Re: “White Dream Chaser”

Dixie

I rarely feed the trolls but this little turd dropped in the comments is an opportunity to highlight the differences between White Nationalism and Southern Nationalism:

“I’m a regular commentator on The Political Cesspool, where I go by the same pseudonym and have made hundreds of comments. You have the Political Cesspool listed on your blog roll, so i would hope you don’t think of it as a “Rainbow Confederate” group.”

I know James Edwards. He is a proud Southerner. He is also a supporter of the Confederacy. If memory serves, The Political Cesspool also celebrated Confederate History Month 2012 (Edwards is a fan of Nathan Bedford Forrest), so I doubt your little rant in the comments speaks for his views on this subject.

“I’ll just cut straight to the chase: You’re an ungodly disgrace. The so-called “white nationalism” that you stand for is anti-white in every sense of the word, and your so-called “solutions” would surely result in the same totalitarian police state that the Marxists on the left seek to impose.”

I quit the White Nationalist movement two years ago:

(1) First, the “White Republic” that the White Nationalists want to create is a proposition nation created by intellectuals. It is not a real nation like Dixie or Quebec. It is a pure abstraction for alienated people that exists only in the minds of intellectuals and people on the internet.

(2) Second, because the “White Republic” is a proposition nation that includes “all White people,” White Nationalists themselves have no idea where the “White Republic” is to be located, and for that reason the whole project remains nothing more than a fantasy (a nationalist version of White flight) which has none of the appeal of European-style ethnonationalism.

(3) Third, we have already tried to build a nation on “whiteness,” the United States of America. The project was a failure because of ethnic and religious differences between White people and specifically because of the tendency of certain “White” groups (i.e., Yankees and Jews) to politically align themselves with blacks and Hispanics to gain an electoral advantage over Southerners in the Union.

(4) Fourth, the existence of the Glorious Union is why we have virtually everything that we resent about the United States in the South: the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1961, 1965, 1968, and 1991, the Immigration Acts of 1965 and 1991, the IRCA amnesty, affirmative action, multiculturalism, the Obama presidency, Obamacare, etc.

Everything that we despise in Dixie has been imposed upon us through the federal government in Washington by the consolidated despotism created by Abraham Lincoln and his Republican successors either through the federal courts, executive orders, or acts of Congress backed by the Northern majority.

Each and every time we are defeated because of federal supremacy and the fact that we are a perpetual minority in the Glorious Union which is based on “majority rule.” White Nationalists preach “White solidarity” when a third of the White population (mostly concentrated in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and West Coast) is formally aligned with blacks and Hispanics in the Democratic Party.

“You hate free market capitalism and all the wealth and prosperity it created for white European nations.”

Yankee civilization:

“Between 1865 and 1929, the United States and the nations of Europe underwent mass industrialization and expansion that resulted in an unprecedented standard of living and an explosion of white babies.”

Between 1865 and 1929, Yankeeland experienced an explosion of industrialization and expansion while the South and West writhed in poverty, which makes sense when you realize that high tariffs benefited Northern industrialists while placing the burden of taxation on agricultural areas in the South and West.

The government revenues that were derived from the high tariffs were then further redistributed throughout the North through government spending and Union Army pensions.

Further reading on this subject can be found in Richard Bensel’s Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-1877, The Political Economy of American Industrialization, 1877-1900, and Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980.

“Our kind was 25% of the world population at the dawn of the century and stayed that way in the 1950s even after two world wars. White European nations, most notably the USA, become the most prosperous nations the world has ever known.”

Wasn’t the White birthrate in America significantly higher in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century? Didn’t it decline after industrialization and urbanization killed off the family farm?

“And yet, you through all that prosperity and success under the bus whilst defending chattel slavery?”

Whose success? Whose prosperity? Are you referring to the millions of Jews who came to America and settled in the North and West during that period?

“You defend the presence of African blacks in the South whilst smearing the North for being 100% white, and then use the Jacobins to justify your attack on 100% white societies? What kind of a nationalist are you?”

(1) First, the North wasn’t “100% White” during that time period: after abolishing slavery, 1/2 of the black population in America relocated to the North and West from 1865 to 1965.

(2) Second, the free negroes who relocated to the North were American citizens. If you will recall, your president Lincoln armed 180,000 negroes to kill White Southerners to “save the Union,” and they were rewarded after the war with citizenship and civil rights.

(3) Third, from 1867 until 1877, the Black Republicans in the North attempted to impose negro rule on the South, a project which wasn’t finally dismantled until 1901.

(4) Fourth, it is an urban legend that the system we have today started in the 1960s. Jim Crow was a Southern system of race relations that existed to a lesser extent in the Western states.

The Northeast and Midwest have been integrated since the 1880s. Massachusetts passed the first comprehensive civil rights laws during Reconstruction. The North repealed its anti-miscegenation laws by the 1880s.

Even before the War Between the States, blacks were citizens in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. They lost citizenship and voting rights in Pennsylvania in the late 1830s.

(5) As for the Jacobins, it is a historical fact that Revolutionary France abolished slavery in 1794 and that blacks were citizens of the French Republic with equal rights.

In fact, blacks were considered the only “true republicans” in the colonies, and reactionary planters in Guadeloupe and San-Domingue were beheaded with the guillotine after the French reconquest of those colonies from the British.

The French Republic armed free negroes as corsairs and soldiers and used them to invade the British West Indies to overthrow slavery and kill the White population there. It was kind of like what your president Lincoln did with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

“I’ll tell you what you are: You’re a discredited 1800s aristocrat.”

As we saw in the French Revolution, it was a short jump for Black Republicans – one year of the Republican calendar, in fact – from beheading King Louis XVI and the “aristocrats” in the name of “equality and liberty” to full blown negro equality.

“You’re way is the way of oppression and tyranny, of agrarianism and no-growth economics.”

So, you have traded King George III for Barack Obama, and you say that we are more “free” than we were before?

“You don’t believe in a meritocracy, you believe in an aristocracy as it existed for hundreds of years. There is nothing “natural” about your form of government, which you described like so.”

Okay, you got me there: “meritocracy” is what has allowed Jews and Asians and other leftwing social radicals to hijack the universities and take over finance and other culturally sensitive parts of the economy like the film industry or the newspapers.

In all of American history, we have never been governed more badly than we are today, so I will admit that I laugh at the idea that “meritocracy” leads to good government when experience has shown that it leads to market dominant oligarchies composed of ethnic aliens.

“Oh yeah, because Iran under the Ayatollah’s is SUCH a successful model of government! You and the phony nationalists that support you should move your asses to Iran if you like their government so much! And then you sit here and smear the American Revolution?”

Iran is an independent country that still has some degree of control over its own culture. The same is true of Arab countries that get their news from al-Jazeera.

OTOH, the United States is the plaything of a Jewish/Yankee based oligarchy which is sucking America dry and rules the whole country (and much of the rest of the world by extension) exclusively for its own benefit.

“Please GTFO out of OUR country if you hate it so much!”

Dixie is my country. I would love to see Dixie “get out of your country.” We actually have no choice in the matter. At this point, it is getting out of your country or going down with the ship.

“(And by “our” I mean white Europeans like me who embrace the American Founding, embrace the Enlightenment, embrace free market capitalism, and embrace the success and prosperity of white European nations, unlike you and your discredited agrarian notions).”

