Yankee Babylon

Alabama

Here’s an interesting interview with MacDonald King Ashton, the author of Yankee Babylon, about the difference between “a guilt culture” and “a shame culture.” Ashton discusses the secularization and inversion of the Puritan into the Yankee.

The people who gave America the Salem witch trials, The Scarlet Letter (not to be confused with being branded a “racist”), and who banned Christmas are a neglected topic in the blogosphere. This is unfortunate given the starring role of the Yankee in the creation of “African-Americans” and the whole BRA project.

About Hunter Wallace 9120 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. Additionally, Mr Aston speaks about the Choctaw people and their resistance to Yankee conquest, the spiritual nature of the South, connections between Southerners and other traditional peoples of the world, and the stereotype of the Southerner in Yankee culture.

    So the Yankees came down to Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Georgia and conquered the Choctaw? Given that that was roughly the Choctaw’s traditional territory, I’m not sure where else they could have done it. (Delaware, perhaps?) I’ll be danged. Reading this blog is certainly an education…of sorts.

    Very well, then. Mr. Wallace, you should use your internet soap box to advocate for the return of Alabama in toto to the Choctaw as compensation for their suffering at the hands of those evil, conquering Yankees.

    I’ve even got an oldie but a goodie you can hum as you put together your internet petition: Put your money where your mouth is

  2. God spare me the part-Injun stuff. When will these people learn? They can’t construct a single sentence without holding up a non-white face to herald their “fairness”. You’d think that, by now, they’d have figured out why their membership dwindles even while nationalism soars. Instead of being laughed at, vomited on and periodically kicked in their non-existent testicles, they could be leading a thriving movement. But girls just can’t do that.

  3. There is a debate going on at Civil War Memory over whether Silas Chandler was a black Confederate. It is a hilarious example of how we live in the age of BRA when we have debates over whether Lincoln was a racist.

  4. You might, if they were numerous enough to be used to replace us.

    You know what I’m talking about. It has become a trademark of so-called Southern Nationalists. They’ll never understand how it turns off sympathizers and increases the contempt of their enemies. It’s cowardly and it directly contradicts their claims to national sovereignty.

    Do you have any idea how many full-blooded white men have written on the very subject of this post of yours? Too many to count. But no, no, no, we must use the one who wants to emphasize the plight of another race. And that differs from what we have, for decades, had shoved down our throats from the regime, it’s media and political parties HOW?

    Tell me, what will the average Southerner Nationalist do when, after teaching his children the important lessons of a mixed heritage, his daughter married an Injun or other non-white? He’ll shut his mouth, I hope.

  5. A man who has no problems with Injuns, especially as potential posterboys for his cause, should have no problem with the US-imposed Mexican invasion.

  6. I’m aware of the Injuns’ dislike for Yankee rule. They didn’t war on the Yankee out of their appreciation for Calhoun and Rhett, let along Jeffersonianism. They had their own grievances. Take the Japanese, for whom I have oodles of respect. I still wouldn’t want to encourage intermarriage with them, let alone use them as a shield in my own racial cause. Try to picture Hitler running around with prideful posters of his Japanese allies, in order to deflect criticism of his racial policies. Never happened, because he would’ve been laughed out of town BY HIS OWN PEOPLE.

  7. I’m not worried about a few thousand Indians on reservations out in Oklahoma. They are the least of our problems. I don’t see Indians as a race either. Mexicans and Guatemalans have nothing to do with the Creeks or Cherokee.

  8. Is this Aston the same one who said “Our aim is not hatred, but progress. While we’re not afraid to talk of race, we’re solidly against race-ism (and most -isms, for that matter).” ?

  9. “I don’t see Indians as a race either. Mexicans and Guatemalans have nothing to do with the Creeks or Cherokee.”

    Are you nuts?

  10. Are you nuts?

    I believe in the existence of racial differences. I don’t believe in the existence of “racial nations.” Thus, I don’t believe that “White people” are a nation. Similarly, I don’t believe in Indian solidarity.

    Take Alabama for example. It wasn’t colonized by “White people.” It was fought over by three separate and distinct European nations: Britain, France, and Spain.

    Spain lost Florida to Britain in the Seven Years’ War. It reverted to Spanish control after the American Revolution. Then it became part of the United States as a result of the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819.

    The Creek Indians relocated to Central Georgia to engage in the slave trade with South Carolina. They enslaved thousands of other Indians. The Lower Creeks even fought with Andrew Jackson against the Upper Creeks.

    To compare the Cherokees or Choctaws with Guatemalans and Mexicans is like comparing the Irish or Scots with Poles and Ukrainians. They are not the same peoples.

  11. HW, is it true then, that you have no problem with inter-racial marriage?

    I haven’t endorsed miscegenation anywhere here.

    I just don’t consider a few thousand Indians on reservations in Oklahoma to be a threat to us. I don’t write about Eskimos in Alaska or the Lakota Indians in South Dakota either. In the larger scheme of things, Choctaw or Creek Indians in Oklahoma are not even on our radar screen.

    Who poses the real threat? Who is really trying to destroy us here? The real threat has always come from north of the Mason-Dixon line. It comes from Yankees and Jews who have used the U.S. military on several occasions to force the present racial system upon us.

    If “White Nationalism” were true, then we wouldn’t be in this situation. “White people” would be homogeneous. There would no discernible differences in culture or racial attitudes. If “White people” existed,” they would all share the same culture.

    The truth of the matter is that there are rival ethnic groups that spend most of their time quarreling with each other. Look at Britain and Ireland or France and Germany or Croatia and Serbia.

  12. Who are you kidding? You know as well as I do that I, as an Englishman, am more related to a Slav than to a negro. Likewise, Injuns are more related, amongst themselves, than to others, but not at all to us.

    In the making of policy in 2011, they are races, whether Cherokee and Apache or English and German. The Cherokee & Apache are treated as one race and entitled by the Yankee government while the English & European are discriminated against – BY POLICY. You know this. So Hw, what happened to all of the talk about “the white man’s country”?

