Black Teens Murder Baby In Stroller In Brunswick, Georgia

Georgia

H/T CofCC

Even for the Black Undertow, this is a new low:

 “West earlier told reporters that the incident occurred at 9 a.m. Thursday as she was walking home from the post office, pushing her son Antonio in a stroller.

“A boy approached me and told me he wanted my money, and I told him I didn’t have any money. And he said, ‘Give me your money or I’m going to kill you and I’m going to shoot your baby and kill your baby,’ and I said, “I don’t have any money and don’t kill my baby.”

The boy tried to grab her purse and opened fire when she said tried to tell him she had no money, West said, grazing her head. She said the boy then shot her in the leg.

West continued, “And then, all of a sudden, he walked over and he shot my baby in the face.”

West said she tried to perform CPR on her son and that the police took over when they arrived, but to no avail. “We lost him,” she said. …”

Note: The baby was half White/half Hispanic.

This entry was posted in American South, Crime, Diversity, Dixie, Georgia, Negroes, Race Realism, Race Relations, Racism. Bookmark the permalink.

292 Responses to Black Teens Murder Baby In Stroller In Brunswick, Georgia

  1. Lew says:

    No Man,

    No need for the repeat. We get that you reject your fabricated version of “whiteness” as meaningful and your parody of WNism as absurd.

    Many WNists are not Christians; this is true. Many also *are* Christians. It’s false to say they reject culture. That is lie. You can’t seem to comment on WNism without throwing in a lie.

    It might be fair to say they talked mainly about race in the 1990s, but that isn’t true now. You’re at least 15 years behind giving you the benefit of the doubt you’re operating under misunderstanding and not just lying.

    Your ideas aren’t grounded in anything but your own mind, and even taking your ideas on their own terms they make little real sense.

    Whiteness has political credence next to a 19th century black slave but not a 21st century black thug in Birmingham or a Central American MS13 gang-banger in Atlanta.

    Explain that a little more.

    Also, your thoughts on these matters seem incompatible with Dr. Hill’s ideas on what SNism is all about. Part of Dr. Hill’s vision for the South requires rejecting the United States, human rights, homogenized American consumer culture, and such things, pretty much the WNism wish list.

    As far I know, Dr. Hill has never said anything along the lines of whiteness has no meaning. He emphasizes that Southern stock is Euro stock (white). If Dr. Hill has ever ridiculed WNism they way you have, I’d be interested in seeing it.

  2. Lew says:

    LLD,

    I missed your comment and will return tonight and resume discourse.

    Meanwhile, I withdraw my accusation of calling you a troll and liar, and apologize to you specifically.

    Maybe some of this is just misunderstanding and taking past each other.

  3. No-Man says:

    Long Live Dixie,

    You’re a good guy now in this guy’s head, he probably would have a beer with you. I’m still a troll. This is what passes for substantive discussion in White National circles.

    Whiteness has political credence next to a 19th century black slave but not a 21st century black thug in Birmingham or a Central American MS13 gang-banger in Atlanta.

    Since you seem to be a doctrinaire ‘worse is better’ white national you probably voted the same as the ghetto nigger in the last election cycle, at least for the president. Korean shopkeepers don’t need a white identity to kill marauding vibrants, no one does.

  4. Jack Ryan says:

    It seems the comment thread is falling down in South vs North hatreds, rehashing of ancient White vs White historical grudges, and there are certainly lots of evidence to support past misdeeds.

    But these ancient grudges do seem a bit foolish if too many Southron Whites will allow mega Muslim Mosques of Black Somalian Bantus in Murfreesboro TN while they waste there time ranting and raving about some heathy Norwegian and German American students from Minnesota visiting in the area. So the Scandinavian Americans are going to sound “liberal”, try to find some way to channel their liberalism in a pro Southron way.

    The American South is a unique place, with a proud unique culture. It’s the same with the nation of France. Study up on how French people handled the German occupation in World War II , yeah many White French colaberated with the (White) Germans, correctly believing that French survival, French culture was safer in alliances with Germans, Danes, Italians, Hungarians than with inviting Black American troops, inviting American culture, American ideas about anti colonialism that sort of thing.