(1) First, the Southern colonies were not “founded” by the American Revolution. They were founded by English settlers in the 17th and early 18th centuries.

(2) Second, only half the colonies supported the republican side in the American Revolution, and within the South it provoked a civil war between royalists and republicans.

The White majority in North Carolina and Maryland didn’t support the American Revolution. Georgia rejoined the Empire. South Carolina and Virginia were divided on the wisdom of the Revolution which was started in New England.

(3) Third, you make it sound like creating the Union with the Northeast had unanimous support in the South, but that wasn’t the case at all.

Patrick Henry smelt a rat in Philadelphia. The Southern colonies only joined the Union under explicit conditions in the Constitution that alleviated their fears of consolidation by reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states and the people.

(4) Fourth, the Anti-Federalists were vindicated when Yankees reneged on the Constitution and imposed their own Union – a consolidated despotism of unlimited powers, which is used to promote various crank utopian schemes – on the South through violence in the War Between the States.

(5) Finally, the Enlightenment ideology of “liberty and equality” and “human rights” – which was given a trial run in Jacobinism during the French Revolution, only to be discredited by its own extremism – is the fountain of most of the evils that plague the United States, France, and other Western countries in our own times.

“Sonny, me thinks you’re some kind of Jew in disguise what with all the garbage you promote which invariably serves an anti-white end.”

Why would the Jews be against the Enlightenment? That’s when the Jews were brought out of their ghettos. That’s what caused foolish liberals to attempt to integrate Jews and blacks into European societies.

Jews love liberal democracy, free market capitalism, meritocracy, Americanism – all those things which you think are so great and wonderful, which is why the Jews are now dominant in Yankeeland, and which the neocons behind W. and McCain and who control Mitt Romney seek to impose on Russia and foreign countries – because they have empowered the Jew.

“There’s nothing pro-white about what you believe in. NOTHING.”

The Confederacy was explicitly pro-White:

“Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality.

This new administration comes into power, under the solemn pledge to overturn and strike down this great feature of our Union, without which it would never have been formed, and to substitute in its stead their new theory of the universal equality of the black and white races.”

“You’d rather live in a society full of savage negroes as long as you are controlling them all. The idea that you should SEPARATE yourselves from them never even crosses your mind!”

To be perfectly honest, I really would rather live in a racialist and conservative slave society like the Confederacy than in your liberal democratic free society in the Union, which is ruled Jews and Yankees who worship negroes and preach anarchy and social equality, as well as free love and communism, and all the other lunatic ideas that prompted us to secede from your rotten country in the first place!

“You smear 100% white nations like France that stuck by BIBLICAL LAW in keeping themselves white!”

So, what your are saying is that Robespierre & Co. stuck by “BIBLICAL LAW,” and I am smearing them by pointing out how they abolished the Gregorian calendar and dispatched an army of sans-cullotes to the Caribbean armed with the guillotine to promote negro equality?

“The French Revolution does not discredit the preservation of nations with a dominant white majority any more then the Bolshevik Revolution did in Russia.”

The French Revolution and Russian Revolution were both ideological revolutions that compromised the racial, cultural, and ethnic integrity of France and Russia by substituting leftwing ideologies committed to “equality” for the traditional Christian social order.

“Real Americans don’t need retrograde vermin like you.”

Real Amurricans? Like who? You, Lincoln, John Brown, Obama, and Mitt Romney? Who says we need you?

“We are fighting for the continued existence of the United States as a first world white European state, while you fight for a form of government that resembles a murderous, backwards Islamic state! How disgusting!!”

We’re fighting for the dissolution of the United States – to be free at last of all your great Yankee ideas, whether it be abolition and civil rights, or strong minded womanism, free lovism, and feminism, or various other -isms and -phobias like “anti-racism” and Jacobinism which are continuously generated by your rotten free society social system.

47 Comments

  1. Hunter: Awesome write-up, as usual. I especially like your remark about the French and Russian Revolutions. They were both the upset of 1000+ years of tradition and, of course, regicide.

    As someone alluded to on here the other day: The dollar is the foundation of a fiat currency, the Constitution is the foundation of a fiat nation.

  2. “As someone alluded to on here the other day: The dollar is the foundation of a fiat currency, the Constitution is the foundation of a fiat nation.”

    That was John, who is one of the most insightful and intelligent commentators we have on this site.

    Deo Vindice

  3. jack ryan said: Where they gonna go?
    and
    Anon said: As to the south pushing blacks onto the north, that would not be happening without the approval of northern politicians, about which there is nothing the south can do.

    They will go where ever the welfare chack pays better. As I have said multiple times look at the demographics of:
    Cincinnati OH vs. Covington KV
    Steubenvill OH vs Weirton WV
    The only thing that separates these locations is a river, and the generosity of “the system”.

    RO III said: ….. flawed premises (“all men are created equal”, etc.) ….

    The signers of that document never foresaw and could never have fathomed negroes being their equal. I know you know this and hopefully everyone here does, but America as an institution doesn’t think that.

    RO III said: …. and If I may, I’d like to point out that libertarianism is just another ideological construct, and one built upon the sand of the flawed Enlightenment idea that maximum individual liberty is the supreme good.

    Maximum individual liberty is the supreme good in a culture where others respect others’ rights inherently. negroes are more criminal. And negroes do not respect White people because they hate White people because they know are not equal. They will never be happy in a predominantly White society.

  4. I too would rather live in a slave society where Whites are a fractional minority than as part of the “great white buffalo” herd stampeding towards the cliff under a Nigger president. Coloreds exist to serve us, slavery being the purest expression of this truth. The New World was built by slavery.

  5. Personally I think yankees would welcome negros with open arms. Leastwise they vote in a manner to suggest they would. Clearly the yankees here wouldn’t like it, but when I see the way yankees vote and listen to the transplants… yankees here are the minority. It took some time for the negro problem to get this bad, and it will take time for Southrons to fix the problem, but there will not be any real attempts to fix the negro problem as long as we are tied to yankeeland, the mid west and the left cost. Plus their federal govt. Will we have an all White South? Maybe not, but the negro menace would be contained within a generation or two

    An agrarian society doesn’t necessarily mean anti-industry; it means the nation holds up the small family farm as the ideal way of life. Or that’s what I took away from reading up on Southron agrarians

    “All the articles bear in the same sense upon the book’s title-subject: all tend to support a Southern way of life against what may be called the American or prevailing way; and all as much as agree that the best terms in which to represent the distinction are contained in the phrase, Agrarian versus Industrial. … Opposed to the industrial society is the agrarian, which does not stand in particular need of definition. An agrarian society is hardly one that has no use at all for industries, for professional vocations, for scholars and artists, and for the life of cities. Technically, perhaps, an agrarian society is one in which agriculture is the leading vocation, whether for wealth, for pleasure, or for prestige – a form of labor that is pursued with intelligence and leisure, and that becomes the model to which the other forms approach as well as they may. But an agrarian regime will be secured readily enough where the superfluous industries are not allowed to rise against it. The theory of agrarianism is that the culture of the soil is the best and most sensitive of vocations, and that therefore it should have the economic preference and enlist the maximum number of workers.”
    I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition

  6. If the twit that wrote tha rant is the twit I think it is – the Twit is a BLITHERING cretin – and no one associated with the Council, or the Political Cesspool would tolerate this idiocy in person.

    Not for 5 seconds.

    RJP – great breakdown!

