Larry’s Delusions

A response to Lawrence Auster's attack on the Confederacy

New York

An OD reader has drawn my attention to Lawrence Auster’s attack on the Confederacy.

Unlike Auster, I don’t believe that “fighting liberalism” and lobbying the media to talk about race and crime should be our top priority. These things are only symptoms of the real problem.

I also reject Auster’s premise that there is an “American nation.” Instead, I believe there are anywhere from 9 to 11 rival American nations, and that the clash between these rival nations in Congress is the driving force behind our present racial predicament.

If we desire to restore a nation with a positive and healthy sense of White racial consciousness and a Christian conservative sensibility, then our top priority should be nurturing a separate and autonomous sense of ethnic and cultural identity in Dixie, and reviving the Confederate project of secession from the United States.

It is the context of the Union that is the driving force behind our racial and cultural decline. That is why it is important to defend the Confederacy and its attempt to leave the Union. If White Southerners are going to survive the 21st century, then we are going to have to leave the Union a second time.

Here is my response to Auster:

(1) First, the Confederacy was created to preserve the United States, in the sense that the people of the states had the right to self government and the Union was a voluntary association of states instead of a death pact with a consolidated government in Washington.

(2) Second, there was never a “Civil War,” unless you are describing the partisan warfare in places like Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. There was also a “Civil War” in the Southern backcountry during the American Revolution.

(3) Third, Lincoln started the war by raising troops to invade and destroy the Confederacy. Alternatively, he could have allowed the Confederate states to secede in peace. George Washington didn’t raise an army to attack North Carolina and Rhode Island for refusing to join the Union. Texas wasn’t coerced to join the Union.

(4) Fourth, Lincoln really did invade the South after he was elected. He also really was an abolitionist. Lincoln was even worse than an abolitionist (many of whom were pacifists who supported peaceful disunion) in that he armed 178,000 black slaves to kill Southern Whites.

(5) Fifth, the “act of fanaticism” was John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859. Brown was described as a hero and a martyr by Northern intellectuals like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. The North responded to the John Brown raid by electing the first sectional president in American history on the basis of animosity toward the South.

The John Brown raid was a watershed event in American history. That event more than anything else discredited opponents of secession in the Lower South. The secessionists who had been marginalized for decades became mainstream overnight.

(6) Sixth, Southern secession wasn’t just like secession from the British Empire:

– There was far more popular support for secession from the United States in the Confederacy than there ever was for secession from Britain in the American colonies.

– The Southern states had far greater basis to secede from the United States because the American Revolution was fought to establish the principle that the people of the colonies were sovereign.

– The states had seceded from the “perpetual union” of the Articles of Confederation to reorganize the Union under the Constitution of 1789 which omitted the phrase “perpetual union” from the U.S. Constitution.

– Texas and Virginia explicitly joined the Constitution of 1789 on the basis of reserving the right to secede from the Union.

– North Carolina and Rhode Island were not coerced to join the Union by the First Congress. The Bill of Rights was passed by Congress to appease the Anti-Federalists.

– The Tenth Amendment explicitly acknowledged that all powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the people of the states. The people of the states were sovereign because they had delegated a limited set of powers to the federal government.

– It is a delusion to assume that any of the Southern states would have voluntarily joined the Union as it was understood in the North under Abraham Lincoln.

– South Carolina and Georgia would have certainly never joined a Union that was committed to abolishing slavery.

The only reason those two states joined the Union is because the Constitution was a pro-slavery document that (1) included a fugitive slave clause, (2) included the 3/5th clause to determine representation in the House, and (3) refused to ban the slave trade until 1808.

– Georgia refused to send delegates to the First Continental Congress and rejoined the British Empire during the American Revolution.

– In North Carolina, the majority of the population opposed the American Revolution.

– The Union fought to overthrow the principle that the people of the states are sovereign, to abolish slavery, and to establish the absolute supremacy of the federal government over the states.

– After fighting the bloodiest war in American history on the basis of the theory that the states were unable to secede, the Union dissolved 10 Confederate states, overthrew their elected governments by military force, and placed the people of the South under the rule of military dictatorships.

(7) Seventh, it is a waste of time for Southerners to direct their energies toward fighting liberalism because “liberalism” is synonymous with Jews and Yankees.

If the South was an independent country, there would have never have been a 14th Amendment, a 15th Amendment, a Civil Rights of 1964, a Voting Rights Act of 1965, or an Immigration Act of 1965. The only reason that the DREAM Act and “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” haven’t been passed yet is because of Southern opposition in Congress.

In the South, “fighting liberalism” means sending representatives to Washington every four years to argue with Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, which accomplishes nothing.

(8) Finally, it is an utter waste of time to direct our energy toward naming and identifying the Black Undertow (and we do this all the time here) without first realizing and understanding why there is a Black Undertow in the first place.