  13. HW, I think one of your sociology courses has conflicted with what your daddy taught you and as a result you are lost in the same type of myopia that hovers over the regime. Arguing over the effectiveness of regional vs. racially explicit-pan action, ON OUR PART, is one thing. Attempting to discern the differences between our racial opposites and trying to incorporate their causes into ours is something else. Do you really want an Injun-run South Carolina, or a Tillman SC, or, in your liberal wisdom would you prefer a goddamned mix of the two?

  14. Creating a “White Man’s Country” doesn’t mean succumbing to the delusion that “all White people are allies.” It doesn’t mean believing that “all White people” are better than “non-White people” either.

    Is Morris Dees our ally? What about Chris Matthews? What about Howell Raines? In the real world, we should expect our worst enemies to be other White people. It was White people who created the present system.

    The Yankees are White people. Does that mean they are on our side? Do the Yankees take our side or do the vast majority of them side with blacks?

  15. HW, I think one of your sociology courses has conflicted with what your daddy taught you and as a result you are lost in the same type of myopia that hovers over the regime.

    I think it is myopic to assume that “all White people are on the same side.” In my experience, no one has proven more willing to do more damage to us than other “White people.”

    Aren’t White people divided in countless ways? Aren’t these divisions among Whites over things like ethnicity, nationality, religion, class, and political principles at the very core of the present system?

    Arguing over the effectiveness of regional vs. racially explicit-pan action, ON OUR PART, is one thing.

    My involvement in the White Nationalist movement cured me forever of the notion that “all White people are on the same side.” In fact, I can honestly say that no one has personally attempted to do me more damage than “White Nationalists,” which is why I am no longer involved with those groups.

    Attempting to discern the differences between our racial opposites and trying to incorporate their causes into ours is something else. Do you really want an Injun-run South Carolina, or a Tillman SC, or, in your liberal wisdom would you prefer a goddamned mix of the two?

    I don’t waste my time attacking people who I perceive as non-threatening. Are the Choctaw and Creek Indians a threat? By what stretch of the imagination are a few thousand Indians living on reservations in Oklahoma trying to destroy us?

    From my perspective, it looks to me like our worst enemies are other “White people.” It looks to me like those “White people” are running the show. Yet those “White people” are also trying to destroy other “White people.”

    As for Ben Tillman, he was never under the illusion that “all White people are on the same side.” Quite the opposite. Tillman knew from first hand personal experience that “White people” were his worst enemies. It was “White people” who unleashed the blacks and who pillaged South Carolina for over a decade.

    Are Morris Dees and Bill Clinton our allies? They are “White people.”

  16. As for my father, it is interesting that you should bring him up. He was always extremely skeptical of the idea that “all White people are on the same side.” He knows far too many White people to believe in racial altruism.

  17. How is it then that there are in liberal Yankee-(New Eng-)land
    so MANY IRISH, and MOSTLY Celts, and so FEW Germans?

    New England, and also New York and New Jersey are some of
    the last places I’d want to live, for many reasons. Pennsylvania
    has some of the world’s best soil and temperate growing conditions,
    and Pennsylvania Germans still say THIS is the “Promised Land.”

  18. HW, am I correct in assuming that you would rather your daughter marry a stand up honest negro than a Bill Clinton?

  19. Elijah Gwinn who wrote Genesis Cycles and Glory of Fleshly Israel vs. Holy Israel is half Indian and has alot of good info. Elijah Gwinn lives in Washington state and you should read about what he says about being half indian! Pastor Eart Jones years ago said Ancient Whites came to North America. The Cherokees believe they are descendants of Jared from the Tower. Also, many say their is Viking blood in Mandan and Cherokees. I have seen some full blooded Cherokees in North Carolina who are Very White and act more White than alot of Whites today. This one speaker that David Duke had says he did research and Louis Beam is part Indian! So What—if he was a White Indian! LOUIS BEAM IS A GREAT MAN and has done alot for our Race! My Uncle was an old Time Mormon and many years ago he showed me books that stated Nephites were WHITE and the Jaredites to, and they built all the Mounds and Pyramids of the New World. America Before Columbus was a good pictoral book as well as Ancient America and The Book of Mormon. Hunter, Thanks for posting the info about McDonald Aston! David Yeagley has good article defending White Race. What about all these White Whiggers who are Cops, Judges, Lawyers, Politicians , Clergy and such….They are all White Traitors. I would let David Yeagley stay because he dooes not Curse White Race! But Whiggers—they have a fate awaiting them!

  20. Racial admixture with the indians is genocide upon them. Its a confusing issue since some indians are into looking like indians and some indians just want to powwow and cash casino checks.

    Our infliction upon the real indians of the “Wannabe” tribe is a travesty, but since our white women are so abused by the anti-whites they look for any escape both our races suffer.

    Here is how you know a white person has hit rock bottom, they own a dreamcatcher.

  21. If Bill Yancey bothered to find out anything about me, my site and my views before insulting me and just plain making up things about me then I would take his criticism more seriously. As it it, he makes false charges against people he knows nothing about.

    By the way, HW, you’re exactly right about this false “racial nationalism.” Races are not nations. Races are broad biological categories of people. These categories are subdivided into ethnic groups and nations. “White nationalists” would impose another proposition “nation” upon us much as the social democrats and Neo-cons have. Such “White nationalists” are doomed to go nowhere because their “nation” is a fantasy. Instead of embracing a real nationalism they attack people they don’t know, acting as if because I interviewed a man who is part Indian I therefore am advocating racial mixing. lol That is comical. By the way, I also interviewed a Puerto Rican nationalist. I wonder what they will read into that? lol

  22. Bill,

    No, I haven’t advocated miscegenation anywhere on this website. Miscegenation with the Southeastern Indians occurred on the Southern frontier. The Indian tribes were deported to Oklahoma.

    They are content to live there on their own reservations and identify as Indians. Why are they the problem?

    “White people” are divided into rival ethnic groups. It has always been that way. The English and the Irish are not the same people. Neither are the Germans and the French.

    American history is unintelligible in the absence of ethnic conflict. The British, Spanish, Dutch, and French fought each other for dominance in North America. They allied themselves with Indian tribes against their rivals.

    The French sided with the Hurons. The British sided with the Iroquois. How did the English come to the New World? To prey upon the Spanish.