  7. This guy almost sounds like a new convert to nationalism which sounds about right that he reads and comments on James Edwards site who is pretty much entry level nationalism 101.

    He wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to be a nationalist and a Amurrican at the same time. That is impossible.

  8. Hell, yeah! Great book, Stonelifter. Thanks for the excellent introduction and presentation of the central idea behind Southern agrarianism. This was the same idea that informed the political views of Jefferson and represent what our nation was supposed to be about.

    Their “sequel,” “Who Owns America?” is almost as good. I recommend it highly if you haven’t read it yet. The Nashville Fugitives could see where we were headed and tried to sound a warning.

    Anyone interested in a remedy to our present dystopia should examine their ideas, which provide a foundation for a more just and humane social and economic order. What we have now is completely unsustainable and toxic to our people.

    As always, I blame the Yankees.

    Deo Vindice

  9. “An agrarian society doesn’t necessarily mean anti-industry; it means the nation holds up the small family farm as the ideal way of life. “

    All those tractors and combines from Illinois will sure come in handy.

  10. I would love to see an independent Dixie and wish it success.

    That said, I don’t think it’s possible to divide the present United States in two. Once the breakup starts it will progress, and it would not surprise me that what we call Dixie now might wind up in two, three or more parts, and perhaps as many as ten different nation-states form out of the Continental US and perhaps portions of what’s now Canada.

    Further, any “White” nation with a nonwhite slave class will sooner or later be a nonwhite nation, a mulatto-mestizo nation. It will start with negresses birthing half-white children, a mulatto class will evolve, and sooner or later you’ll have quadrooons, octoroons, and hexadecaroons, who will marry into the very finest families. (Before doubting this-would you have kicked Ava Gardner out of bed? If you say yes you are a liar or a hell of a lot more disciplined than me. She was at least 1/16 black and might have been an octoroon, one-eighth.) In ten, maybe thirteen or fourteen generations, if you start with one black slave for every ten whites, you are Portugal-at least without powerful active negative eugenics, and probably even then.

    And that’s best case. The Dominican Republic is not even the worst case, I suspect.

    The Jews did not cause this: they made it happen a lot faster, faster enough that it was and is recognizable, and in that sense may have done us a backhanded favor.

    No, I believe an all-White polity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for long term survival. And some form of at least negative eugenics pretty close. Of course, both Dixie and Yankeeland had positive eugenics in place via their aristocracies since their inceptions.

  11. Yes they would, Rudel. Midwesterners would be able to reclaim their true heritage, too. Imagine the potential of a Midwest free from being relegated to the role of toadies of the Northeast. Wouldn’t that be a sight for sore eyes!

    I had the great good fortune as a young man to meet Robert Penn Warren in person. He was the epitome of those old Southern gentlemen I fondly remember from my childhood. They were giants, especially in comparison to the sorry lot of so-called intellectuals we have today.

    Deo Vindice

  12. thanks brother Apuleius, I’ll add the book to my ever growing list. Seems like I’ll have a busy retirement

    They make a good useful product in the mid west; think mine come from Indiana.

    It’s interesting, to me at least, to compare what they build there, combines and the like vs what they do in CA or NYC. A combine is a technical marvel in its own right and better yet helps a man generate real wealth, not 1’s & 0’s floating around in cyber space. All that social media software and stuff they do in CA, or finance stuff they do in NYC is not tangible. Doesn’t help most folks add value to raw materials or create real wealth either. When I recommend folks invest in real wealth, I mean stuff like land, gold, silver, and outfits like Caterpillar who makes stuff that folks use to produce wealth, add value to raw material etc.

    Caterpillar, that’s agrarian industry and true wealth building, facebook is…. hell don’t really know what to call it. I do think, once we separate politically we will find a lot of common ground with the mid west, rural PA and OH etc in which to do commence with.

  13. HW said,

    (3) Third, we have already tried to build a nation on “whiteness,” the United States of America. The project was a failure because of ethnic and religious differences between White people and specifically because of the tendency of certain “White” groups (i.e., Yankees and Jews) to politically align themselves with blacks and Hispanics to gain an electoral advantage over Southerners in the Union….”

    Got this far, so have to go back and read all of this very interesting material.

    But, I’m not sure it’s exactly TOTALLY failed yet, but Pat Buchanan’s latest book really made me think about this. To him, (and almost categorically to the transplants of 1900) they think they “assimilated.”

    Buchanan goes on about how “we were one nation then.” Back in reality, we just didn’t have the Fair Housing Act yet. People not only had “neighborhoods,” they had whole regions, as well as decentralization and prosperity— which made it work as well as it could.

    Because of Buchanan’s positioning, (SCV or not), he can’t see this. And he bought THE MOST DIFFICULT meme to un-do “the melting pot.”

    The Melting Pot MEME will be the death of europe. that phrase must never be mentioned without the word “meme” attached, imo.

    When you try to go at it— they become reactive, as if you are trying to “de-legitimize” them as americans (or some such)— when that’s not really the purpose. They just don’t get it.

    Judging from the turns of phrase in the deconstructed post— the writer is a north easterner. He uses a cutdown that is getting more play—- this thing to formulate us as has-been aristocrats circa 1800, (a hard sell, lmao, to more Appalachian-identified southerners and “dirt farmers” who fought 1865—good luck there on the aristocrat bullshit).

    In a way, it’s why I harp on the catholic ideas—- no offense. But there are repeaters in that education that come to bear on this. One is that catholicism “unified” europe. In the same way, “whiteness” is to “unify” america. This “whiteness” is rather impossibly broad.

    Coalition is another matter. If a “rainbow” coalition could be accomplished, one could “unify” any-freaking-thing, lol—- as “what we have in common is we have nothing in common” which is all that means. (Although in reality, feeling hurt by wasps is what they have in common—-which is why Biden relates to Jesse Jackson, presumably)

  14. Apuleius says:
    August 15, 2012 at 4:07 am

    I had the great good fortune as a young man to meet Robert Penn Warren in person.”

    WOW. Envy you that.

  15. HW, said (1) First, the Southern colonies were not “founded” by the American Revolution. They were founded by English settlers in the 17th and early 18th centuries….”

    Ones fleeing from the europe that followed them.

    You’re very well-read and your blog is inspirational. Who knew the south could even produce people like you nowadays?

    One thing I question sometimes— is panning the entire enlightenment. They had the “man is good” idea and that “reason is a worthwhile endeavor.”

    At first glance, the “man is good” idea seems crazy (just look around). But when you look at 2000 year baggage of the “man is totally depraved” idea, it starts making sense. I’d rather have “we’re good” as a self-fulfilling prophecy than the nyc attitude of NET’s, where they see total violence as “natural” and “normal.”

    (When they start blaming the endless home invasions and the like on protestants and the enlightenment idea of man is good —when in reality people in the heartland didn’t even lock their doors until recently—- it really pisses me off).

    The “man is good” thing was necessary to counteract the horrors that happened in teaching people of “man’s natural depravity” –TALK ABOUT SELF-HATE and self-abnegation.

    Only haters of themselves would push that line. Or teach their kids of “natural evil,” or being “naturally inclined to evil.” Then creating policies that create evil (like Fair Housing, dumping populations on top of each other) and saying “there’s nothing wrong with that, it didn’t cause evil, MAN HIMSELF is just evil…”

    “Depravity of Man” as an innate ESSENSE is a really bad idea the enlightenment tried to correct (so that man has a more neutral essence —not evil, evil, evil— and can DO good or bad).