    For sympathetic Whites from Northern areas who are considering moving South, understand that there is always going to be this divide. So respect the locals, learn the Southern culture. You should be OK. There are plenty of traitorous whites in the South like Lindsey Graham to concentrate your anger and frustrations.

  5. stonelifter says:

    That’s the key Jack. More yankees would be welcome if they behaved like you suggest, but sadly they come here like locus, but with less manners.

  6. No-Man says:

    My last post in this thread is a picture of a WN gathering.

    http://www.stormfront.org/0500/afbnp.jpg

    Notice the Northern Irish flag and Irish nationalist flag. These people try to be all things to all “white” people. A man chasing two rabbits catches neither.

  7. Lew says:

    No Man,

    I apologize to you too and withdraw what I said about you being a troll and liar. I would like to hit the rest button if you’re open to it.

    I’m not an enemy. My grandmother was a lifelong member of the daughters of the Confederacy, her grandfather captured at Gettysburg. If I found people at Stormfront (a site I don’t read) or elsewhere ridiculing the South, then I would oppose that. Also, I live in a highly dysfunctional part of the South that gets few transplants, so I’ve never seen the outsider transplant effect up close.

    These are difficult issues, race, ethnicity, region, culture, religion and the best way to get out from under the US gov.

    I’m interested in your idea of whiteness. I read you, perhaps mistakenly, as saying whiteness made some political sense in the 19th century in opposition to black slaves, etc. OK. But there are still blacks around today and various vibrant me seem to me to create the exact same stark contrast — vibrant versus whiteness.

    So given that, I don’t get why you’re using whiteness as you understand it today. The same stark contrast exists.

  8. Lew says:

    Meant:

    So given that, I don’t get why you’re opposed to using whiteness as you understand it today when same stark contrasts exists.

  9. Lew says:

    Stonelifter,

    But, excluding the far north, are the differences between the South and the rest of the country objectively that drastic?

    On this cultural issue, a huge swath of the country looks to be on the South’s side on gay marraige. A bet the gun rights map would look similar.

    The usual suspects in support of gay marraige are where you would expect to find them without checking the map.

    Http://graphics.latimes.com/usmap-gay-marriage-chronology/

  10. stonelifter says:

    Depends on the topic. Given topics along racial lines yes, what passes for manners, yes, limited govt, yes, feminism, yes..

    I’ve never said we are different on every topic but the variances are major especially with question kicked around at the federal level.

    Now Mosin will say the divide is rural vs urban. And I agree to that in a limited way, but your urban centers drive everything. They drag the rural yankee and all Soutbrons, rural and urban down. Our people’s only chance is to be free from the yankees an their federal system

  11. Lew says:

    I found this exchange at Counter Currents touching on some of these themes:

    Counter Currents | August 18, 2012

    A person commenting says:

    Over at Occidental Dissent …

    Hunter Wallace remarks,

    [T]he “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. …

    … [B]ecause 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. …

    … [W]e 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.

    How much of a problem is this? To what degree does white nationalism suffer from its own intellectualized, propositional failings?

    Greg Johnson responds:

    A valid question. How, exactly, will whites save ourselves, by gaining political control of our destinies in European colonial societies that still maintain white majorities and have some hope of continuing to be white living spaces (the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand – I don’t really know enough about Spanish-speaking, white-majority European colonial societies like Argentina and Uruguay)?

    Simple nationalism will not cut it. All of these societies had only the shallowest, quasi-fictional forms of national self-consciousness to begin with, and in the US and elsewhere, national self-consciousness has been redefined in propositional terms to deal with the influx of increasingly heterogeneous ethnic and racial stocks.

    Compact European regional and national identities are very powerful in Europe, but they are increasingly meaningless in Euro-Colonial societies where European national stocks are increasingly blended. At one meeting, I asked 42 people if they were of unblended European ancestry, and two raised their hands: but they were not from America. All the Americans present had blended European ancestry.