Historically speaking, the Black Undertow was the creation of abolitionism, civil rights, the free labor system, and Northern philanthropy. It was Yankees who made negroes into American citizens. It was Yankees and Jews who passed every single major piece of federal civil rights legislation in American history to give negroes “civil rights” and “voting rights.”

Why is there a taboo against open discussion of race and crime? Why are there tyrannical anti-discrimination laws? Why is there is a liberal orthodoxy about racial differences? Why are liberals impervious to rational arguments against these things?

Now you see why defending the Confederate flag and the Southern cause is the most important issue: it is because none of these damn things was ever our idea. The racial system we live under today is the exact opposite of the one that was created by our ancestors.

In our present liberal multiracial democracy, which White Southerners by ourselves would never have created in a million years, “the Blacks” vote with Yankees and Jews in Congress. African-Americans are their most stalwart allies. They are on the same side of the political divide.

Why does the Northeast support the DREAM Act? Why do all these Northern senators support the invasion of America by Asian and Hispanic foreigners? Because the demographic transformation of the South and West advances their political agenda and gives them control over Congress and the White House.

From the perspective of Northern liberals, “African-Americans” and Hispanics and Asians are “on their team.” Correspondingly, Southern conservatives are the leaders of the opposition team. Thus, if there are more African-Americans and Hispanics in the South and West, it means the Northern liberal team is more powerful.

The traditional arguments about black crime, racial differences in intelligence, and the failure of Hispanics to assimilate are not responsive to the core issue: the political self interest within a multiracial liberal democracy that Northern liberals have in supporting changing racial demographics.

Secession addresses the core issue which is the political context of the Union. It eliminates in one decisive stroke the constituency (i.e., Northern liberals) that has always supported these changes. It eliminates the rationale for tearing down Christianity and deifying African-Americans and ennobling Hispanics at the expense of Whites.

Aside from political self interest, there is also the historical question of why White Southerners should have any loyalty whatsoever to the Lincoln Union which was created by murdering or maiming 1 out of every 4 White Southern males of military age.

Abraham Lincoln armed “African-Americans” to burn down our cities and kill our ancestors who were defending their own homes. Shouldn’t we hate the United States for that reason alone? The only reason we are even part of the United States is because we lost the war.

Maybe the time has come to revisit the verdict of that war.

Update: The Confederate flag symbolizes Dixie which is a real nation that is based on blood, soil, culture, religion, and history. “America” is not a nation. It is a fake nation like the USSR that is based on liberal abstractions.

As Lawrence Auster’s commentator points out, it was the Northern states that voted 9 to 1 over the longest filibuster in American history to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The corollary here is that if Dixie were an independent nation there would never have been a Civil Rights Act of 1964 or an Immigration Act of 1965.

If the South seceded from the United States, it could create its own federal government and the indispensable cultural and political context necessary to overthrow the liberal status quo.

About Hunter Wallace 9668 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

47 Comments

  1. I don’t care for Auster, but he makes a good point-

    “What’s the good of fighting for the battle flag, if they’re going along with liberalism in every other way that counts?”

    Southerners have gone from slavishly pro-New Deal conservative Democrats to slavishly pro-New Deal “conservative” Republicans. In the 20th century the South wanted autonomy in racial matters, but it wanted money from the federal government even more. The career of Robert Byrd- from Klan leader to strong NAACP reporter- is the story of the South.

  2. I read an article on American Renaissance last year entitled, “An Expanded Proposal To Divide America Into Two Countries. Here’s the link:

    http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/07/an_expanded_pro.php

    I recommended the article to seven people that I figured were on the same page I was on when it came to separating US from THEM. It was then that I learned that each and every one of those Brothers In Arms had substantive differences in their definitions of FRIEND and FOE.

    Several of them wanted all of the niggers, Mexicans, faggots, liberals and Jews on the other side of a well-guarded border. One guy didn’t have anything against Mexicans and another guy didn’t have anything against Jews. One guy even believed that not all niggers were bad, so he figured it should be left up to the local folks who knew them to decide what to do with the good niggers.

    Catholics were tossed around briefly and so were Fire and Brimstone Baptists.

    It was then that I realized that two countries were not nearly enough. My crew didn’t see eye to eye and you can bet that those within the Rainbow Nigger-loving Gay Rights Gun Control Socialist Unicorn Coalition also lack a common definition of US and THEM.

    The answer may be that all we need to accept the vision of the Founding Fathers and return to a Federal System that doesn’t interfere with the way the states govern themselves.

    I don’t believe that it’s any of my business if the people of Massachusetts, California and New York decide that its alright for the queers in their states to marry each other. And it’s no skin off my ass if the people in those states allow their oh-so-concerned-about-the-unfairness-of-the-world bitches to end their worthless liberal bloodlines by aborting tiny humans who would have likely grown up to be more of THEM.