    Now, we have “Depravity of Man” mostly taught in the u.s. (It’s now the rationale for the increasing police state, etc. The escalation of hyperbolic military language, such as “home invasion,” as well as real home invasion, etc.—- and a people who cannot IMAGINE it being any other way).

  16. “One is that catholicism “unified” europe.”

    Well it sort of did, at least Western Europe. Without a prosperous and ideologically united Europe (thanks to Karl The Great) there would have been no Crusades for instance, and they were certainly outstanding examples of the unity of Christendom at the time.

  17. That top cop in Chicago Kerry, Callaghan, Kearney whatever it was, blamed Cotton Mather! Truly spooky Irish-American reasoning.

    Violent crime is a black pathology. Aided by a phobia for Defensive firearms.

  18. “One last thing the phrase “City on a Hill” comes from John Winthrop’s sermon “A model of Christian Charity” from 1630 and it has nothing to do with drawing immigrants from all over the world to come live in a free America. It was about setting an example and not allowing dishonor to be brought on God’s name because of their behavior.”

    If you do very much research on John Winthrop, you will learn that he was known, not for his religion, but rather was better known for “the finesse of his pen.” Winthrop was a lawyer. He was what we today would call a corporate lawyer of the first class. The school book stories about him being a great religious man come to America to work for God is pure romantic mythology, just like so much of the rest of 20th century rewriting of history to make it patriotic propaganda for hay seeds. Winthrop did not come here to start a “shining city on the hill” for God and Godly folk, he came here to do just what he did and just what America really became and is: Winthrop came here to start a financial, business empire.

  19. Winthrop is an *excellent* case-in-study for blowing patriotard mythology out of the water. He is a superb example of the distortion of so many of the “great” men who first came to America into patriotard propaganda about “America the great land of the free and the brave.”

    Bullshit.

    America was founded for a clique of European businessmen to make fortunes exploiting its vast natural resources and cheap labor provided by desperate immigrants and later non white labor.

    America today is just what it was always meant to be. It is only that for a time they bothered to bullshit the peasantry about romantic notions such as what “Conservatives” preach.

    The truth about America is just like what Hannibal Lecter said in the movie and book when asked what happened to him to make him the way he is: nothing happened to [it.] It is just as how it was created.

  20. I’m not sure these things are necessarily separate. Nothing says you can’t be a man of God and a good business man.

  21. Virginia was a business venture. New Amsterdam too. The Caribbean too.

    I’m not so sure about the Puritan landings. Something wasn’t right with them.

  22. @Brutus

    Colonizing the New World might have been a business venture. The American Revolution was not. It was about the right of free men and women to decide their own destiny.

  23. “I’m not so sure about the Puritan landings. Something wasn’t right with them.”

    They got kicked out of England for being cement-head Calvinists who opposed things like dancing, drinking, and the celebration of Christmas.

  24. “Truly spooky Irish-American reasoning. Violent crime is a black pathology. Aided by a phobia for Defensive firearms.”

    His remarks weren’t reasoning, they were deliberate twaddle designed to let him keep his job by not speaking hatefacts in public.

    Believe me, there are no greater race-realists in this country than big-city Irish cops. If Irish cops ran this country with a free hand at its top levels, you would see all our major demographic problems vanish within a month.

  25. I know Oscar. Although they have lost Chicago or at least 2/3 rds of it.

    There’s a great site I monitor from time to time.

    Detectiveshavedlongcock… It’s one of the best barometers of the midwest.

  26. Chris,

    familiarize yourself with VDare. Derb, Brimelow and a few others of that Ilk. A few bewildered Englishmen surveying the wreckage of the kid’s bedroom, are not your problem. Would you have reacted like this to Tom Paine?

    Stone,

    It’s not like i’m running for office. Not Catholic either, Unless Anglican counts.

    😉

  27. Your birth nation doesn’t bother me John, your pro Confederate so all is good there too. Despite what follows, and how folks will take, Whites of whatever origin are fine by me. Especially if they understand, appreciate and advocate for actual American Republicanism as Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Lee, Davis etc understood it.

    BUT…. I find it funny. The White non Founding Stock in the usa, was brought here to do to reduce the wages of native born White men. That and to set up voting block. The same role as mexicans do today. Those Whites have/ had a track record of being anti WASP, supporting big govt over State’s rights and individual liberty, etc since they showed up in numbers. They also changed the culture of America as it was before they arrived. Good, bad or indifferent they changed our culture and political landscape. As does all immigrant groups, every where and at all points in time. Yet they cannot see how far back these problems go. Or what role their ancestors played in it.

    There is nothing new under the sun, but perhaps it’s hard for them to see because their roots here aren’t as deep. When I refer to Washington, Jefferson and Lee as my forefathers, I don’t only mean as Founding Fathers of my nation, or their political ideals, I mean through my maternal grandmother. Recognizing it, being very proud of it, really seems to piss people off. I wonder if it would if they knew how far back these things problems go. There is nothing new under the sun

  28. “I’m not sure these things are necessarily separate. Nothing says you can’t be a man of God and a good business man.”

    True, but once again, it stops too short.

    It is well and fine to say one can be a man of God and also a good businessman, but that hardly covers much, does it? Al Capone and Bernie Maddoff were good businessmen for many years. Others like them were never brought down. A man who buys up companies and trashes them in order to boost his and his backers short term profits while sending hundreds of workers out on the street can be said to be a “good businessman.”

    A man who, even at that time, was known by and referred to by business elites by “the finesse of his pen” strikes me and implies very very much that Winthrop belonged more in the category of “good businessmen” who fit the description I just gave above.

    I don’t a priory hold wealthy businessmen in the status of what so many left wingers do, but I also well know that far too many right wing and conservative types today are holding them at a fantastic status concerning their supposed virtues. Good businessmen, yes. But come one, many are not paragons of virtue. I think there is much truth in the old sayings “you got to get rich in the dark” and “behind every great fortune is a crime.” And most of the wealthy men I personally know, and I even like about all of them, well live up to what most people describe them as when it comes to business and money: “A Snake in the Grass.”

    When I drank, I had a few used car salesmen as good drinking buddies. I liked them. But buy a car from one of them? LOL! “Just get us another beer, Sam” is what I would say, laughing.

  29. Hello again,

    I shall offer retorts to many of the points Hunter Wallace raised in response to my comment, but before doing so, I’d like to explain a few things about myself. I saw the post that Hunter wrote on February 16, 2011 called “Old Soldiers.” In that post, Hunter linked to an article by Michael O’Meara titled “What is the American Nation?” Apparently that article was written a long time ago, and as Hunter explained, O’Meara himself left a comment in which he basically retracted that entire article, saying, “What I repudiate here are my former concessions to the Americanist superstitions that suppose we have been what we are not — a nation in the European sense.”

    I just want everyone here to know that “What is the American Nation?” articulates my thoughts exactly. What O’Meara said here gets to the core of what I’ve come to believe: “American identity gradually extended beyond its original Anglo-Protestant core to become a European-American Christian identity. Race as such remained primary, for only on the basis of the immigrants’ racial compatibility with Anglo-Americans were they able to assimilate. The later advent of Black nationalism, as Walker Connor argues, testifies to the fact that American nationalism has always been a White nationalism.”

