An OD commentator recently altered me to a Tom Sunic interview with Dr. Michael Hill of the League of the South which aired on The Sunic Journal back in April. In recent months, I had criticized the League in one of my threads. He thought the interview might be of some interest and recommended it with a short summary.
I can now report that I was pleasantly surprised. When I first discovered the League of the South eight years ago, I was initially very excited about it. Here was an impressive organization that advocated Southern independence from the United States. It seemed like the place to be.
My initial enthusiasm waned though as I learned more about the group. It seemed like the League of the South and the broader Neo-Confederate movement had caved to political correctness. Slogans like “Heritage, Not Hate” were commonly used back then. Black Confederates were played up. The Lincoln administration was attacked for its racist policies against negroes. There was a “Statement Against Racism” on the League website.
I remember coming away with a few other impressions as well. The League of the South seemed more interested in refighting the Civil War with Yankees than addressing the flood of Hispanic illegal aliens pouring across the Mexican border. It was too stridently Christian and propounded the idea the idea of an ancient ethnic antagonism between Southern Celts and Northern Anglo-Saxons.
What finally soured me on the League of the South was their unwillingness to defend White Southerners as a racial and ethnic group. They only wanted to talk about Southern culture. I remember reading a League position paper somewhere which proposed a multiracial Confederacy (White, Black, Hispanic) based on social equality. If that is the ultimate goal of Southern independence, why bother to restore the Confederacy? That’s the system we have now.
Around 2002 or 2003, I drifted out of Neo-Confederate circles. I grew interested in White Nationalism and have been involved in this scene ever since. The Southern Nationalist movement seemed like an abortion. With each passing year, I heard less and less about the League of the South until it fell off my radar screen entirely.
During the 2000s, White Nationalism waxed and Southern Nationalism waned. There has been an internal debate within the White Nationalist community about the final location of the White ethnostate. The most popular destination in our circles has been the Northwest. A smaller number of voices have advocated the Southeast. A significant number of White Nationalists subscribe to a vision of preserving the Union and deporting all non-Whites within our borders.
Southern White Nationalists have been more reluctant to uproot themselves and migrate to other regions of the United States. The Confederacy is usually viewed in a favorable light. Southerners are more inclined to support a decentralized White Republic than a centralized National Socialist dictatorship. There is a bit of wishful thinking that blacks and Hispanics will one day disappear.
Christianity is not viewed as skeptically in the South as it is elsewhere. The Council of Conservative Citizens is a Christian organization. The Ku Klux Klan is Christian. The League of the South is Christian. Most of the Southern organizations that are labeled “hate groups” by the SPLC are more religious than secular. Most of the pagans who live in the South tend to be migrants from the Northern and Western states.
Unlike other parts of the United States, the South was once an independent nation. The bloodiest war the Union ever fought was the one against the Confederacy. For decades after the War Between the States, Southerners were allowed a kind of home rule. We enjoyed the freedom to regulate race relations according to our customs.
Southerners already have an alternative ethnic identity to fall back on. As attenuated as the Confederate tradition might be today, it nevertheless exists, and could potentially be activated again. Monuments to Confederate heroes can be found in almost any Southern town. The South has an indigenous culture and geographic borders that could become the focal point of a separatist movement.
What does the South have that the Northwest lacks? Blood, culture, history, heritage, borders, ideology, a culture of secession, racial antagonism, and latent racial consciousness. It makes more sense to build upon what already exists here than to build a nation from scratch in the Northwest.
But what about the other separatist groups? The League of the South, the Texas Nationalist Movement, and the Christian Exodus? Would they cooperate with Southern White Nationalists to promote secession from the United States?
The League of the South
For once, the League of the South seems to have changed its tune. In the Sunic interview, Michael Hill described Sam Dickson as a good friend of many years. He seemed eager to cooperate with known racialists like James Edwards, Tom Sunic, and Kevin MacDonald in a “think tank” project. Hill also had kind words to say about Sam Francis who died in 2005.
The League seems to have given up on the idea of winning certification as a “respectable organization” from the likes of the SPLC and ADL. They have been officially listed as a “hate group” for as long as I can remember. I was browsing the SPLC “hate group” map the other day and noticed the League of the South was particularly active in Alabama and Mississippi.
According to Hill, the League hasn’t received much media attention lately because they don’t pick fights with other organizations and have been focused on the unglamorous work of building up their state and local chapters. This is exactly what I wanted to hear. It coincides with my own thinking on the subject.
As the interview continued, Dr. Hill continued to impress me: he noted that the South has always been a welcoming society and would accept White immigrants who were serious about joining us; he endorsed Southern ethnonationalism based on kith, kin, and culture; he advocated secession as a means to the end of closing our border with Mexico; he advocated loyalty to ethny, state, and local community; he encouraged secularists to join the Southern independence movement; he described the “Yankee” as a mindset toward Southerners rather than as a people.
Kowtowing to PC hasn’t won the Southern Nationalist movement any friends. Colonel Reb has been removed as the Ole Miss mascot. The Confederate flag was hauled down in Mississippi and South Carolina. The NAACP launched their boycott. The SPLC labeled the League of the South a “hate group” anyway. For two decades, every symbol of Southern heritage has been under relentless attack from Jews and blacks. These people are hostile toward Southern Whites and wish us nothing but harm. Meanwhile, Hispanics are displacing us in Texas and Florida, and now even in states like Georgia and North Carolina.
The idea that blacks can be converted to Southern Nationalism is so retarded that it is truly amazing it was ever taken seriously. The most stalwart supporters of the South have always been White racialists. What sense does it make to alienate your base to appease people who will never join you?
If the Southern independence movement ever hopes to grow, it needs to come to terms with the reality of ethnic self interest. The only people we can count on are our own folk and our racial kinsmen in other areas who consider themselves well wishers. The race based grievance groups that now exist have too much to gain from the present system to ever advocate its destruction.
Note: This is the first installment in a series of essays about the South as a potential location for a White ethnostate.