    So what are we left with as a principle of unity, if American nationalism is merely propositional and petty European nationalisms mean nothing here? Another way of putting it is: if we were to define American nationalism so it is not propositional and not inimical to the long-term survival of our race, what other option is there but to define it in terms of generic whiteness, i.e., a blended European humanity?

    This blended European humanity need not, moreover, be seen merely a recent product of migration and mixing. It can be seen as a return to the primal unity of our race before it was split up into different subraces, languages, nations, and religions. Even today, Europeans are more closely related to each other than randomly selected members of other races. The genetic distance between different Europeans is what one would find in extended families in other races.

    I don’t think that the creation of a blended European humanity should be an imperative in European colonial societies. But I think that we should recognize that it is a process that is already well-underway and that it does have advantages. Besides, the different European regional, national, and subracial identities still have homelands in Europe where they can be preserved.

    See Ted Sallis, http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/pan-european-preservationism/

    So, the answer to the charge that White Nationalism is merely abstract is: no, it is an eminently concrete, practical, politically realistic acknowledgement of the concrete fact of the emergence of a blended white identity.

    White Nationalism is also the concrete, politically practical and realistic recognition of another reality, namely the fact that whites are being targeted for dispossession and extinction simply as whites, not as Yankees or Southerners or English or French.

    You may not wish to think of yourself as a generic white person, but you are being targeted for destruction merely as a generic white person, and if you are to fight back, you will join together with others who are also being attacked as white people, and White Nationalism emerges as the only adequate and realistic response to White Genocide.

    As for questions of where White Republics might be established: the answer is wherever we can get away with it. Ideally, everywhere.

    Hunter Wallace, of course, is more interested in Southern Nationalism than White Nationalism. I wish Southern Nationalists the best [Emphasis added by Lew], but I think that there are certain facts on the ground that they need to take into account.

    First, the South is full of Yankees, Westerners, and immigrants from Europe and European colonial societies. Second, the number of people with unmixed Southern ancestry is decreasing with every generation. So even in the South, I think that White Nationalism rather than Southern Nationalism ultimately has the greater power to unify and represent the interests of whites. The temptation, however, is to go with Southern Nationalism because although its appeal is limited, it has a rich history and an existing infrastructure. The problem is that it has an ever-diminishing future.

    Another sticking point is Negro slavery in the South: it was an evil institution that never should have been started and should never have been allowed to continue. It was born, moreover, of the same base and traitorous capitalist motives that encourage unchecked non-white immigration today. Frankly, although the antebellum South was an appealing simulacrum of European aristocratic society and manners, in fact the Southern system was hardly more “aristocratic” than the North.

    Southern Negro slavery was just Yankee capitalism, in all of its exploitativeness and indifference to the common good, accommodated to the climate and endemic diseases of the South.

    And Southern capitalists were no more wedded to the superficial manners and lifestyle of the genuine English aristocracy as their Northern cousins and contemporary Country Club descendants. Southern plantations may have looked more like English aristocratic country houses than Northern factories did, but they were equally capitalist enterprises, and in both North and South the ideas of “stately” and “gracious” living were largely the same.

    There is a big difference between an English aristocratic estate and a plantation. Genuine feudalism entails a host of mutual moral obligations between lords and peasants. Chattel slavery and wage slavery abolished those moral obligations. The Southern “aristocracy” was, in short, nothing more than a capitalist oligarchy with a veneer of European aristocratic tastes and manners – just like the Yankee oligarchy.

    It would be an interesting question to compare the conduct of the war between North and South in terms of European aristocratic ideas of chivalry, gallantry, and what Schmitt calls “bracketed warfare.”

    My impression is that the South was much more chivalrous in its conduct of the war, which was a significant disadvantage and ultimately inappropriate to the kind of war it really was. The South fought a limited “war between the states,” whereas the North fought an unlimited “Civil War” against rebels and usurpers.

    All things being equal, the side that fights with the fewest self-imposed limits will win.