    As Ulfric so aptly put it, I believe that one can be a nationalist and an American at the same time. I believe that American nationalism and white nationalism are synonymous, and throughout U.S. history all the way until the 1960s, most Americans believed the same thing (Jared Taylor has explained this in detail). I fully understand that in Europe, ethnicity reigns supreme. England is for the English, Ireland for the Irish, Poland for the Poles, etc. At the same time, the United States is a nation where the different white ethnic groups of Europe have successfully interbred and assimilated to form an organic American identity with our own distinct culture, mores, traditions, and customs. We also have a universal language (English) to unite us. I believe unequivocally that the United States has not only been a successful nation, but has been the most successful nation in the history of the world. I also believe that America is currently on the precipice of history, and that our fate as a first world or third world nation will be decided in the coming years. I do not know what this fate will be, but I choose to remain optimistic. I believe that you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

    Most of you will dismiss this as blind faith, and you may be right. Perhaps there will come a day where I see what O’Meara now sees, and where I abandon my faith in America. Perhaps the U.S. was doomed to fail from the start, and that the country has been unraveling in slow motion for over 200 years. Perhaps my entire belief system is false. Perhaps white nationalism was never meant to be. Perhaps ethnic nationalism is the only thing that matters.

    If all this is true – if I’m wrong about everything in regards to white nationalism and American nationalism – then I submit several things to all of you:

    1. I’m a Northerner, not a Southerner. As such, I have no allegiance whatsoever to Dixie. The existence of Dixie as a sovereign, independent nation means nothing to me. I certainly don’t have a problem with Southern pride, it’s just that i don’t share that pride myself. (I also think there’s a huge difference between Southern pride and Confederate Nationalism, but that’s for another day).

    2. Should America collapse into third world status thanks to liberalism, then I will pack my bags and do what I can to save my family. I like the snow, so I’d probably head north. (I understand that there may be nowhere to run, and if that’s the case, then sobeit. God is in charge of my ultimate fate).

    3. But no matter what happens to America, I will never…ever….EVER…raise my arms for Dixie. Why you ask? Because the vision of society that Hunter has articulated here – agrarianism over capitalism, an Ayatollah style of government over the Constitution of the Framers, aristocracy over meritocracy, etc – is thorough REPUGNANT to me. If it comes down to Dixie vs. Liberalism, then the ship has already sunk, and I will try to go somewhere else where I can live out the rest of my life in freedom. There is only one slave master in this universe, and his name is Jesus Christ. I will not submit to the tyranny of Marxism or the tyranny of Dixie, and I will die before a degraded standard of living is forced upon me (more on this in a minute)

    4. I am a 100% European American male of multiple ethnic backgrounds. In the small, all white suburban community that I live in, everyone else is just like me: A mix of multiple European nationalities. Therefore, I have no loyalties to any one ethnic group. I am a white man and only a white man. I am not anything else. I speak English, but I have no English blood in me. I could not move to England and call myself authentically English. I could not move to any country in Europe and claim I’m one of their own. I am an American and an American only. I pledge my allegiance to the United States of America, and if that allegiance is shattered, then I don’t have any other nation to turn to. My identity is defined as an American and as a white European.

    One more thing before I get to Hunter’s arguments: Ulfric was also right about me when he said that I’m a new convert to nationalism. I consider myself proof that racially unconscious white conservatives can have their minds transformed. If you already oppose illegal immigration and Islam, then it’s only a few short steps – and knowledge of a few simple facts – to becoming a nationalist. I know exactly what its like to be a mainstream conservative, and I can PROMISE all of you that your support of what Hunter Wallace stands for dooms you to failure. And the reason it dooms you is because the far majority of white Americans will not stand for backward, murderous, retrograde policies such as an Ayatollah style of government. I promise you they will join me in fleeing for freedom before they fight for the oppressive, phony “nation” otherwise known as the Confederate States of America (and I don’t say “oppressive” because of slavery, I say “oppressive” because the standard of living for white farmers was a total sack of shit compared to what free market capitalism has wrought. What you agrarians call self-sufficiency is in fact misery and despotism).

    Onto Hunter’s arguments:

    “I know James Edwards. He is a proud Southerner. He is also a supporter of the Confederacy.”

    He also prides himself as the only mainstream voice for white Americans. One of these days he’s going to have to decide where his loyalties truly lie, because as we both know, America and the Dixie you envision are incompatible. Either the South will exist as a subculture of America like it always has, or it won’t exist at all. It will NEVER exist as a sovereign independent nation. Without the support of normal white people like me, liberalism will crush Dixie. And the reason we won’t support Dixie isn’t because we support liberalism, its because the calculated ends of your policies are NO DIFFERENT then the calculated ends of liberal policies.

    “I quit the White Nationalist movement two years ago”

    Your choice then. You will live or die believing what you believe, as will I. I have no retort to the four justifications you gave because none is needed. For example, I can’t convince you that the United States is a success anymore then I can convince a Muslim that female genital mutilation is wrong. Some things are just so obvious that if you don’t see it, then no once can help you. You are as foreign to me as Osama Bin Laden. May God have mercy on your soul, because God didn’t intend for whites to live under the tyranny that you stand for.

    “Everything that we despise in Dixie has been imposed upon us through the federal government in Washington”

    Speak for yourself Ayatollah Wallace! You do more then throw the baby out with the bathwater. You put a bomb in the tub and blow the whole house to hell.

    “White Nationalists preach “White solidarity” when a third of the White population (mostly concentrated in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and West Coast) is formally aligned with blacks and Hispanics in the Democratic Party”

    Which means 66% of whites are still on the right side, even if they are racially unconscious. But they can be converted. And if they aren’t, then sobeit. At least we gave it our best shot.

    “Yankee civilization (picture)”

    Which a billion times better then you and your Ayatollah fantasies. Thanks to free market capitalism, more economic progress has been made in the last 200 years then the previous 10,000 years of human existence combined. But you would abandon free market capitalism. Good luck trying to convince would-be converts to do that!

    “Between 1865 and 1929, Yankeeland experienced an explosion of industrialization and expansion while the South and West writhed in poverty”

    Indeed. And you want to know? Because until 1945, you held steadfast to your agrarian ways. But now-a-days, Southern states are some of the best states in the union. Southern states have right-to-work laws and a sensible regulatory system that creates middle class jobs. Imagine how much BETTER you’d be if we could just get rid of the legislation passed in the 60s, most notably the so-called Civil Rights Act! Imagine if we could deport who we want and have the immigration laws we had from 1924 to 1965! But that’s not good enough for you. You want an Ayatollah style of government. Again I say, good luck with that!

    “which makes sense when you realize that high tariffs benefited Northern industrialists while placing the burden of taxation on agricultural areas in the South and West.”

    And yet those same northern industrialists successfully abolished those tariffs, and your kind smeared them for that as well. Even Pat Buchanan, God bless his soul, has fallen for the anti-free trade canards. Hunter, you’re not anti-tariff, you’re anti-capitalist. And moreover, you’re just plain wrong. The Northern economy was more successful because we embraced capitalism and you didn’t. We embraced industrialization and you didn’t. There’s not a single first world nation anywhere on earth that has agriculture as its primary basis. Industrialization is part and parcel with a first world standard of living, and industrialization happens whether a nation has tariffs or not. It wasn’t because of tariffs that Henry Ford became a legend. It was because of his own ingenuity. And I could go on and on about all the heroic entrepreneurs that made life better for every American.