    All that I want from them in return for my willingness to let them live the way they feel is best for them is to let me do the same.

    If I don’t want to hire niggers, Mexicans or faggots at a business that I own, then I don’t want to hear a peep from anybody from another state. If I don’t want to serve THEM at a restaurant I own, then I want the Yankee Equality Police to keep their eyes on their own people and not even think about me.

    There are way too many kinds of US for all of us to follow even 9 to 11 sets of laws. Fifty relatively autonomous states, however, may be able to accommodate everyone.

    You can bet that at least one or two Yankee states would allow livestock lovers to be themselves. They will probably even teach THEIR useless school kids that it’s normal.

    And that ain’t none of my goddamn business.

  3. What is meant by going along with liberalism? Did we vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Did we vote for the Voting Rights Act? Did we vote for the Immigration Act of 1965? Did we vote for the 14th Amendment?

  4. Byrd represented a segment of an intermediate phase of our history. When a people are militarily defeated and occupied they do the best they can. They often do things or go along with things they wouldn’t if left to decide for themselves – as a people. The longer they’re subjected to periodic beatings the less of their healthy instincts remain. Some go along because they think they have to, some actually convert. There are also some, as LA points out, who bend on knee to the traditional South and excuse it to their master by bending their other knee his way.

    The healthy instincts are very near the surface of the masks most Southerners have had to wear. Some closer than others. The more those folks are exposed to instincts that are at least slightly healthier than their own, the sooner they’ll throw the mask away. Most, or at least many, that is.

    I would argue your point about Southerners being slavishly New Deal, in spite of their voting for FDR (he took over their party, after all) and in spite of their being the most distressed by “the” Depression. I think you’ll find more Southern lit against the New Deal, in principle, than from any other region.

  5. What is meant by going along with liberalism?

    He obviously thinks that men like Byrd represent the South. Maybe he think the LS does. Come to think of it, what’s the diff?

  6. Roots,

    That is a very Southern point of view. The people of the South have never cared what Yankees do in their own states. It is not part of our culture to be a busybody that minds the business of others.

    That is why there has always been less anti-Catholicism in the South. We have never seen ourselves as a Shining City on a Hill. There was never much pressure here for everyone to be like us. We generally didn’t care if the Catholics had their own schools.

    It would never occur to a Southerner to travel to Wisconsin to force our racial beliefs on the people who live there. The only thing Southerners have ever desired is autonomy to run our own societies.

    As long as we are part of the United States, we will never have anything resembling self government. Yankees can’t even allow Afghans and Iraqis control their own societies.

    Yankees have always believed that everyone in the entire world should be like them. Military force is justified to make foreigners act like Yankees. The Jews are unable to tolerate the existence of any White population with a positive sense of identity.

    Once you realize this, you realize that our survival within the Union is impossible. There is no such thing as an American people. We do not share their culture. The very existence of our culture is perceived as a threat to them.

  7. Byrd doesn’t represent the South. There is only one White Southern Democrat left in the House from the Deep South. John Barrow is also toast after redistricting. There is only one White Southern Democrat left in the Senate from the Deep South. Landrieu is gone when her term expires.

  8. West Virginia is the second whitest state in America. It has its own unique political system because there are so few blacks there. I believe it is one of the most anti-Obama states though.

  9. In Alabama, Whites are Republicans and African-Americans are Democrats. In West Virginia, there is no racial polarization and the two parties have to compete for White working class voters. Kentucky is the same way for the same reason.

  10. “What is meant by going along with liberalism?”

    In 1952, however, a significant change occurred. The Democrats platform, after being nearly silent about immigration all century, had this to say:

    Subversive elements must be screened out and prevented from entering our land, but the gates must be left open for practical numbers of desirable persons from abroad whose immigration to this country provides an invigorating infusion into the stream of American life, as well as a significant contribution to the solution of the world refugee and overpopulation problems.
    We pledge continuing revision of our immigration and naturalization laws to do away with any unjust and unfair practices against national groups which have contributed some of our best citizens. We will eliminate distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens. We want no “second-class” citizens in free America.

    Here, for the first time, we see dissatisfaction with the 1924 national origins quota.

    The Republicans didn’t mention immigration in 1952.

    In 1956, the Democrats basically repeated what they said in their 1952 platform, under the heading “Progressive Immigration Policies”:

    The Democratic Party favors prompt revision of the immigration and nationality laws to eliminate unfair provisions under which admissions to this country depend upon quotas based upon the accident of national origin. Proper safeguards against subversive elements should be provided. Our immigration procedures must reflect the principles of our Bill of Rights…
    We also favor more liberal admission of relatives to eliminate the unnecessary tragedies of broken families. We favor elimination of unnecessary distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens.