    See my remarks on Schmitt on different forms of warfare:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/07/the-political-soldier-carl-schmitts-theory-of-the-partisan/

  12. No-Man says:

    No harm, no foul.

    I’m interested in your idea of whiteness. I read you, perhaps mistakenly, as saying whiteness made some political sense in the 19th century in opposition to black slaves, etc. OK.

    You’re not mistaken at all regarding my position on whiteness.

    But there are still blacks around today and various vibrant me seem to me to create the exact same stark contrast — vibrant versus whiteness.

    You err in calling today’s contrast the exact same. No one wants to be around vibrants but equating De’Marquise to a slave or a Mexican soon-to-be citizen to a scalphunter is a stretch. The president of this country self-ids as “black”, if he had a son he’d look like De’Marquise. There were illegal alien guests at the State of the Union speech.

    “White people” don’t exist in any meaningful sense beyond exploitation by “non-whites”. The cultural notion of the “white race” is given material reality by an outdated psuedoscientific racialist spoils-system in the United States. Normative racial identities such as “white” and “black” serve the material interests of “blacks” and other self-styled “non-whites”. Some refer to this system as “BRA”. Canards such as “whites have more money” and “whites are in control” are used to justify endless discrimination not to mention physical persecution against “whites” when history proves “whiteness” is a fluid identity and most “white” individuals don’t even consider themselves “white”.

    The above is an example of post-structuralism and materialist racial theory being used to deny “white people” exist. The white identity is a relatively new occurrence in western culture. It’s loss is nothing to mourn. Pretty much the worse thing anyone can do is get stuck on the white identity flypaper. You’ll find yourself making arguments about mimicking the political tactics of Niggers. That makes no sense because they and other parasitic groups only put aside their differences because your money is up for grabs. White Nationals can’t promise “whites” free shit because they’d have to steal it from another “white”, there goes “white unity”.

  13. Lew says:

    Let me see if I understand. I think understand part of what you’re saying and part not.

    The white identity concept is a fairly recent development in the West (agree). It had unifying value for a fairly short time in an American context under harsh 18th – 19th century circumstances (agree). Today, however, circumstances are not as harsh; therefore, the whiteness concept has lost the utility and meaning it once had, but nevertheless it is being carried forward as an arbitrary sociological construct that enables BRA non-whites to exploit and abuse … who exactly?

    If white people don’t exist in any meaningful way, who exactly is BRA — to use that language — exploiting? Probably my fault, but this is where I’m not following.

    You seem be saying whiteness in today’s context is a tool of exploitation being used against “white” people by the vibrants and other enemies of Westerners. To the extent people get stuck on the flypaper of white, they then play right into enemies’ hands. Therefore, instead of making reference to a white identify, people opposed to BRA ought to fight the fight as Italians (ex: the man in NY), Amish, Southron, or whatever.

    Is that close?

    My initial response is that Whites do in fact exist in reality at a biological level in terms of genetic relatedness. Genetic relatedness / kindship seems to be a factor you’re ignoring in writing off whiteness as meaningless. I want to hear your response ( if you care to leave one of course) before elaborating.

  14. No-Man says:

    The white identity concept is a fairly recent development in the West (agree). It had unifying value for a fairly short time in an American context under harsh 18th – 19th century circumstances (agree). Today, however, circumstances are not as harsh; therefore, the whiteness concept has lost the utility and meaning it once had, but nevertheless it is being carried forward as an arbitrary sociological construct that enables BRA non-whites to exploit and abuse … who exactly?

    If white people don’t exist in any meaningful way, who exactly is BRA — to use that language — exploiting? Probably my fault, but this is where I’m not following.

    BRA is exploiting any of the dwindling number of Americans that buy into whiteness and its attendant cultural baggage, some call it “pride” but most see it as “guilt”. If European-Christian derived Americans reject the punitive white identity the gears are jammed. Even a handful of “white activists” though well-intentioned are held up by BRA as la raison d’etat. Trying to organize “whites” against “non-whites” is pretty much like calling for a “kulak awakening” to fight communists.