    “The government revenues that were derived from the high tariffs were then further redistributed throughout the North through government spending and Union Army pensions.”

    And if the South had also industrialized, then you guys would have been the beneficiaries too. Just look at the 1950s. (=

    “Wasn’t the White birthrate in America significantly higher in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century?”

    But whites reached their apex in the 100 year period between 1865 and 1965. Whites were a higher percentage of the world population then at any other time in world history, and because of significantly lower mortality rates, there was also a giant increase in the absolute number of whites. These lower mortality rates were a DIRECT RESULT of free market capitalism and the abundance of food, housing, energy and medicine that it created. It wasn’t until the cultural revolution of the 60s that white birthrates began to plummet to below replacement levels. That can be fixed by reclaiming our culture, NOT by destroying the United States and replacing it with a third world Islamic-style state.

    “Didn’t it decline after industrialization and urbanization killed off the family farm?”

    NOPE. The family farm was rapidly shrinking throughout the 1800s. Agriculture was 90% of the American economy in 1790 but was down to 41% by 1900. Somebody in the comment section smeared Joseph Schumpeter, but in reality, creative destruction is what drives new and improved increases in the standard living, which in turn produces more and more white people. Even with today’s low birthrates, the non-Hispanic white population in America increased from 194 million to 196 million between 2000 and 2010. Given that virtually no European immigrants are allowed to come here anymore, the only conclusion is that there were more white babies. Of course, I want to see birthrates return to the levels they were before, but again, that simply requires taking back our culture. It doesn’t necessitate the abandonment of the free market like you absurdly believe.

    “Whose success? Whose prosperity?”

    American success and American prosperity! White success and white prosperity! Sucks to be you that your precious Dixie chose agrarianism over capitalism! You reaped what you sowed! And your bitching makes you sound like a Marxist!

    “Are you referring to the millions of Jews who came to America and settled in the North and West during that period?”

    Nope. Not all. I was referring to the unprecedented success of white Europeans (Jews aren’t white Europeans. Jews are a semitic people from the Middle East)

    “First, the North wasn’t “100% White” during that time period”

    100% or 90%, the point is that it was a dominant white majority, and it was way whiter then the South.

    ” Third, from 1867 until 1877, the Black Republicans in the North attempted to impose negro rule on the South, a project which wasn’t finally dismantled until 1901.”

    I love how you think I actually agree with Reconstruction, because I don’t.

    “Fourth, it is an urban legend that the system we have today started in the 1960s.”

    You can trace the roots of liberalism all the way back to the 1880s. The fact is that liberalism didn’t become full bore until the 1960s. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and liberalism was the reaction to the unprecedented success white European nations were having in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Liberalism was devised by organized Jewry, with Karl Marx as the source of fuel. Jews don’t “control” everything, but they’ve always been at war with white Europeans, who are the Chosen People that Jews falsely claim to be. Organized Jewry is an invasive force that can metastasize into a controlling force like it did in Russia if whites don’t watch their backs. But Jews didn’t create America and the Enlightenment. White Europeans did that.

    “The Northeast and Midwest have been integrated since the 1880s. Massachusetts passed the first comprehensive civil rights laws during Reconstruction. The North repealed its anti-miscegenation laws by the 1880s.”

    So? The North had defacto segregation and defacto Jim Crow laws. Northern whites in urban cities like Detroit and Boston had conniption fits when forced integration started in the 60s. Then white flight happened once whites realized this was a battle they had lost. You sit here and pretend like the South was a white mans paradise whereas the North was a hell hole of integration, and reality belies you.

    “As for the Jacobins, it is a historical fact that Revolutionary France abolished slavery in 1794 and that blacks were citizens of the French Republic with equal rights.”

    You missed the point, which is that a homogeneous white society is:

    1. The natural order of things in European nations.

    2. Commanded by the Bible (see the Tower of Bable).

    Any problems in a homogeneous white society have nothing to do with whiteness being a problem. There’s not a single internal problem that a homogeneous white society can’t solve without destroying its white population.

    “As we saw in the French Revolution, it was a short jump for Black Republicans – one year of the Republican calendar, in fact – from beheading King Louis XVI and the
    “aristocrats” in the name of “equality and liberty” to full blown negro equality.”

    The choice isn’t between the French Revolution and Aristocracy. The choice is between aristocracy and free market capitalism, where entrepreneurs like Henry Ford become the rightful Lords of society based on their merit.

    “So, you have traded King George III for Barack Obama, and you say that we are more “free” than we were before?”

    200 years of unprecedented prosperity vs. 10,000 years of people working in the fields 12 hours per day. You make the call.

    “Okay, you got me there: “meritocracy” is what has allowed Jews and Asians and other leftwing social radicals to hijack the universities and take over finance and other culturally sensitive parts of the economy like the film industry or the newspapers”

    Actually, Jews have been in the business of trying to hijack culturally sensitive institutions for centuries. In the cases where they were successful, they were eventually expelled (such as King Edward I’s expulsion of Jews from England in 1290). Jews have been kicked out of 109 different nations for a damn good reason, and that’s regardless of whether a nation has a meritocracy or not. Jews are going to try – and sometimes succeed – at infiltrating white nations no matter what system of government those nations have. But a meritocracy allows legendary heroes like Ford, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, etc. to rise to power as opposed to some incompetent or tyrannical aristocrat who usually doesn’t have any merit to speak of. Successful businessmen are the rightful superiors of society, and I’d put my faith in them before I ever put my faith in a stinking aristocrat or bureaucrat who claims to have my “best intentions” at heart!

    “In all of American history, we have never been governed more badly than we are today”

    We were governed just fine between 1789 and 1962 (when JFK was killed), with a few exceptions here and there (most notably Wilson and FDR).

    “I will admit that I laugh at the idea that “meritocracy” leads to good government when experience has shown that it leads to market dominant oligarchies composed of ethnic aliens.”

    This is a total myth with zero basis in reality. There are no market dominated oligarchies, for starters. And I dare you to name me one (I’m going to shoot the food industry argument out of the sky before you even bother: Those 4 companies are at the top because consumers vote with their feet and buy their products. You’re gonna have to control what the consumer buys and where he buys it from, or you’re gonna have to use abusive regulations to run the food companies out of business. Either way, tyranny is your only option). And guess what: Most Fortune 500 companies aren’t owned by ethnic aliens. They are owned by white Europeans. I’m sure you look at Wal Mart with disgust, don’t you? I mean, you threw every magnificent American business under the bus with that “Yankee civilization” pic.

    “Iran is an independent country that still has some degree of control over its own culture. The same is true of Arab countries that get their news from al-Jazeera.”

    That says everything I need to know right there. You love totalitarianism and hate real freedom. You have allowed the Marxists to convince you to give up on freedom just because they try to package their Utopia under the guise of freedom. You are incapable of exposing the Marxist utopia for the North Korean-style nightmare that it is and instead throw freedom itself under the bus.Your real agenda is painfully transparent, and all these fools who follow you will be led to the grave.

    “OTOH, the United States is the plaything of a Jewish/Yankee based oligarchy which is sucking America dry and rules the whole country (and much of the rest of the world by extension) exclusively for its own benefit.”

    Organized Jewry is an invasive force that is becoming ever more controlling, but it isn’t in full control. If it was, whites would be extinct by now. Or at the very least our societies would resemble The Soviet Union.

    “Dixie is my country. I would love to see Dixie get out of your country.”