    As for the Choctaws, they never gave us near as much trouble as the Yankees. Is this not obvious? History has shown that is a 1000x easier to coexist with the Creeks and Choctaws than with the Yankees.

  23. Bill is just reacting to the tendency in some Southern Nationalist circles to be politically correct and whitewash history. I know you are not one of those people. I believe we met last year at that Confederate flag rally in Columbia.

  24. White Nationalism is based upon a fragment of Southern nationalism. The original Southern nationalists were uniformally racially conscious. At the same time, they were under no illusions that all Whites are the same or that our race is our nation.

    The confused landscape of Southern nationalism and Whites Nationalism in our own times is a product of the Baby Boomers life experience of growing up under BRA.

  25. HW, it is true that some folks, more in the heritage part of the movement than the openly nationalist part of the movement though, are very PC. They spend all their time talking about racial minorities in the Confederate Army, as if that changed anyone’s mind about anything. I saw one claim on Facebook from one such fellow who said that 100,000 Hispanics had fought for Dixie. lol Just comical. At any rate, that is just one group within the broader movement. And I think it’s on the decline. I’m encouraged by what I have been seeing of late. My approach is to defend my people and ignore the PC crowd for the most part. I don’t spend my time insulting or attacking minorities (which upsets some “White nationalists” who occasionally send insults my way, but neither do I pander to them or spend my time trying to prove that the Unionists were “the real racists” (something many people seem to enjoy doing, strangely enough).

    I was there at the Confederate flag rally in Columbia but can’t remember for sure who I met. It seems like it was a million years ago. lol I’ve just got a terrible memory. Anyhow, thanks for linking the video. Maybe we’ll meet again soon. Take it easy.

  26. If you want to see the original thing, look at the original Klan or the revolutionary paramilitary organizations that sprouted up in the South like the White League, White Line, Red Shirts or the Regulators. They fought carpetbaggers, scalawags, and freedmen who supported the Republican party.

  27. My YouTube name is RedShirtArmy. I was greatly inspired by General Hampton and his Red Shirts and their efforts after the War to rid my State of the Union soldiers and the occupational regime. Hampton’s statue is in front of the SC capital. One of the counties in SC is named after him and nearly all the towns in SC have a “Hampton Ave/St/Rd” to honour him. The NAACP tried to replace the Hampton Ave in Aiken, SC back in the 1990s but the SCV defeated their efforts.

  28. Palmy, I don’t know who you are and as far as I know I never directed a comment to you. My problem is people like the LOSers and Hunter Wallace who would prefer their daughters marry a Choctaw Indian than non-Southern white man or even a Southern white man whose ideology differed from their own. Yes, I have a real problem with white Southerners using non-whites as symbols of their nationalism.

    Hunter is real good with names and dates but he apparently disagrees with the racial views of the Southerners he praises. Race was of ultimate importance to them, and it was the basis of their society and their struggle which continues today. Anyone who discards that importance and yet claims to be fighting their fight is a coward and a hypocrite. If that includes you then I understand your faux outrage over my pointing it out – even though this is the first I recall even seeing “Palmetto Patriot”. The Republican Party is made for “patriots” of your stripe. It’s Hunter Wallace I’m disappointed in. He’s too educated to adopt such a ridiculous stance on race. I can only think that he has a different agenda or he’s quite young and still has much to learn.

    Race mixing is the American way. But it ain’t the Southern way. History is in my corner on that, in spite of the inroads made by Yankees and Jews in recent times – aided and abetted by cowardly traitors who think it’ll earn them a merit badge from their oppressors.

  29. Palmy, on the chance that your hair was raised by my comments due to a breeding mistake in your own lineage, let me explain why the non-white poster boy stuff is inappropriate. ONLY COMPLETELY WHITE PEOPLE were considered citizens by traditional Southerners. Once upon a time, a self-respecting and honest man, white or not, would have at least had the decency to not try to represent something that he literally did not represent. I don’t expect you to understand that, since you are obviously of the currently enforced opinion that race does not matter.

    In the traditional South, even negroes and mixed breeds would’ve understood the dishonor involved in their attempting to represent a nation of whites. Before you get all outraged, be sure that nothing I have said necessarily dismisses respect that whites may owe certain non-whites. I’ve previously pointed to the Japanese in this regard. And I appreciate that Indian nations fought the union. But there’s a million miles between having respect for people and advocating the unimportance of racial differences. And of holding up a poster of a negro carrying the Confederate flag or of an Indian “vowing the good fight” on OUR behalf!

    I’ve tried to explain this to the best of my limited ability, over and over, that even people like you might possibly grasp it. Alas, I know from your initial post that you understand no more than do all of those who are indoctrinated to be outraged at healthy and traditional Southern racial views.

    Even Michael Hill KNOWS better, but he is still too cowardly to show HK the door, or in fact to explain to his old ladies why Southern Nationalism is a joke as long as it accepts the Yankee/Jew meme of the unimportance or race. It is, after all, the very ideology that is killing us. It is opposition to that racial genocide by mixing that should be our main battle cry because it is the most direct attack on our very existence as a people.

    Hunter Wallace needs to realize that we aren’t confined to a choice between White Nationalism as it is known today and it’s desire to amalgamate all whites – or to a non-racial i.e. purely territorial Southern Nationalism. There has traditionally existed a White Southern Nationalism. Because, yes, the best hope of us and of our racially oppressed kin lies in WHITE REGIONALISM. England, Germany, Sweden, Dixie, etc. Those are our homelands and they consist of our people – know one else’s.

  30. Bill,

    (1) First, I haven’t endorsed miscegenation anywhere on this website. If you can show me where I have endorsed miscegenation, it would be much appreciated. Otherwise, you should admit that you are simply making shit up here.

    (2) Second, I don’t hate people because they are non-White. I dislike being forced to live in an integrated society. I hate the system that was imposed upon us by force. That hardly implies that I hate the Japanese for living in Japan or Nigerians for living in Nigeria or Iranians for living in Iran.

    (3) Third, I reject White Nationalism because it is false and ahistorical. “White people” are not a nation. “Whitemanistan” is not a country. The strongest argument against White Nationalism is the White Nationalist movement which practices its ideal of White solidarity by demonstrating that “White people” are incapable of uniting in any common cause or organization.