    The concept of whiteness used to include Jews, as soon as being white became sub-optimal the Jews stopped identifying as white and WNs wouldn’t let them even if they tried. Jewish power has not suffered for lack of whiteness. Why should European-derived Christians be left holding the white bag of shit? Screw whiteness. Light that bag on fire on someone’s doorstep and ring the doorbell.

    My initial response is that Whites do in fact exist in reality at a biological level in terms of genetic relatedness. Genetic relatedness / kindship seems to be a factor you’re ignoring in writing off whiteness as meaningless.

    It’s not meaningless from an anthropological/genetic perspective. There are also subraces of the caucasian race. European derived folks have better primary identities than “white”. A “black” identity is a sign of deracinated American Nigger retardation, they don’t have geneaologies they don’t have history or culture until meeting white Christians. “Blacks” slaughter eachother in Africa. The black identity works in BRA, partially because it would be un-PC for anyone to tell them how ridiculous and retarded their afroism is. They stopped using nigger and later negro, who knows, Congoid Proide Worldwoide might be their next slogan. “White” should be similarly retired.

  15. 313Chris says:

    Greg Johnson’s analysis of the Antebellum South in that quote was utterly spot-on.

    Nevertheless, the guy is still an effete sissy.

  16. Lew,

    Genetic relatedness / kindship seems to be a factor you’re ignoring in writing off whiteness as meaningless.

    Genetically, “White people” in the Northeast have more in common with “White people” in the South, but those same “White people” in the Northeast prefer to politically align themselves with Jews, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, elect leftwing congressmen who support amnesty and open borders, and support the federal government and its use of violence to impose negro equality on the South and the rest of the world.

  17. Re: Lew

    If white people don’t exist in any meaningful way, who exactly is BRA — to use that language — exploiting?

    Is it a meaningful concept?

    The term “White people” seems to suggest that “White people are all on the same side” when the truth is that millions of “White people” are on the side of the Jews, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians and identify with Obama, who they elected and reelected as their president, and see the eclipse of White America as a wonderful thing that symbolizes our “progress” and “transcendence” of race.

  18. Re: Greg

    Another sticking point is Negro slavery in the South: it was an evil institution that never should have been started and should never have been allowed to continue. …

    The same people who deplored negro slavery – the British, the French, and the Yankees – are precisely the ones who contributed the most to creating the present liberal democratic capitalist system.

    As an economic system, slavery fostered White racial consciousness. The North’s economic system, its culture, and its political values were highly corrosive of White racial consciousness and ultimately proved to be antagonistic and incompatible with all non-liberal traditions.

  19. Re: Greg

    So even in the South, I think that White Nationalism rather than Southern Nationalism ultimately has the greater power to unify and represent the interests of whites. The temptation, however, is to go with Southern Nationalism because although its appeal is limited, it has a rich history and an existing infrastructure. The problem is that it has an ever-diminishing future.

    Is that so?

    If we were to measure the relative growth of White Nationalist organizations in the South over the past thirty years, what would we find? According to Chuck Thompson, there are over 20,000 active members in the League of the South.

    What’s the largest WN organization in the United States? The NSM? The National Alliance?

  20. No-Man says:

    Another sticking point is Negro slavery in the South: it was an evil institution that never should have been started and should never have been allowed to continue. …

    Notice how this white national is forced by his one-size-fits-all whiteness to not only address slavery but condemn it is as evil – even though he is against southern nationalism. He’s forced by his same shit ideology to deal with something that happened in Europe called the “holocaust” even though he isn’t German.

    White Nationalists need to deal with the Holocaust…..

    Just so we are clear: I believe that Holocaust revisionism is a legitimate field of historical research, because all forms of historical revisionism are legitimate, due to the necessarily partial, finite, and therefore revisable nature of historiography.

    The traditional understanding of the Holocaust (he used a capital “H” so I will too) is up for revision but southern slavery was just flat-out “evil”.

    As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.”

    Except Southrons. Thanks, Greg.

  21. Lew says:

    I think 20,000 members is more than the NA had it’s height.