    NOPE. Dixie is part of the United States, and whether liberalism is defeated or not, Dixie will always be part of the United States. The only question is whether people like me will be in control or not. If so, great. If not, then odds are liberalism will crush Dixie. In any case, the far majority of us whites will NEVER stand behind the Confederacy!

    “At this point, it is getting out of your country or going down with the ship.”

    You would sink the ship given all the horrible things you support.

    “First, the Southern colonies were”

    Bla bla bla! A British-loyalist screed falls on deaf ears to all real Americans. But you’re not a real American now are you? Nope!

    “Third, you make it sound like creating the Union with the Northeast had unanimous support in the South”

    Actually, I don’t care whether the American Revolution was supported among Southerners or not! My attitude towards anti-American scum like you is the same as the Pilgrims had for the Amerindian savages (in other words, you’re the shit on our boots!)

    “The Southern colonies only joined the Union under explicit conditions in the Constitution that alleviated their fears of consolidation by reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states and the people”

    You don’t fear consolidation of power! You just want “the right tyrants” calling the shots! There’s nothing about you that supports limited government! The Framers stood for limited government. You stand for totalitarianism, hence your support of the Ayatollah’s in Iran!

    “Fourth, the Anti-Federalists were vindicated when Yankees reneged on the Constitution and imposed their own Union”

    I’ll take the Northern economy and the Northern way of life between 1789 and 1945 (when the South finally embraced capitalism) over the Southern economy and the Southern way of life any day of the week.

    “Finally, the Enlightenment ideology of “liberty and equality” and “human rights” –”

    1. It’s natural rights, not human rights. Look up the difference.

    2. Equality was only ever meant by Jefferson in terms of natural rights, not in terms of ability or even opportunity. And even then he didn’t mean to include all the races of the earth. Jefferson is saying to himself in the grave right now, “why oh way did I not clarify what I meant by ‘all men are created equal?'” The liberal ideal of equality doesn’t exist, and it isn’t an Enlightenment principle. It’s a Marxist principle born out of a philosophy that’s been around since the beginning of man. That philosophy was articulated by Plato’s Republic, long before Enlightenment was even a word.

    3. Liberty in and of itself isn’t bad just because non-whites cloak tyranny under the guise of liberty.

    “which was given a trial run in Jacobinism during the French Revolution, only to be discredited by its own extremism”

    Edmund Burke condemned the French Revolution but supported the American Revolution. Nothing more needs to be said.

    “Why would the Jews be against the Enlightenment? That’s when the Jews were brought out of their ghettos. ”

    No, not really. Not until nearly the 20th century. And even then everyone in white nations knew the dangers of organized Jewry. Organized Jewry didn’t get its agenda going full throttle until the 1960s. Now-a-days no one can criticize Jews without being smeared as a naziwhowantstokill6million

    “That’s what caused foolish liberals to attempt to integrate Jews and blacks into European societies.”

    Didn’t happen until the 60s. Fixable problem. Next!

    “Jews love liberal democracy, free market capitalism, meritocracy, Americanism”

    Other then liberal democracy, you’re wrong on all counts. Jews hate capitalism. Case in point: Karl Marx and everything he’s wrought. They also hate meritocracy, hence why they systematically discriminate against whites even though whites are the most qualified. They also hate America, hence the non-stop anti-American propaganda fed in Hollywood, the media, and the education system.

    “The Confederacy was explicitly pro-White:”

    And had terrible results to show for it. Principles without results are meaningless.

    “To be perfectly honest, I really would rather live in a racialist and conservative slave society like the Confederacy than in your liberal democratic free society in the Union”

    Then you’re in direct of violation of the Christian God you claim to worship, and nobody should take you seriously when you talk about the Confederacy being a Christian society when in fact it degrades itself with third world peoples. This isn’t a matter of slavery. This is a matter of you choosing to associate yourselves with mass quantities of people that the Bible says you MUSTN’T associate with. Not surprisingly,. your precious Dixie payed the consequences!

    “as well as free love and communism”

    You don’t even know what communism is. Because if you did, you wouldn’t be sitting here and smearing the greatest economic system in the history of mankind: The Free Market!

    “So, what your are saying is that Robespierre & Co. stuck by “BIBLICAL LAW,””

    No. I’m saying that France keeping itself homogeneously white was in accordance with Biblical law. Robespierre was the opposite of Biblical. He was a monster.

    “The French Revolution and Russian Revolution were both ideological revolutions that compromised the racial, cultural, and ethnic integrity of France and Russia by substituting leftwing ideologies committed to “equality” for the traditional Christian social order.”

    Irrelevant to the point I was making, which went completely over your head: Somebody pointed out that the North was 100% white (or at the very least had a dominant white majority). Your retort was that it doesn’t matter whether a nation is 100% white, because France is white and they had the French Revolution. My retort to that was the French Revolution has nothing to do with France being a homogeneous white country. You think that because France had a horrible revolution, it doesn’t matter whether a nation is homogeneously white or not. That’s one of the most non-sensical things I’ve ever heard. But then again, a guy who supports the Ayatollah’s lives and breaths non-sense.

    “Who says we need you?”

    Because if you don’t have us on your side, odds are liberalism will destroy you. And you won’t like it when that happens! You think 1865-1965 is bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet! Contrast America between 1865 and 1965 with North Korea today. That’s the difference between white/American nationalism and liberalism. But I’m sure your retort would be, “does it really matter what I pick?” Such is the discredited mindset of people like you!

    “We’re fighting for the dissolution of the United States”

    Translated: The dissolution of the best nation ever known to man.

    ” to be free at last of all your great Yankee ideas”

    The freedom to by a murderous tyrant isn’t freedom, it’s despotism.

    “whether it be abolition and civil rights, or strong minded womanism, free lovism, and feminism, or various other -isms and -phobias like “anti-racism” and Jacobinism”

    As if the United States between 1789 and 1965 supported ANY of those things – even abolitionism! (Lincoln was no abolitionist if you know anything about the man. Lincoln was willing to say anything and do anything to keep the Union together).

    “which are continuously generated by your rotten free society social system.”

    As Rose said to Cal in Titanic: I’d rather be America’s whore then Dixie’s wife!

  30. I don’t you know enough about Winthrop to say Brutus, but I follow your logic and all. Don’t necessarily disagree, but can’t say I agree 100% either

  31. “successfully interbred and assimilated” – Bullshit, whites aren’t all one homogenous group or there’d be no basis for proxies like regional pride. The differences we have could continue to be papered over, the union could still be saved, but that will rest with northern whites.

    “Thanks to free market capitalism, more economic progress has been made in the last 200 years then the previous 10,000 years of human existence combined.” – Thanks to having a virgin continent in front of us and the european renaissance/industrial revolution/scientific flowering at our back you mean? those conditions are over.

    “Indeed. And you want to know? Because until 1945, you held steadfast to your agrarian ways.” – The climate of the south was unfavorable to whites and to our industry until climate controlled infrastructure. Agriculture was basically it for human economic activity, and the magics of the free market couldn’t have solved the south’s (economic)problems any faster than they were.

    “Imagine how much BETTER you’d be if we could just get rid of the legislation passed in the 60s, most notably the so-called Civil Rights Act! Imagine if we could deport who we want and have the immigration laws we had from 1924 to 1965!” – Unfortunately the south lost those battles electorally to the north.