    In both 1952 and 1956 Adlai Stevenson won a majority of the vote in Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. It was only Jews that supported Stevenson in greater numbers, as a percentage of the vote, than the sons & daughters of the South. This action satisfies the criteria for ‘going along with liberalism’.

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

  11. Bryd was from WEST Virgina; you know the part of Virgina that side with the damnyankees

    I’m a Good ol Rebel, is my favorite song and favorite version. I listen to it everyday before I go out on missions.

  12. Desmond conveniently forgot to mention that the alternative was Dwight Eisenhower who appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court who gave us the Brown decision. It was Eisenhower who used the military to integrate Central High School in Little Rock and who supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

    If the South was an independent country, we wouldn’t have dealt with the Warren Court. We wouldn’t have been reduced to choosing between two Northern liberals either. There never would have been a Brown decision.

    And what was the Brown decision? It was about integrating Southern public schools. New England integrated its own public schools in the 1870s. Segregation was de jure outlawed in the North by 1887.

  13. “The stage for the civil-rights revolution within the federal government was set by Jewish Congressman Emanuel Celler (D-NY), via his groundbreaking Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil-rights law since the Civil War era. Celler wrote and sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which came from his House bill, H.R.6127, which was signed into law by President Eisenhower in September 1957.”

    The influence of certain members of a certain etnic group was already well entrenched in Washington.

    EXPORT OF ARMS TO ISRAEL; MEDITERRANEAN SITUATION;
    PROGRESS REPORT
    (PREVIOUS REFERENCE APRIL 26)

    The Minister had discussed the Middle East situation with Mr. Dulles. The U.S. Secretary of State had fully realized that the shipment of F-86 aircraft to Israel would raise a difficult problem for Canada, but his view was that the time had come to give more aid in the air to Israel. The U.S. government was not ready yet to send arms because it wanted to maintain its position as a possible mediator between the two parties; moreover it did not intend to participate in an arms race with Russia. However, other countries, like Canada, were in a position to help Israel without challenging the U.S.S.R. The U.S. government found it difficult to maintain an impartial attitude because the Jews were using all their influence within the U.S. in favour of Israel. Meanwhile, the U.S. government was making plans to ensure that Israel would be adequately defended at a few minutes notice if attacked by the Arab countries.

    France had already sold 12 Mystères to Israel. Both the United States and the United Kingdom were urging Canada to send 12 F-86s but this could not be revealed.

    http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=2785

  14. The key there being the first civil rights bill since the Civil War era. There was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Force Acts of 1870 and 1871 which suppressed the Klan, and Charles Summer’s Civil Rights Act of 1875. Not to mention the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment and the Elections Bill of 1890.

    The whole language of civil rights comes from the Reconstruction era. The Northern states passed dozens of civil rights laws at the state level that banned segregation, repealed anti-miscegenation laws, and criminalized racial discrimination.

    It is laughable that the Jews are blamed for this. Did the Jews make Iowa repeal its anti-miscegenation law in the 1850s?

  15. Did the Jews make Iowa repeal its anti-miscegenation law in the 1850s?

    No, but it was Jewish money & lawyers working on behalf of the NAACP and the ACLU that struck down the Virginia statute in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.

    Two Jewish lawyers for the NAACP were Andrew D. Weinberger and Jack Greenberg.” (Weinberger and Greenberg had filed briefs of amici curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court, on behalf of the NAACP, to strike down a Virginia statute which prohibited interracial marriages, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1(1967). Two Jewish lawyers, Benard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop argued the case for the appellants (the interracial couple). The Virginia law was held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Thus from Plessey until Loving the Yankee dominated USSC, despite the presence of the 14th Amendment, held that the States could impose segregation. In other words for seventy years the court stood in support of discrimination, despite the ‘language of Reconstruction’. What is laughable is the belief that there is any connection between Loving v. Virginia and Reconstruction.

  16. No, but it was Jewish money & lawyers working on behalf of the NAACP and the ACLU that struck down the Virginia statute in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.

    (1) How many Jews were on the Supreme Court when the Loving decision was handed down? Abe Fortas is one.

    (2) Iowa repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1851. Kansas repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1859. The last state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law before California was Ohio in 1887.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

    (3) Southern anti-miscegenation laws were repealed in several states during Reconstruction. In particular, Mississippi’s anti-miscegenation law was repealed by Albert T. Morgan who was the most hated carpetbagger in the state.

    (4) The only states that still had anti-miscegenation laws by the time of the Loving decision were the Southern states.

    Thus from Plessey until Loving the Yankee dominated USSC, despite the presence of the 14th Amendment, held that the States could impose segregation. In other words for seventy years the court stood in support of discrimination, despite the ‘language of Reconstruction’.