  22. Lew says:

    No Man,

    OK, but then once you leave the bag on the door, I don’t see where you will ever have an effective response to these generalized attacks by enemies who reject your careful distinctions.

    The LOS Wikipedia article, for example, appears to be based on Dr. Hill’s writings about the LOS.

    Dr. Hill makes a reasonable, measured, logical, very persuasive statement of what the LOS is about. There is nothing in there about Southerners hating anyone, segregation, slavery, Jim Crow. Dr. Hill makes a positive case for Southern culture, identity and separation from America based on all these careful distinctions and historically grounded facts.

    The article then notes:

    The League of the South is considered by many observers to be a white supremacist and white nationalist organization.[5][6][7][8] The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the League of the South as a Neo-Confederate hate group.[9]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

    This is an example of an enemy, in this case the SPLC but SPLC speaks for BRAs elite class, only seeing white, however you see yourself.

    So how ought a partisan of LOS respond to this point?

    The correct response, if I’m understanding your line of argument, would have to be something to the effect of “no, we are not white. You are wrong. We are Anglo-Celtic ethnics, Christian, and Southrons with a long historical and cultural roots in this region.”

    That is of course a truthful, accurate answer. It leaves the bag on the door, but then to what end? Will they ever just accept that answer and leave LOS alone? I don’t think so.

    If you don’t care, OK. It’s not clear that rejecting “white” will solve anything when it comes to external attack for any group of whites that takes an un-pc view of things if that is your contention.

    We can agree to disagree though. I have a better understanding of your main points and don’t want to debate to a standstill. Thanks for the conversation reset.

  23. Lew says:

    HW,

    I think genetic relatedness matters at some level for national identification whether Southern or any another type, yes. Otherwise, I don’t see how you avoid falling into the “proposition” nation pitfall. Anyone is welcome, even a black or Muslim in Tennessee. I don’t think it’s a sufficient basis for nationhood; I’m not suggesting that — other things matter a lot — just that genetic relatedness is necessary to steer clear of the proposition concept/error.

  24. No-Man says:

    The SPLC maintains “anti-gay”, “black separatist” and “anti-immigrant” group categories. Who really cares what the SPLC thinks besides BRA elites and sociology post-grads?

  25. Lew says:

    “Q. Would all Whites be welcome in your separate state?

    “A. Absolutely. There would be no restriction by country of origin, and no genetic tests, skin color or hair color tests or any nonsense like that.

    LLD,

    It looks like whoever posted this text on Stormfront pulled it from Yggdrasil’s early thoughts on WNism written in the 90s.

    Obviously he was going for the exact broad appeal you see as unworkable. But it’s worth noting that in Yggdrasil’s original formulation on how the theoretical nation might be run, he writes

    It would most likely be a government of very limited powers, with a federal structure that assures localities considerable latitude to experiment with moral and social laws, with the idea of fostering traditional communities and traditional religions in places where the overwhelming majority of people want such things – and secularism where the majority wish to have that as well.

    So even in this early 90s speculation about a possible white state he was already thinking in terms of a structure to accommodate the many cultural differences that white people have. Which he obviously would not have done if he 1) wasn’t aware of the importance of those distinctions or if 2) he didn’t care about preserving them.

    Ygg alludes, specifically, to fostering *traditional* communities and *religions* in *places* where the majority want them. That would make room, at least under this theoretical proposal, for a traditional Dixie to exist within a larger white nation.

    Even if you see the possibility of that ever happening as so vanishingly remote it’s not worth discussing, I don’t think your passage (seen in full context) is good evidence WNists have it in for the South in theory.

    One of my points is that once you get “above” the low level chatter in a place like SF and look at what the WNist opinion-shapers have actually written (KMD, Taylor, etc.), there is not a lot of evidence of hostility to the South, or of any desire to impose a culture-destroying imperium directly or indirectly.

    Alex Linder is the one exception I know about. He gives the impression of really hating the South. Maybe William Pierce had more hostility to the South than I appreciate. He had years of output. Doubt anyone has followed everything he ever said. Alex Linder is from the Pierce “school” or “branch” of WNism so maybe that strain of WNism does dislike the South.