    (4) Fourth, as far as I know, MacDonald King Ashton identifies himself as being a member of the Choctaw nation. Historically speaking, there was miscegenation between the Scots-Irish and Southeastern Indians on the frontier. It was a common thing in all frontier areas in the New World.

    (5) Fifth, I doubt you know nearly as much about this subject as me. For if that were the case, then certainly you would know that Andrew Jackson adopted an Indian child as his son and Thomas Jefferson was actually quite supportive of intermarriage between Whites and Indians.

    (6) Sixth, if you know anything about the history of Southern anti-miscegenation laws, you would know that it was miscegenation (namely, intermarriage) between “African-Americans” and Whites that was criminalized.

    Southerners did not equate the Indians with Mexicans or “African-Americans.” Jefferson, for example, was convinced that “African-Americans” were an inferior race, but he believed that Indians were a product of their environment and were capable of being assimilated.

    (7) Seventh, the matter was resolved by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren who deported the Southeastern Indians to the Indian Territory that eventually became Oklahoma. Their policy was to give Indians land in the West to compensate them for their lands that were expropriated in the East.

    (8) Eighth, as previously noted, the anti-miscegenation laws (if you read them) applied to blacks. In some cases, Southerners were boasting of the Indian ancestry into the twentieth century. That was the case in Virginia where a lot of the most important families boasted of being descended from Pocahontas and an exception to the “One Drop Rule” had to be created to get the Virginia Racial Integrity Act passed.

    (9) Ninth, I believe in the existence of racial differences. I believe that race exists. It is an anthropological or zoological category. Clearly, “race” is not synonymous with “tribe” or “nation.” They are not the same thing.

    (10) Tenth, I am not sure why you are a claiming a historical basis for the type of racialism that you seem to be advocating here. To be sure, our ancestors had a racial identity, they believed in racial differences, they frowned upon miscegenation, but that wasn’t driven by any kind of primordial racial animosity toward Indians, and their ideal of the color line was something that evolved over time.

    Further thoughts:

    (11) Can you tell me what is to be gained by making an issue out of a problem (i.e., the presence of American Indians in the South) that was solved over a hundred years ago?

    (12) Can you tell me what exactly are your thoughts on this issue? Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren deported the Southeastern Indians to Oklahoma. What would you do with them?

    (13) Can you explain how “history is on your side” when the existence of this guy (not to mention the actual content of Southern anti-miscegenation laws and modern genetic testing) proves that Scots-Irish frontiersmen intermarried with Indians on the Southern frontier?

    (14) The most common old wives tale in Southern folklore is the legend of having an unidentifiable Indian ancestor. From a purely political perspective, do you think it might be counterproductive to make an issue out of the one problem that was actually solved by our ancestors.

    Do you object to their solution? Their solution was resettling the Indians on reservations in Oklahoma. The Indians out there haven’t given us any trouble in over a hundred years.

    Maybe we should pretend though that Indians are the problem. Not the “Whites” who are destroying the South. They are “White” so that means they are “on our side.” Jeffrey Imm and Morris Dees are “on our side.” They are our “allies.”

    This kind of foolish racial myopia is why “White Nationalism” can’t even get past first base.

  31. HW, it occurs to me that you recognize the importance of regional nationalism in North American history. You should therefore realize the importance of re-instituting regional nationalism in Europe and elsewhere. Down right Hitlerian, yes? Now, I also know that you know the meaning and origins of the word “national”. ” Nati” = “of birth”.

    That is, unless you agree with the current US regime, that anyone born here is a citizen. Do you believe that is how it should be? If so, consider that anyone NOT born here can also be a citizen if he files the right papers on time – and even if he doesn’t!

    Of what value, then, is citizenship? Without a valued citizenry, what is “national”?

  32. “I was under the impression that the Yankees were “White.” What exactly is your problem with them?”

    My problem with them is that they are anti-White and comprise a different nation from ours. Yes, white men can be anti-white, as any political observer can see.

  33. Bill,

    Hunter Wallace needs to realize that we aren’t confined to a choice between White Nationalism as it is known today and it’s desire to amalgamate all whites – or to a non-racial i.e. purely territorial Southern Nationalism. There has traditionally existed a White Southern Nationalism.

    If you have been reading my posts here for months now, then surely you would have realized that I reject both (1) “Our Race Is Our Nation” White Nationalism and (2) the PC version of Southern Nationalism.

    The real authentic version of “Southern Nationalism” was very racial. It was based on a sense of White identity. It wasn’t based on the degree of hostility to Indians that you are arguing for here though.

    Because, yes, the best hope of us and of our racially oppressed kin lies in WHITE REGIONALISM. England, Germany, Sweden, Dixie, etc. Those are our homelands and they consist of our people – know one else’s.

    In other words, Southern ethnonationalism.

    But what is utterly mystifying to us is why you have suddenly gone berserk on people who agree with you on that point. Especially considering that the Indians tribes were resettled in Oklahoma.

    Didn’t that solve the problem?

  34. Bill

    That is, unless you agree with the current US regime, that anyone born here is a citizen. Do you believe that is how it should be? If so, consider that anyone NOT born here can also be a citizen if he files the right papers on time – and even if he doesn’t!

    Of what value, then, is citizenship? Without a valued citizenry, what is “national”?

    Quite obviously, I reject the 14th Amendment. I reject the jus soli definition of citizenship.

    Personally, I believe that citizenship should at the very least be racially defined as it was before 1860. Ideally, we should be moving toward a type of ethnic citizenship like the Japanese system.

  35. (1) First, I haven’t endorsed miscegenation anywhere on this website. If you can show me where I have endorsed miscegenation, it would be much appreciated. Otherwise, you should admit that you are simply making shit up here.

    You are the one making “shit” up here. You have endorsed the concept under the guise that Choctaw Indians are equatable to our people, that their cause is our cause, implying that we have more in common with them than with men of our own race with whom we are at ideological difference. Ideology is amenable, race is not!

    (2) Second, I don’t hate people because they are non-White. I dislike being forced to live in an integrated society. I hate the system that was imposed upon us by force. That hardly implies that I hate the Japanese for living in Japan or Nigerians for living in Nigeria or Iranians for living in Iran.