    Jim Crow was a Southern system of race relations:

    http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm

    The Yankees made sure to outlaw segregation in their own states:

    http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/scripts/jimcrow/lawsoutside.cgi?state=Minnesota

    1877: Barred school segregation [Statute]
    Unlawful to deny children admission to public schools based on “color, social position, or nationality.” Penalty: $50 for each offense. Offending district would lose public school funds.

    1885: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute]
    All persons entitled to full access to inns, public transportation, theaters, restaurants, barber shops and places of public amusement. Penalty: Fine from $100 to $500, or imprisonment from 30 days to one year.

    1897: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute]
    Strengthened 1885 law to include soda fountains and ice cream parlors. Penalty: Misdemeanor with a fine from $25 to $100, or confinement in a county jail from 30 to 90 days. Damages from $25 to $500 awarded to the injured party.

    1899: Barred public accommodation segregation [Statute]
    Restatement of 1885 and 1887 laws.

    1905: Barred school segregation [Statute]
    School districts prohibited from classifying students according to race or color, nor separate them into different schools for these reasons. Penalty: Forfeiture by a district of its share of public school funds.

    What is laughable is the belief that there is any connection between Loving v. Virginia and Reconstruction.

    Southern anti-miscegenation laws were repealed during Reconstruction by the negro-scalawag-carpetbagger governments.

  17. Here is Michigan:

    http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/scripts/jimcrow/lawsoutside.cgi?state=Michigan

    Jim Crow Laws: Michigan Close

    Although no segregation laws were passed in Michigan after the Civil War, a 1957 statute required that race be used as a consideration in adoption petitions. The state banned school segregation in 1871, followed by a statute that made miscegenation legal in 1883. Eleven civil rights statutes were passed by the state between 1871 and 1957.

    1871: Barred school segregation [Statute]
    Prohibited separate schools or departments based on race or color. Allowed for the grading of schools according to the intellectual progress of pupils.

    1883: Barred anti-miscegenation [Statute]
    Declared all marriages between white persons and those wholly or partly of African descent to be legal.

    1885: Barred public accommodation segregation [Statute]
    Entitled all persons to full and equal access to inns, restaurants, barber shops, public transportation, theaters, and all other places of public amusement. Penalty: Misdemeanor punished by a fine up to $100, or imprisonment up to 30 days, or both.

    1899: Anti-miscegenation [Statute]
    Marriage law of 1883 reconfirmed.

    1933: Civil rights protection [Statute]
    Outlawed racial discrimination. Penalty: Criminal prosecution.

    1948: Civil Rights [Statute]
    All persons entitled to full and equal access to public accommodations, public educational institutions, transportation, recreation, etc.

    1954: Barred National Guard segregation [Constitution]
    Prohibited segregation within state militia.

    1954: Barred National Guard segregation [Statute]
    Prohibited discrimination within state National Guard.

    1957: Barred school segregation [Statute]
    Prohibited discrimination in schools at all levels. Penalty: $50 to $250, 30 days to six months imprisonment, or both.

    1957: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute]
    All persons have equal rights in all places of public accommodation. Penalty: $100 to $500, misdemeanor.

  18. Hunter: Yesterday you had good article on building White Nationalist Movement. Now I dont see it. I saw alot of people making comments on this article. Dry Bones will awaken. Keep the good work up on Dixie and White Nationalism! Let the maggots stay in thier militarized concrete bunkers! Jordan Maxwell talks about the Council of 33 in Washington with the Double Eagle symbol…… Piss on Them! Keep pushing the White Ethnic State!!!!!!!!!

  19. Someone posted a link to an old article. I gave up on White Nationalism after concluding that Whites are too heterogeneous to unite and racial identity is too weak to rally around.

  20. Writing lengthy missives in response to Larry Auster is a complete waste of time. What Larry fears is that someone will ask him what culture shaped his mind.

    Trust me on this one, the “Cult” does not fear the “namers” like the anti-semites on this forum, they love those people, they fear those that ask the above question.

    Most of you anti-semites need to shut off the computer and go rent Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut.”

  21. Larry could care less about civil war minutae probably less than me, Larry originally comes from the first cult bent on human genocide and that is what shapes his mind, even if he has converted to christianity to help salve over the evil that ruins his soul.

    Larry and his ilk tell us sub-humans that we are products of our enviroment, blank slates to be written on by sages such as himself. But of course none of the geniuses on our side bother to ask them, “tell us about your enviroment that shaped your opinions?”

    But that touches on power and rightfully so most people should shy away from power, they are even taught to stay away from power (“Lord of the Rings”), so we get long lengthy missives on details and minutae that do everything but touch on power.

  22. Hunter Wallace says:
    December 5, 2011 at 2:27 pm
    There is nothing conservative about New York City. That place has never been conservative in its entire history.