    But as a generalization about all of WNism the evidence just is not there.

  26. In 1789, the South created a White Republic with the Northeast based on the assumption (i.e, federalism) that the states would be given “considerable latitude to experiment with moral and social laws.”

    Fastforward to 2013. Nine judges on the Supreme Court in Washington, DC (not a single one of whom is a White Southern Protestant, but there is a negro, a Hispanic, and three Jews) are debating the definition of marriage as it should exist across a consolidated Union.

    Can a traditional Dixie exist within “a larger white nation”? How did the Union with “the larger white nation” work out for us in the 1860s and 1960s? How is that Union working for us today under Barack Hussein Obama?

    The Union is nothing more than an instrument by which the Northeast has used violence to impose its own values on the South. It is an instrument that allows the Northeast to dominate the North American continent and by extension the Western hemisphere and by extension the rest of the Western world.

  27. For the record, I know Yggdrasil in real life.

    I’m sure he is sincere. I have yet to see a persuasive argument though for preserving the Union with the Northeast. I know that millions of “White people” live there but no one here can cite any advantage to the South that comes out of the political relationship that we have with them.

  28. No-Man says:

    and by extension the rest of the Western world.

    Giving chattel the right to vote was more than highminded folly, it was treason to the West. At the end of the day the West matters. Jesus Christ matters. When European-Christian folks realize that their enemies will be put where they belong: in clear conflict with the men that walk with God.

  29. Giving blacks the right to vote (just like supporting amnesty for illegal aliens today) was a calculated attempt to dilute our political power to the advantage of the Northeast within the Union.

  30. Lew says:

    The US Department of Homeland Security cares what SPLC thinks.

    Just ask Mark Potok.

  31. There is a tension between Greg Johnson’s argument – that the existence of the Union allows Northerners and European immigrants to colonize the South, overwhelm the native population, and blend our people out of existence into a “generic whiteness” – and Yggdrasil’s argument that cultural differences, religions, and ethnic groups will somehow be preserved in the White Republic.

  32. No-Man says:

    Hunter,

    How about tension between Johnson’s pro-homosexuality and conservative Southron Christians?

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/homosexuality-and-white-nationalism/

    I have met a number of homosexuals in the contemporary White Nationalist movement, and I have my suspicions about a few others. All of these people, however, are intelligent and accomplished. They are real assets to the movement. Those without families are freer to speak their minds because they give fewer hostages to fortune. They also have more free time and more disposable income to devote to the cause. Quite a number of homosexual men do not fit the effeminate stereotype. They are masculine, and appreciate masculine things like facts, logic, and forthright action. And even effeminate gay men can make a real contribution.

    intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish.

    Stay away from my kids, Johnson.

  33. Mosin Nagant says:

    Stonelifter wrote earlier on this thread: “where are the news stories about immigration laws up north that mirrors Al & Az at the state level? (…) Germans were 10% tops of founding stock (…) They are bad (…) the biggest race mixers going.”

    Is Arizona really a southern state, Stonelifter? You also cannot have missed reading about anti-invasive legislation in several other non-southern, mostly western states including Utah, Montana, Indiana, and probably now Kansas (note that “Kobach” is a Germanic name) http://www.workers.org/2013/03/11/protest-anti-immigrant-legislation-in-kansas/ http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/kris-kobach-contnues-anti-immigrant-crusade-wants-kansas-to-pass-self-deportation-law-and-punish-dreamers/ — and I could go on, but keeping it close to home: http://www.statelegislatorsforlegalimmigration.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=14769 http://www.statelegislatorsforlegalimmigration.com/news.aspx

    Watch this one, Stonelifter, although not on immigration, but to see if you dare label it “Yankee liberal”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7hgr1JkGxQ (He has called immigrants “invaders,” and is one of the leading legislators in defense of marriage, earning special hate from liberals: http://www.change.org/petitions/enough-gay-bashing-from-state-rep-daryl-metcalfe ) Similar anti-federal gun control nullification laws or resolutions have also been passed on county and municipal levels in the state.