    When did I imply that you hate these people for living in their own lands? In fact, I’m the one arguing for that and you’re the one arguing against it! This must be an oversight as you can’t be serious.

    (3) Third, I reject White Nationalism because it is false and ahistorical. “White people” are not a nation. “Whitemanistan” is not a country. The strongest argument against White Nationalism is the White Nationalist movement which practices its ideal of White solidarity by demonstrating that “White people” are incapable of uniting in any common cause or organization.

    First of all, I don’t think that White Nationalism “demonstrates an ideal that White people are incapable of uniting in any cause or organization”. How absurd. On the contrary, the entire purpose of WN is the organization of Whites into a mass movement. As much as I think pan-white nationalism to be a strategic error, I have to admit that they are relatively recent movement, in the “information age”. They may well succeed. I only try to impress the importance of regionalism and how it can be more effective. But the purpose is still the preservation and re-coronation of white men in their own lands.

    (4) Fourth, as far as I know, MacDonald King Ashton identifies himself as being a member of the Choctaw nation. Historically speaking, there was miscegenation between the Scots-Irish and Southeastern Indians on the frontier. It was a common thing in all frontier areas in the New World.

    It was not a common thing! The people who did it were either captured or were of low character. Look up the accounts described in a more honest time than now. The Indians were accurately considered by white people to be savages.

    “MacDonald King Ashton” indeed. Reminds me of a Jew who renamed himself Ashley Montague”. Why would a proud Choctaw adopt such a regally English name? To be something he was not? Isn’t that what I’m trying to explain to you?

    (5) Fifth, I doubt you know nearly as much about this subject as me. For if that were the case, then certainly you would know that Andrew Jackson adopted an Indian child as his son and Thomas Jefferson was actually quite supportive of intermarriage between Whites and Indians.

    You’re really getting facetious now. What you “know” is based on what racial apologists like Hill have told you. You’re making the claim – document it! I’ll be happy to demonstrate your misunderstandings.

    (6) Sixth, if you know anything about the history of Southern anti-miscegenation laws, you would know that it was miscegenation (namely, intermarriage) between “African-Americans” and Whites that was criminalized.

    They were, by far, the overwhelming non-white population of the South. So? Are you actually proposing that, had the Injuns been the overwhelming non-white population that those laws would not have been passed? You might care to read the actual wording of the laws. They clearly indicated that the primary concern was racial interbreeding itself! In principle!

    Southerners did not equate the Indians with Mexicans or “African-Americans.” Jefferson, for example, was convinced that “African-Americans” were an inferior race, but he believed that Indians were a product of their environment and were capable of being assimilated.

    On more than one occasion, Thomas Jefferson referred to different Indian peoples as SAVAGES. He also made quite clear his opposition to racial interbreeding, IN PRINCIPLE.

    (7) Seventh, the matter was resolved by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren who deported the Southeastern Indians to the Indian Territory that eventually became Oklahoma. Their policy was to give Indians land in the West to compensate them for their lands that were expropriated in the East.

    Yeah? OK? Who doesn’t know that the Indian were moved to Oklahoma FOR RACIAL REASONS? I knew that fifty years ago, when I learned to read. Do you have a problem with it? I don’t.

    (8) Eighth, as previously noted, the anti-miscegenation laws (if you read them) applied to blacks. In some cases, Southerners were boasting of the Indian ancestry into the twentieth century. That was the case in Virginia where a lot of the most important families boasted of being descended from Pocahontas and an exception to the “One Drop Rule” had to be created to get the Virginia Racial Integrity Act passed.

    You’re missing the point for the exception. Consider the title “The Racial Integrity Act”. It wasn’t called “The African Exception Act”. RACE, and the danger of racial miscegenation, was the overriding factor, as its title demonstrates.

    (9) Ninth, I believe in the existence of racial differences. I believe that race exists. It is an anthropological or zoological category. Clearly, “race” is not synonymous with “tribe” or “nation.” They are not the same thing.

    Look up the etymology of the word “nation”. When was the last time a man and a woman of a particular race or tribe bred one different than their own? It doesn’t happen. That’s why nations are “by birth”.

    (10) Tenth, I am not sure why you are a claiming a historical basis for the type of racialism that you seem to be advocating here. To be sure, our ancestors had a racial identity, they believed in racial differences, they frowned upon miscegenation, but that wasn’t driven by any kind of primordial racial animosity toward Indians, and their ideal of the color line was something that evolved over time.

    It seems that you have never read the personally written accounts of the “savagery” that my ancestors, the Scots-Irish as well as the Cavaliers, assigned to the foreign race that they encountered many times. No, they did not melt into a congenial pot as America teaches. They dealt with them as best as they could, depending on the circumstances, but they considered them a foreign race – which they were. And no, Mr. Dees, that didn’t require hatred. Just recognition of their differences. Their INEQUALITY.

    Further thoughts:

    (11) Can you tell me what is to be gained by making an issue out of a problem (i.e., the presence of American Indians in the South) that was solved over a hundred years ago?

    I did not raise the issue. You did, by introducing an Indian as representative of our cause. So the proper question to be asked is WHY did you do that, considering your claim that any problem thereof was solved over a hundred years ago. I propose that you did it in order to claim legitimacy for your intentions by bowing an aracial knee to the regime currently in power.

    (12) Can you tell me what exactly are your thoughts on this issue? Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren deported the Southeastern Indians to Oklahoma. What would you do with them?

    I have no problem with their action in this regard. Do you?

    (13) Can you explain how “history is on your side” when the existence of this guy (not to mention the actual content of Southern anti-miscegenation laws and modern genetic testing) proves that Scots-Irish frontiersmen intermarried with Indians on the Southern frontier?

    To say that it happened ignores the extent and intention as well as the specific circumstances. Many white women were captured and raped by Indians, as they are today by every race under the sun. DNA bears that evidence too. Ah, but you’re trying to say that it was an accepted practice, right? Wrong! And intellectually dishonest of you.

    (14) The most common old wives tale in Southern folklore is the legend of having an unidentifiable Indian ancestor. From a purely political perspective, do you think it might be counterproductive to make an issue out of the one problem that was actually solved by our ancestors.