    JR responds:

    I strongly disagree. The battle for the survival of our culture/people has been fought many, many times in New York City – I should know, I was there during the worst years 1985-92. Think of the worst racial/crime chaos of Reconstruction in the South, Jewish Bolshevik agitation in Russia during the last days of the Czar, the 1960s cultural/racial Marxist rebellion. I had an Indian friend from graduate business school who told me in no uncertain terms that New York City was much more dangerous than when he lived in Beirut during the Israel invasion of the 1980s or Calcutta with hundreds of thousands of untouchable street beggars. New York City hit rock bottom during Black African American David Dinkin’s term as mayor and then Giuliani was elected mayor on a law and order – let’s “take back the streets of New York” platform. White New Yorkers – “Conservatives” if you want to call them that – waged a street by street battle and took back the City of New York. NYPD chief Bratton and the overwhelmingly White NYPD (New York Police Department) deserve the most credit – but the victory was achieved by Whites (Conservatives again) in all areas of business, labor, academia, even the media closing ranks and deciding that civilization (implied White civilization) was at stake and everyone had to back up the NYPD, health and human services needed to take the crazy homeless people away, lying Marxist Jew defense attorneys like William Kuntsler had to be beaten back. And regular Whites in New York City in places like Staten Island, Queens, Brooklyn – even Manhattan took back this great city.

    I’ve been back to New York many times since the 1990s – did activities like taking my daughter to Times Square, which was simply unimaginable in the late 80s.

    So whenever you get down and feel all is lost and some once good/great White place has gone down, gone under to racially/culturally alien forces, think about New York City in the early 1990s and understand that our side can go down and then come back and win.

  23. Hunter: The only thing that will work is all all white state. Maybe what Pastor Lindstedt says about the Third and Final Tribulation is true. Old White Jim is right about most white males being sissy and weak. David Lane said if a White Man will not love the White Race and say he is A WHITE MAN dont trust him. If Whites do not put Yahweh, Jesus and their Race first, Gods Curses will all come true like they have been for the last few decades. It will only get worse and like Buddy Tucker says, when it gets so bad, then our Race will Turn to their God and God Will deliver them from total destruction. My opinion is that NEWS is the best solution for a Dixie Movement. I also realize that what Tom Metzger says about Lone Wolf and Loius Beam says about Understanding the Struggle and Richard Kelly Hoskins in his Viglanates Of Christendom, and also David Tates– The Movement is Dead, Long Live The Cause are all true and must be considered. Buddy Tuckers The Need for NEWS article sums up the Above Ground Movement perfectly. These are my opinions Hunter, but anyway keep on working for a Dixie State, its a beginging….

  24. I don’t see how you can seriously advocate for a separated South. You living here in the deep south know the huge black populace that would never allow it. I understand we might be able to pass laws that would make their welfare luxury difficult, but I believe blood would flow. As a white kid growing up and attending school in the south, I experienced first hand the lack of unity by whites when faced with violent blacks. When I was getting my butt kicked because I wouldn’t give up my lunch money do you think any other white jumped in to help? No. And the stickiest part is we outnumbered the blacks.

    The whole construct of liberalism must be exposed and destroyed. I do not have much hope this will occurr. I have my guns and plenty of ammo for the day this country can’t pay its welfare minority culture.

  25. I advocate an independent South because self governmoent is nothing more than a myth. We are a minority in the United States. That means it is numerically impossible to control the federal government and make the changes that need to be made.

    We cannot rely upon Northern Whites who vote for Barack Obama and for Democrats who support open borders. The national GOP is worthless. Secession is the only solution. It is the only way to create anything resembling an explicitly racial society.

    That will never happen in the country as a whole.

  26. ” It was Yankees who made negroes into American citizens. It was Yankees and Jews who passed every single major piece of federal civil rights legislation in American history to give negroes “civil rights” and “voting rights.”

    This IS the definition for a “Yankee Supremacist.”

    Excellent article, Mr. W.

    RobRoy- “Most of you anti-semites need to shut off the computer and go rent Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut.”

    Why mention a film that lauds necrophilia? How utterly ‘jewish’ of you! And why call those of us who DENY ANY LEGITIMACY – as a race, a religion, a philosophy, or even valid existence on this planet, by the false moniker of [sic] “Anti-Semites”- when those who ‘say they are Jews, and are not’ [Rev. 2:8,9] are not even sons of Shem, let alone Sons of the Most High?

    http://iamthewitness.com/FreedmanFactsAreFacts.html
    http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/
    http://www.christusrex.org/www2/koestler/

    And, of course, the clincher is the desire on teh part of FALSE ‘so-called’ Jews, to claim mamzer status for the Patriarchs, becuase THEIR DNA is ‘flawed.’ But whereas Koestler and Freedman’s work AT FIRST SIGHT appears to be negated by “DNA research” the REALITY is, one cannot take MODERN [sic] ‘Jewish’ DNA, and ASSUME (which makes an ‘ass- out of -u- and -me’) that it is racially similar to BIBLICAL DNA!

    http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/03/dna-confirms-abrahams-mixed-ancestry.html

    Because the False Khazars ‘became’ known as ‘Jews, did NOT mean their ethnic/DNA ‘became’ Jewish DNA- that had all but disappeared by AD 740.

    http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/khazar.htm

    Indeed, one should say without equivocation, that ANY supposed “Jewish DNA” coming from ANY JEW Today, should be EXCLUDED From the ‘profile’ of Hebrew DNA, on these grounds alone!

