better, worse or the same as 1965 for the people living there. The Left doesn’t have an ounce, not even a grain of care for blacks, they only want absolute power.
That’s because the niggers are hopeless. What you see is what you get — violent, chaotic, profoundly stupid kraal apes unfortunately defacing this fair continent with their vileness.
So much better than what is marketed to us as “The American Creed.”
This was a failed ideology; utopian, naive, blind to not only to history but their present reality.
The only answer was geographic separation, not racial heirarchies: they NEVER last.
But it FEELS good, am I getting it now? Emotion over logic?
PS this is uncannily similar to Vedic ideology; see Arthshastra for an example
I disagree.
Neither slavery or segregation collapsed on their own. Both were murdered from the outside. The answer is not geographic separation because the whole problem is that section of the country which never had slavery or segregation. In spite of being a lily White paradise, it has dragged us through every social revolution in American history from abolition to gay marriage. It is the definitive proof that creating a homogeneous White ethnostate is no solution to cultural degeneration.
> In spite of being a lily White paradise, it [the North] has dragged us through every social revolution in American history from abolition to gay marriage.
True.
Thought experiment: What if the lily white northern colonies had established one union in 1776 and the mixed race southern colonies had established a different (southern) union in 1776?
Would the crazy Yankees still push LGBT, mass immigration, etc. in their northern union today?
Or was it their crusading zeal against the Confederacy in 1861-65 and their zeal against the Nazis in 1941-45 that really pushed them over the edge?
I guess Cromwell & co. managed to go pretty crazy in England back in the day. But would the Wilberforce leveling tendencies have run wild in a lily white Northern Union that had virtually no blacks?
My magic 8-ball says: “Yes.” (Them Yankees are crazy m***** f******.)
**Neither slavery or segregation collapsed on their own. Both were murdered from the outside**
Slavery would have died anyway even without outside interference. And racial segregation never in history has solved racial problems in the long term. That has been attempted in many places, from ancient India to modern South Africa. Only total geographical separation ever worked.
**It is the definitive proof that creating a homogeneous White ethnostate is no solution to cultural degeneration**
Then what is your solution? Bring back cotton plantations? Or convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia?
South Africa was also murdered.
I’m less concerned about the blacks around here than I am about Whites in other parts of their country imposing their insane ideas on us. That’s the real problem.
If you are not concerned about blacks around you, then perhaps you should stop complaining about the end of slavery and segregation. Just accept the black man as your brother and live happily ever after.
It’s nowhere near my greatest concern.
“the whole problem is that section of the country which never had slavery or segregation.”
Which is why they need their own government(s) in Boston, New York or Chicago, or all three. The “U.S.® government” was practically reseated in those three cities, after 1865, anyway. Therefore it wouldn’t be much of a disruption to the Northern people, to make what is already defacto, de jure.
The first step towards that would be giving each state one, and only one, electoral vote. When those sixteen states and their three PacRim colonies can no longer outvote the rest of the country, when it comes to picking the President, they’ll leave the Union like a shot.
When they begin to whine about Treason and how unpatriotic and unAmerican it all is, like they do anytime it’s suggested that people in Kentucky or Wyoming might have the same legal and political rights as New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and Ohioans, we’ll remind them that in the “Democracy” that they’re always hypocritically bleating about, majorities rule, and surely 31 states override 19.
If not, then yonder, beyond the Ohio, stands the door.
I am all for eventually making the American mega-cities fully independent city-states. They would have their own laws, which are not applicable to “red” America. Urban centers attract all the scum, anyway; they should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of us.
This is the outline of a white supremacist worldview, at least in relation to blacks.
My question for you @hunter, is this what you think we should hold as a basis for our worldview now?
If so, how does this translate to the plethora of other peoples we now have to deal with?
For historical reference this is good to know, but is this still a pragmatic perspective for today, given how different our circumstances are now.
Then, we had control. We could afford to have an absolutist perspective. It didn’t prepare the South for the ultimate weaponization of negros against us by the yanks.
Maybe im being obtuse.
How can any rational person disagree with any of those 15 points? They should be inscribed on gigantic granite slabs and made the law of the land.