    Everyone isn’t intellectually capable nor availed of facts enough to dissuade them from accepting a propagandistic meme made to appear beneficial to them while in fact subtracting from their appreciation the actual truth. In this case, it’s like every American soldier in WWII claimed to have seen gassed Jews. It is an old tale, born of the knowledge that survival often leads people to bend their knee to superstition. Frankly, I don’t care what you consider “counter-productive”. It’s a grossly exaggerated fairy tale encouraged by the regime and accepted on the grounds that it might advance one’s cause. Alas, it only makes the claimant appear foolish, once documentation is called for. Let’s call it the LOSer philosophy.

    Do you object to their solution? Their solution was resettling the Indians on reservations in Oklahoma. The Indians out there haven’t given us any trouble in over a hundred years.

    Then why are they held up as poster boys for both the radical left and the grovelling right?

    Maybe we should pretend though that Indians are the problem. Not the “Whites” who are destroying the South. They are “White” so that means they are “on our side.” Jeffrey Imm and Morris Dees are “on our side.” They are our “allies.”

    How does the fact that there are whites, many of them, who are our enemies, alter our consideration of people who are not white? It’s utterly ridiculous to argue that because A hates B that C is no different from B.

    This kind of foolish racial myopia is why “White Nationalism” can’t even get past first base.

    And yet they have many more adherents than do self-proclaimed Southern Nationalists, even among the Southern population. This is easily confirmed by internet searches, if not by outright polling. What base has Southern Nationalism passed? Before you attempt to equate Republican Party politics with Southern Nationalism, please consult Republican leaders who regularly denounce their own people in favor of Yankee “democracy”.

  36. I left out most of the italic separations. Sorry.

    HW, White Nationalism seeks to unite whites everywhere into some sort of mega state. I consider that unrealistic. I advocate their same principle of racial division, but on a historically realistic regional basis. You argue for the same thing BRA argues for – racial indifference FOR WHITES – with the exception of the negro.

    Seriously, which is more realistic?

  37. You are the one making “shit” up here. You have endorsed the concept under the guise that Choctaw Indians are equatable to our people, that their cause is our cause, implying that we have more in common with them than with men of our own race with whom we are at ideological difference. Ideology is amenable, race is not!

    (1) Having asked you to cite an example of where I endorsed miscegenation, tellingly you have failed to do so. Because there is no example that you can cite. You are just making shit up.

    (2) Nowhere have I said that Choctaw Indians are “equatable to our people” or that “their cause is our cause.” The actual interview had nothing to with the Choctaw Indians.

    (3) Of course it is true that we do have more in common with Choctaw Indians than “men of our race.” Perhaps you have forgotten that it was “men of our own race” who came here and burdened down our cities, placed us under the rule of blacks, and killed 1 out every 4 White men of military age.

    (4) Race is a zoological category like “humanity.” The human species exists, but “humanity” isn’t a people. Similarly, race exists, but races are not tribes.

    When did I imply that you hate these people for living in their own lands? In fact, I’m the one arguing for that and you’re the one arguing against it! This must be an oversight as you can’t be serious.

    How bizarre.

    The Choctaw Indians are living on reservations in Oklahoma where have lived for over 150 years now. To my knowledge, they possess some degree of sovereignty. They are living a separate existence and are among only people in America who prefer to live that way without complaining about it.

    For some reason, you alone see that as a problem.

    First of all, I don’t think that White Nationalism “demonstrates an ideal that White people are incapable of uniting in any cause or organization”. How absurd. On the contrary, the entire purpose of WN is the organization of Whites into a mass movement.

    As someone who has 10 years worth of experience with “White Nationalism,” I can say that the most vicious people that I have ever met who have personally attempted to do me the most damage in the real world call themselves “White Nationalists.” Indeed, Harold Covington, for example, has an entire book about me being a “ZOG agent” or a “SPLC spy” or some nonsense of that nature.

    As much as I think pan-white nationalism to be a strategic error, I have to admit that they are relatively recent movement, in the “information age”. They may well succeed. I only try to impress the importance of regionalism and how it can be more effective. But the purpose is still the preservation and re-coronation of white men in their own lands.

    I was involved in that scene for ten years.

    If I learned anything from that experience, it is that “White Nationalism” is based on the idea that race is synonymous with nation. The small problem there being that races are really not synonymous with nations and pretending that “White people are allies” naturally requires a form of mental gymnastics (the reality being that only WNs see the world this way) that results in ghettoization and total ignorance of history, politics, and culture.

    I only try to impress the importance of regionalism and how it can be more effective. But the purpose is still the preservation and re-coronation of white men in their own lands.

    White Nationalism is a universal ideology. It is a variant of Americanism that was created by the Baby Boomers in the 1970s. It seeks to embrace everyone who belongs to the zoological category of race. It is really no different than “humanitarianism.”

    It was not a common thing! The people who did it were either captured or were of low character. Look up the accounts described in a more honest time than now. The Indians were accurately considered by white people to be savages.

    Of course it was a common thing. Men on the frontier everywhere from South America to North America to Australia to Africa took indigenous wives. That is why the people who today claim to be “Indians” are predominantly European in their ancestry.

    “MacDonald King Ashton” indeed. Reminds me of a Jew who renamed himself Ashley Montague”. Why would a proud Choctaw adopt such a regally English name? To be something he was not? Isn’t that what I’m trying to explain to you?

    He says in the interview that he is Scots-Irish/Choctaw. I don’t see why you are so surprised by this. The leaders of the Creek Nation, for example, were the descendants of Scottish and French traders and Indian women.

    You’re really getting facetious now. What you “know” is based on what racial apologists like Hill have told you. You’re making the claim – document it! I’ll be happy to demonstrate your misunderstandings.

    (1) I have never been involved with the League of the South.

    (2) I was turned off by the League’s position on race. I spent about 10 years involved with the White Nationalist scene.

    (3) Throughout that period, I always loved reading about Southern history and culture and pursued my own interest in the subject. I think that I read like four books that were published by LOS members. Maybe four out of the hundreds of books that I have read about the subject.