    My entire blog is about the de-legitimization of this imposter, lying, divinely-accursed race. Because, once they have been de-legitimized, then honest dialogue and facts can be brought to bear on the evils of the Deicides, the fallacy of their being (at ANY time, for ANY reason) a [sic] “Chosen People,” the lies and inconsistencies (and utter passing over as an ‘approved sacrifice’) of the so-called ‘Hollow Cause,’ and the concomitant RAISING UP, re-establishment, and utter vindication of the WHITE EUROPEAN, as the ONLY ‘Israel of God’ as St. Paul notes in Gal. 6:16.

    Christendom- an idea whose time has come…. again.

  27. Good response.

    The more I’ve been thinking about it the more I wonder if Auster doesn’t know deep down that the South was basically right.

    Auster’s most important beliefs could be briefly summarized as:

    1. Liberalism– i.e. the belief that it is morally wrong to make any distinctions or discrimination based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity etc.– is the number one belief destroying America.

    2. Another core tenet is that liberalism believes in no higher value than the satisfaction of all desires of the individual self. Whereas traditional societies see a greater good in society as a whole and thus give society the right to subordinate the desires of each individual self to society as a whole for the greater good– liberalism reverses this and sees the desires of each individual self as the greater good and thus demand that society subordinate itself to each individual. In practice this translates into the majority sacrificing their interests for minorities– be they racial, religious, sexual etc.

    Now Auster should ask himself whether or not “liberalism” is a Southern or a Northern invention. He’s right that “liberalism” is common in the South nowadays, but only because it’s an alien ideology imposed by force. That’s the whole point of revering the Confederacy– to me at least– it was possibly the only explicitly anti-liberal (per Auster’s definition of liberalism) nation ever to have existed in America. True, the North was less liberal in the past, but the seeds of liberalism were always there. Only in the South did people recognize these seeds of liberalism and seek to rip them out.

    It seems absolutely crazy for Auster not to recognize this, but then again he is a New Yorker and certainly was raised on pro-North prejudices.

  28. Blacks are not the problem. Whites are the problem. If there was a consensus among Whites, we could deal with blacks rather easily.

    Why would you need or want a consensus among Whites? Race is too weak to rally around. Southern Whites and Southern Blacks need to come together and join hands and sing Kumbaya and fight the Yankees.

  29. I think an alliance of anti-centralists would get more traction than Southern secession. IOW, de facto across-the-board secession via a return to a proper reading of the Constitution. Essentially, a war for the Judicial Branch.

    A few disparate groups could come together under this banner. Patriotards, Militia types, Libertards, radical lefties, fundie Christians, Mormons…basically everyone who isn’t fat & happy with the “moderate” “mainstream.”

    Self-rule has a lot of appeal for everyone but the financial & cultural elite and power-mad Tikkun Olam Yankee Judea.

  30. Everyone likes to talk about the income gap, but let’s think about the tech gap for a moment. It’s closing. Sure, you made 50 bucks today when a few years ago you made 60 or 70, but that 50 bucks will buy you 10x as much cultural firepower as it would a few years ago. It’s an overstatement to say that nukes will be on store shelves soon, but that’s the gist of it. This trend favors decentralization more and more over time.

  31. What would a billion-dollar (per annum) war chest buy us in terms of a war for the Judicial Branch? What would it take to build it? 1m people contributing $1k. 10m people contributing $100. The herd will sit and chew cud through the whole thing, as usual.

    The gov’t is looking at a long down trend. The state is hollowing out. The power of the individual in terms of cultural & intellectual power is rising. Information flow is increasing. Just as the Germanics “figured out” Rome and then tore it apart from without and within, aided and abetted by the long slow decline of Rome’s vigor and will, so the new barbarians are going to figure things out again. Don’t be surprised if the Germanics wind up doing most of the heavy lifting again.

  32. 2. Another core tenet is that liberalism believes in no higher value than the satisfaction of all desires of the individual self.

    A sham belief. The individual self craves belonging, hierarchy, structure, common purpose, not just liberty and pursuit of happiness. Leftoids takes a giant dump on the individual by forbidding him any of the former. People want to form communities and institutions with people like himself; leftoids forbid this.

    The second any individual’s pursuit of happiness opposes these prohibitions, the leftoids dump the individual in favor of the leftoid collective good.