    “the only conclusion is that there were more white babies.” – Lifetime TFR is the relevant metric here, not pure births. people do die every so often. that said, the country is well populated, and shedding population isn’t that great an issue.

  32. This guy has a point about free market capitalism. It’s hunter’s own eccentricity to be protectionist, the South was far more liberal and anti-tariff than the North. Read about the Nullification Crisis….

    This guy is softheaded for sure but sounds genuine enough. Jews hate capitalism and meritocracy! E.G.: Marx! Lol. The most enjoyable line was, “speak for yourself Ayatollah Wallace!”

  33. Chaser,

    you can’t remove the black and the Jew without a police state, that polices the two populations. Freedom failed.

  34. Let’s not make the mistake of propositionalism. If we insist on replacing BRA with a proposition nation of any type, we’re dooming ourselves to a repeat of history.

    Instead, we should seek a world where politics grow from the bottom up. The basic unit of society — the core “nation” — is the natural human family. Loyalty to that nation is, next to loyalty to God, the most important loyalty any person can have. Without healthy families no larger-scale healthy social order can exist. Our first course of action is, therefore, to rebuild and strengthen the natural human family, meaning in practical terms a return to sacramental marriage, the end of artificial birth control, and an end to abortion. It also means an end to feminism and a return to traditional sexual roles and relationships.

    The next level of loyalty is to the extended family — one’s “folks”. We should live as near to and as closely with our relations as possible. Big families lead to tribes, then to ethnoi. By encouraging families to live in community, we rebuild the fundament of the White race.

    The next level of loyalty is to the neighborhood. Our first political goal is to get rid of all “civil rights” laws, which will end blockbusting, Section 8, etc. and restore the freedom of association we once enjoyed. By restoring to property owners the right to dispose of their own property as they see fit, we will recreate the segregated society we once knew. Absent the federal integration bayonet, society will self-segregate: blacks want to live with blacks, after all, and whites with whites, and Koreans with Koreans. Just by getting rid of forced integration (“fair housing”) we will break the spine that holds BRA upright; once ethnic neighborhoods are re-estabished, most racial problems will simply go away. Please note that in orde to exist our freedom of association and personal property rights nust be enforceable, either by law or by the law of the gun. We must restore to communities their enjoyment of the right to say “Nigger (or Cracker, or Ching-Chong-Chinaman, or Gwei lo, or Gringo), don’t let the sun set on your head inside our borders.”

    Once we have restored ethnic and racial communities, we can seek larger horizons. Imagine a post-BRA city: after BRA, the unified, top-down, imposed social structure known as “city government” will likely be gone. Now imagine that same city broken up into natural ethnic neighborhoods. The leaders of each neighborhood meet at old city hall, agree on “hard” neighborhood borders, and form a confederation. Instead of the City of Dallas, say, the new “city government” is called “The United Neighborhoods of Dallas”. Under the terms of the confederation each neighborhood retains its sovereignty, right to bar outsiders, make its own laws, etc., but each chips in a bit of cash and/or manpower in order to pay for and maintain the old city’s infrastructure (roads, sewers, drainage, power, etc.) After all, until technology improves to the point where neighborhood-level power generation, waste treatment, etc. become practical, such infrastructure will be necessary. By joing forces only as necessary, the neighborhoods can maintain their independence while at the same time making sure the toilets keep flushing the right way.

    Any neighborhood that can’t or won’t pony up gets cut off. The United Neighborhoods will keep the roads open around and through and deadbeat neighborhood, but that’s all.

    In such a system, I’d expect that major arterial streets and roads would become “city property”, open to all regardless of race; people have to get around, after all. But the zone of openness would only be as wide as the curbs or the right of way; a black man would be able to pass through Honky Heights freely as long as he kept to the street, but any attempt to leave the street would be an invasion of Honky Heights, making him subject to the laws of that neighborhood. Ditto Whitey: he could pass through Martinlutherkingjuniortown, but he couldn’t hang around without permission from the locals.

    Some neighborhoods might choose to remain multiracial and multi-ethnic. I can’t imagine there’d be more than a few of these, but the point is that the choice would be there. No one would be forced to enjoy “enrichment”, “vibrance”, or people who “look like America”.

    Neighborhoods might also form on the basis of religion, sexual perversion, or other criteria. A given city-confederation might have a Faggot Town, a Niggertown, and a Chinatown right next to Holy Family Heights, Baptisttown, and of course Methodopolis.

    (The one group that would be forbidden would be Muslims. They can’t coexist in peace with others.)

    Once we have replaced “proposition cities” with city-confederations, we reorganize county governments. We do this by eliminating county governments and services and replacing them with a single county judge (elected by the neighborhoods, not be the people) and a county sheriff. The judge decides the law within the county; the sheriff enforces it.

    At this point we can contemplate regional politics. With state governments gone, broke, and/or powerless, coalitions of counties could be formed. These coalitions might be formed on the basis of race, language, or religion. Let us call these coalitions “cantons”. Eight adjacent White counties in north Texas, for example, might join forces to form Trinity Canton. Each canton would be governed by a council composed of the county judges from each member county, or by a king, or a dictator, or by whatever method the folks in that area might prefer, and it would have jurisdiction only over matters that affect all member counties.

    Cantons could ten join together with other, similar cantons across the country in order to form nations. The White cantons in North America might for example join together to form a White republic — call it the North American Confederacy, or just “the Confederacy”, a federation of independent cantons like Switzerland, each canton itself a federation of counties, each county base around a city that is itself a federation of free neighborhoods. The black cantons in North America might form a similar Republic of New Africa; the fag cantons might create a Rainbow Republic; the Vietnamese in America might resurrect the Vietnamese Empire; and so forth. You might see an American Papal State, a new Puritan republic, a United Federation of Planets or Galactic Empire based upon sci-fi fandom. These republic would be sovereign states, each with its own laws, passports, military forces, and independent nuclear deterrent (to keep everyone honest). They could negotiate with each other over territory, trade, access to rivers and ports, etc., or they could fight it out (although the independent nuclear deterrent held by each nation would make war too expensive as a means of settling disputes).

    By building up from the bottom instead of imposing a top-down social order, we maximize the enjoyment of the freedoms of association and property by families while minimizing government at every level. Since families and neighborhoods would do most of the governing, regulating, welfare-check writing, and defending in this model, abuses would be kept at local (and manageable) levels. The counties, cantons, and Confederacy would have very little to do with the day-to-day lives of families and individuals. No one would be forced to “tolerate” anyone they didn’t want to. Crime would drop to near-zero levels thanks to segregation and local policing. Democracy would be minimized. Taxes, if any, would be locally imposed and collected.

    This would be a free country again.

    Of course, there would be plenty of problems in such a world. No social order is or can be perfect, and, as history has shown, any attempt to erect a “perfect” social order will sooner or later end in tyranny. Utopia means “no place on Earth”. But by deconstructing the current propositional/ideological social and political order and allowing the natural order to re-emerge, I think we will come closer to the vision of a truly free, truly humane society, a society organized not on the basis of some abstract ideology or principle but in accordance with human nature as it is.

    HW: Thank you for allowing me to express my lengthy and tedious opinions in your forum.

  35. Who could have a problem with the wonderful small town, folksy, friendly, wholesome appeal of Waffle House?

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. White Nationalism: Empty intellectual proposition or emerging reality? « Mr. Wyatt's Blog

Comments are closed.