    They were, by far, the overwhelming non-white population of the South. So? Are you actually proposing that, had the Injuns been the overwhelming non-white population that those laws would not have been passed? You might care to read the actual wording of the laws. They clearly indicated that the primary concern was racial interbreeding itself! In principle!

    The actual laws criminalized miscegenation and intermarriage among “African-Americans” and Whites. They did not criminalize miscegenation and intermarriage with Indians.

    Do you know how slavery was established in Georgia? Whites were banned from owning slaves, but if Whites were married to Indians, their Indians wives could own slaves. That is how slavery was exported to Georgia from South Carolina.

    On more than one occasion, Thomas Jefferson referred to different Indian peoples as SAVAGES. He also made quite clear his opposition to racial interbreeding, IN PRINCIPLE.

    Jefferson repeatedly endorsed the idea of intermarrying with Indians and absorbing them into the White population while rejecting the concept intermarrying with blacks and advocating deporting them to Africa. Later, he endorsed the concept of removing them from the East and resettling them in the West.

    Yeah? OK? Who doesn’t know that the Indian were moved to Oklahoma FOR RACIAL REASONS? I knew that fifty years ago, when I learned to read. Do you have a problem with it? I don’t.

    I’m still trying to figure out what the hell you are arguing about. Of course the Indians were deported to Oklahoma for racial reasons. The Whites wanted their land. Do you have a problem with them being in Oklahoma? What are you getting at here?

    You’re missing the point for the exception. Consider the title “The Racial Integrity Act”. It wasn’t called “The African Exception Act”. RACE, and the danger of racial miscegenation, was the overriding factor, as its title demonstrates.

    The thing is, you are assuming that Southerners thought the same way about Indians that they thought about blacks, when that was not the case at all. Even in the case of the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, the strongest anti-miscegenation law ever passed in American history, that was the definitive proof that the ideal of the color line was constantly evolving from what it had been in the past.

    In most cases, the anti-miscegenation laws criminalized black-white intermarriage. Most of them time they were silent on intermarriage with Indians. It was simply not as taboo as intermarrying with blacks.

    If you check the anti-miscegenation laws, you will see that blacks are the subject that is addressed, with various states taking different approaches at different times to Indians, Asians, and Hispanics depending upon their circumstances.

    I have no problem with their action in this regard. Do you?

    No, that’s why I have no idea why you have suddenly gone berserk in the comments.

    Look up the etymology of the word “nation”. When was the last time a man and a woman of a particular race or tribe bred one different than their own? It doesn’t happen. That’s why nations are “by birth”.

    If you read the latest post on the Texas Declaration of Independence, you will find that Texas seceded from the Union because “White people” could not agree on who belonged to the “nation” and who did not, and later a war was fought that resulted in the destruction of Confederacy.

    It seems that you have never read the personally written accounts of the “savagery” that my ancestors, the Scots-Irish as well as the Cavaliers, assigned to the foreign race that they encountered many times. No, they did not melt into a congenial pot as America teaches. They dealt with them as best as they could, depending on the circumstances, but they considered them a foreign race – which they were. And no, Mr. Dees, that didn’t require hatred. Just recognition of their differences. Their INEQUALITY.

    It would be more accurate to say that the Scots-Irish fought with Indians or fought against the Indians, ran away to live among the Indians, intermarried with Indians, condemned the Indians as savages, supported Indian Removal in the case of Andrew Jackson or opposed Indian Removal in the case of Davy Crockett, etc.

    There was no one single policy. In Jamestown, the original settlers arrived with little awareness of being “White men.” They attempted to live among the Indians until the 1620s. Racial awareness only came about through repeated trial and error and as a practical way of dealing with blacks and Indians.

    I did not raise the issue. You did, by introducing an Indian as representative of our cause. So the proper question to be asked is WHY did you do that, considering your claim that any problem thereof was solved over a hundred years ago. I propose that you did it in order to claim legitimacy for your intentions by bowing an aracial knee to the regime currently in power.

    No, I posted an interview with a guy who wrote a book about Yankees. Then you changed the subject to him being a Choctaw Indian. It never crossed my mind that this would be objectionable. I have read thousands of books and articles and always evaluate them on the basis of the ideas being presented.

    I’ve quoted Eric Foner here several times lately. Does that imply that I consider him a representative of our cause? What about Sean Trende or Ronald Brownstein? No, I am just evaluating their ideas.

    To say that it happened ignores the extent and intention as well as the specific circumstances. Many white women were captured and raped by Indians, as they are today by every race under the sun. DNA bears that evidence too. Ah, but you’re trying to say that it was an accepted practice, right? Wrong! And intellectually dishonest of you.

    Because it was an accepted and common practice on the frontier. Later, as Whites moved into the area and established communities, as the White population grew, it became less acceptable.

    Everyone isn’t intellectually capable nor availed of facts enough to dissuade them from accepting a propagandistic meme made to appear beneficial to them while in fact subtracting from their appreciation the actual truth. In this case, it’s like every American soldier in WWII claimed to have seen gassed Jews. It is an old tale, born of the knowledge that survival often leads people to bend their knee to superstition. Frankly, I don’t care what you consider “counter-productive”.

    Okay, you have officially lost me here. We are trying to persuade White Southerners to embrace Southern Nationalism, when there is a myth of having an Indian ancestor that could deter White Southerners from joining the “movement” (if any such movement exists), and you think that we should make an issue out of something that you have said here was solved over 150 years ago.

    It’s a grossly exaggerated fairy tale encouraged by the regime and accepted on the grounds that it might advance one’s cause. Alas, it only makes the claimant appear foolish, once documentation is called for. Let’s call it the LOSer philosophy.

    The vast majority of people who claim they have an Indian ancestor have never heard of the League of the South.

    Then why are they held up as poster boys for both the radical left and the grovelling right?

    Why was David Yeagley invited to the Amren conference for like the millionth time? Why do White Nationalists embrace the Palestinian rights movement? Why do White Nationalists embrace Hinduism? Why does everyone on my Facebook page talk about the Kali Yuga?

    I have no idea. Quite honestly, I was just interested in the content of the interview in light of my own research.

    How does the fact that there are whites, many of them, who are our enemies, alter our consideration of people who are not white? It’s utterly ridiculous to argue that because A hates B that C is no different from B.