  33. Both 1 and 2 are sham beliefs. There are no liberal tenets that don’t fall apart under scrutiny, except “who-whom?” Leftoidism is not a belief system, it’s a Narrative; a mass of instructions posing as history, morality, etc.

    This is not my pet theory, but simply my observation. I.e., I may seem emotionally invested in it but in truth, that’s simply the way I see it based on what leftoids say and do. If someone wants to offer their suggestions for an actual leftoid belief system I’m all ears, but I’m going to stress-test it.

  34. E.g., libertarianism is an actual belief system. An ideology. As generally held it has a few (fatal) flaws, mostly put there by leftoid infection, but it qualifies as an ideology. I’ve yet to identify any genuine leftoid principles beyond (the secret) “who-whom?” principle.

  35. People don’t support negative proposals – they support “independence” or “freedom” (positive) not “secession” or “balkanization” (negative). There can be no “secession” – the very word sounds like “desertion” or “treason” to a Yankee. You are banging your head against a wall unless you sell the idea as “co-independence” or “new freedom partnership” or some other buzz phrase. Your mentality of “cut and run” is the sort of thing that creates backlash. Firing on Ft Sumter was like bombing Pearl Harbor – a very stupid way of inviting your enemy to come attack you. Political self-determination can only be successfully perused by persuasion and mutual agreement.

  36. ” libertarianism is an actual belief system. An ideology. As generally held it has a few (fatal) flaws, mostly put there by leftoid infection, but it qualifies as an ideology. ”

    Svigor- the greatest detriment to ANY libertarian belief system, is that it is inherently YANKEE-ist, in that it believes in the possibility of the utter ‘perfectibility of the human person,’ while denying grace and God in the process! In short, it denies sin, predestination (you know, stuff like IQ, and Jer. 13:23?) and the reason for the way the American government was set up- to break up the ‘centers of power’ to keep sinful men, honest!

    Mack- There can be no “secession” – the very word sounds like “desertion” or “treason” to a Yankee.

    Damn right! But it is the YANKEE SUPREMACISTS that left/deserted/were traitors to the American Covenant, NOT the southernors. Clearly, you haven’t been reading what Hunter has been saying….

  37. “.. .the greatest detriment to ANY libertarian belief system, is that it is inherently YANKEE-ist, in that it believes in the possibility of the utter ‘perfectibility of the human person,’ while denying grace and God in the process! In short, it denies sin, predestination (you know, stuff like IQ. . .”

    Tuesday, July 06, 2010
    Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Scientific Racism
    In his review of Herrnstein and Murray’s ‘The Bell Curve’, Murray Rothbard praised the book for “expressing in massively stupefying scholarly detail what everyone has always known but couldn’t dare to express about race, intelligence, and heritability”. Rothbard reached the following conclusion:

    SO: WHY TALK ABOUT RACE AT ALL?

    If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?

    Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and “discriminatory” and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.
    Rothbard was proud to be a ‘racialist’ because racialism exposed the true source of inequality in a free market, namely genetics. A belief in biological racial inequality was, for Rothbard, part of the libertarian project, because racial inequality was simply how markets reflected nature. Moreover, this was no sudden conversion: Rothbard promoted the same view, as early as 1973, here.

    Rothbard’s article was published in the Rockwell Rothbard Report. His partner in that journal, Lew Rockwell, is the founder and Chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rothbard and Rockwell were involved in Ron Paul’s 1988 Presidential election campaign. In early 2008, this article revealed that “a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul” had identified Rockwell as the “chief ghostwriter” of the Ron Paul newsletters published from “roughly 1989 to 1994.” Some of those articles had a racist theme and can be viewed here.

    Rothbard advocated support for ex-Klansman David Duke:
    It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that? And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues.
    This led one disaffected libertarian to write:
    The idea that it’s fine to [buddy] up with open racists just because they are for limited government is ridiculous though. Is the idea that with their help it will just be a tiny racist government?
    A racist using the pseudonym Peter Bradley posted a tribute to Rothbard, reproduced here:
    Murray Rothbard was the founder of modern libertarianism and was also a proponent of voluntary racial separation. I never met Rothbard, but Sam Francis and several others told me he was on the same wavelength as American Renaissance on racial issues. Michael Levin was a frequent contributor to the RRR for the four years I subscribed to it. He wrote very honestly about things such as black crime, race and IQ, and the media whitewash of black failure. Hans Hoppe, who favors immigration, wrote that America could keep its racial identity and still have immigration by selecting immigrants based on IQ and race. Jared Taylor’s book of essays, The Real American Dilemma, received a favorable review by Paul Gottfried in a 1998 issue of RRR. The RRR’s forthrightness on race got it lambasted by David Frum in his 1994 book Dead Right. Frum was particularly displeased about an unflattering essay on the moral character of Martin Luther King.

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html

Comments are closed.