    White Nationalists believe that “White people are our allies” and “non-Whites are our enemies.”

    Well, the truth of the matter is that “White people” came here and killed 1 out of every 4 White Southern males and it was “White people” who passed all the “civil rights law” it was “White people” who made blacks citizens who deify them and who enforce discrimination against “White people.”

    The Irish or the Germans or the Serbs or the Croats or the Russians are under no illusions that “all White people are allies.” No, the only people the entire world who suffer from that delusion are White Nationalists. Only WNs believe in the non-existent ahistorical myth of “racial solidarity.”

    And yet they have many more adherents than do self-proclaimed Southern Nationalists, even among the Southern population. This is easily confirmed by internet searches, if not by outright polling.

    No, they don’t.

    (1) The Sons of Confederate Veterans dwarfs every “White Nationalist organization” in terms of membership.

    (2) The largest and most active “White Nationalist organization” in America is the National Socialist Movement.

    (3) Issues like the Confederate flag and states’ rights are still mainstream in the South.

    (4) How many people identify with the Confederate flag? How many people identify with the Confederacy? The number utterly dwarfs the number of White Nationalists in America.

    (5) The overwhelming majority of racially conscious Whites are racial conservatives, not White Nationalists.

    What base has Southern Nationalism passed? Before you attempt to equate Republican Party politics with Southern Nationalism, please consult Republican leaders who regularly denounce their own people in favor of Yankee “democracy”.

    The difference between Southern nationalism and White Nationalism lies in the fact that the issues of the former actually resonates with a mass constituency. The former are also far more likely to come across as normal to ordinary people. The gap between the typical Southern nationalist and the typical Southern conservative is nowhere near as great as the gap that separates WN from ordinary people.

    What is White Nationalism? It is the belief that “our race is our nation.” It is worshiping racial identity as kind of deified abstraction in a universal ideology like Americanism divorced from the context of ethnicity, culture, religion, history, heritage.

    Where is “Whitemanistan”? After forty years of debating that question, White Nationalists have no clue. They can’t even tell you the name of the “White Republic.” How attractive is an identity like that? Something that is a purely a fantasy?

  38. Bill,

    I left out most of the italic separations. Sorry.

    HW, White Nationalism seeks to unite whites everywhere into some sort of mega state. I consider that unrealistic. I advocate their same principle of racial division, but on a historically realistic regional basis.

    I’m still scratching my head wondering what exactly you are advocating here: you have said that the Indian problem was solved and that they should remain on their reservations in Oklahoma.

    So what exactly is your objection? You seem to be embracing the idea that it is impermissible to read and analyze books or interview people who do not belong to your race? Is that what you are saying?

    You argue for the same thing BRA argues for – racial indifference FOR WHITES – with the exception of the negro.

    Seriously, which is more realistic?

    I’ve endorsed “racial indifference for Whites” … where? No, you are just making shit up again.

    Your idea of racialism seems to include some kind of taboo against reading books and articles that are written by non-Whites. You seem to object to this person because he is a Choctaw Indian. You seem to hate people because they are non-White. In your worldview, being non-White means having nothing relevant to say about any subject.

    You know what? That is exactly the kind of shit that has created the prevailing stereotypes of WNs being “racists” who have nothing valid to say but who simply “hate” people for who they are.

  39. Hunter and Bill Yancey. Read GLORY OF FLESLY ISRAEL vs. HOLY ISRAEL by Elijah Gwinn. It is on google search pg 46,47, 48, 49 are good info. My opinion is that what Buddy Tucker started in the 70s is best answer. Even Richard Butler and Neuman Britton were members of NEWS! Aryan Nations was born out of NEWS! The ultimate enemy of White Race is the Khazar Jew Zionist. Then comes all their lackeys, The White Traitors who Pastor Martin Lindstedt calls the Whiggers! I agree with alot of things you say Hunter, but not on White Nationalism. Just like Mel Gibson said–the Khazar Jews are the fault of all wars! The Dixie Whiteman does have the best solution, to me its NEWS! David Lanes article WHO IS WHITE is good info about the issue. Understanding the Struggle by Louis Beam is a great article. So is David Tates—The Movement is Dead – Long Live the Cause! Also Richard Kelly Hoskins VIGILANTES OF CHRISTENDOM is a master work! The Spark for Victory is NEWS! The NEWS FLAG is tremendous! George Lincoln Rockwell was great—but I never seen nobody who had the FIRE like Dewey H. Tucker! NEWS was a DIXIE BORN Movement! This in my opinion and I hope I dont ruffle to many feathers for stating my views!

  40. “The actual laws criminalized miscegenation and intermarriage among “African-Americans” and Whites. They did not criminalize miscegenation and intermarriage with Indians.”

    That is incorrect Hunter, the anti-miscegenation laws of the South were not uniform many did in fact bar marriage with Indians. When the laws were overturned in 1967 Virginia, South Carolina, Texas and Georgia’s laws banned marriage with all non-whites. Tennessee and North Carolina’s barred marriage with Blacks and Indians which of course were the only non-whites one was generally likely to encounter in one’s life assuming you didn’t leave the state. If you will note here the four southern colonies of the original 13 colonies did ban intermarriage with Indians.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#Anti-miscegenation_laws_overturned_on_12_June_1967_by_Loving_v._Virginia

    On the other side of the coin though the “one-drop rule” did not become part of law anywhere until the 20th century.

    You can go back and read court cases like Ferrall v. Ferrall from 1910 in North Carolina where the issue was if a person had more than 1/8th black blood in them. If it was only 1/8th or less then they were considered legally white. This was based off North Carolina’s law barring marriage with blacks and Indians “to the third generation inclusive.” All the other states had differing but similar formulations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

    http://backintyme.com/essays/item/16

  41. Bill, HW ain’t all there. Sorry HW, but it’s true. You get an idea in your head and you’ll make any kind of contortion to defend it.

    That’s why HW’s arguments make no sense on this subject. That might change the next “big idea” wave comes over HW (and thus “everything changes”), but until then forget about it.

    Just take this site for what it’s good for (history), and forget HW’s harebrained approach to ideology.

Comments are closed.