    The “defense of marriage” legislation is another indication this state is not so liberal overall (thanks to the largest RURAL population of any state) as the New England states where the inhabitants ARE properly called and DO consider themselves Yankees.

    Now, the second refutation: Germans made up MUCH more than “10% of Founding stock” in THIS state, and were the second largest ethnic component, after the Welsh, in the early colonial period. Penn’s colony was intended for Welsh, but he deliberately invited the Germans. My surname family was in the colony around 1700. Germans are NOT especially prone to racially or ethnically mixing, as anyone travelling around the state can see. Many still identify themselves as German after several centuries, and call other white people “the English.” How does that make them “the greatest race mixers going”?

  34. Mosin Nagant says:

    I posted a long, multi-link comment, still awaiting moderation.

  35. stonelifter says:

    Talk to niggers who have been to Germany. You won’t like what you hear

    Talk to White service men who have been there. You won’t like what you hear.

    Az is a Southern state, most western States are heavily populated by Southrons who left after the War. KS is a Southron state in its own weird way. Like MO, but more confusing

  36. Long Live Dixie says:

    Meanwhile, I withdraw my accusation of calling you a troll and liar, and apologize to you specifically.

    That’s mighty white of you.

    No worries, I have been called worse.

  37. Latrice Avenoso says:

    If you are the parent of twins or two children who are close in age, you may find it necessary to invest in a double stroller. Double strollers can be absolute lifesavers, but shop carefully, because they can also be a hassle. Since a double stroller will carry more weight than a traditional stroller, everything is harder. Pushing, steering, and folding the stroller are all more difficult than with a traditional stroller. Don’t let this scare you away, a quality double stroller can make your life much easier. When choosing a quality double stroller, such as those manufactured by Graco, Peg Perego, or Maclaren, there are some things to keep in mind. A double stroller either allows the children to ride one in the front and one behind, or the two children beside each other. -

    The latest posting from our own blog site
    <,http://www.prettygoddess.com

  38. Sebastian says:

    As far as the note up top: Note: The baby was half White/half Hispanic.

    I find this needs to start changing. I’m White race but my ethnicity is from my Latino side. I am a white skinned American brunette male that is tired of being referred to in the media as “brown” or “Hispanic”, as if Hispanic is a race. HISPANIC IS NOT A RACE.

    Hispanic is a label, which I have come to despise. I live in San Francisco, and the way I see it Latinos, are the West coast version of the Italians. I myself have some Italian, and Maltese, the home of the Templar Knights.

    The problem is ignorance perpetuated by the stereotypical media. Example, whenever a CIA employee is on the news for something, good or bad, he/she is called a CIA agent. A CIA agent is an individual, usually a foreigner, who is RECRUITED by a CIA OFFICER, the Officer being an American. The agent is being recruited to spy on a target. But everyone, thanks to the media, calls everyone at the CIA an “agent”.

    So all Spanish speaking peoples are “Mexican” “brown” Spic, or what have you.

    And “minorities” or ethnic people(which is every human being) growing up in the States faces an identity crises. What am I? After years of not knowing, I realized I was an American, and even further down the line, White friends(Anglo Northern European descendants of the UK and Germany) began to say that I was White, Southern European White, and helped me understand, as I had come to understand differently. It was like having a weight lifted off my shoulders, and it was a proud day for me indeed.

    As for these slime who killed the baby, NO REMORSE FOR THEM. Tired of Whites having to take a backseat to brown people.

  39. kp says:

    The south will rise again huh u stupid white trash racist mfers people r poor poverty is a bitch what if both ur parents smoked crack or sold herione ur whole life no ur daddy had a business and he gave to u u fucking fuck u don’t know what its like to survive everyday of ur life since u were born bro go lice in the hood in baltimore or houston or la shit anywhere in the straight up hood and u southern mfers would get killed talk shit bitch guess what slavery was WRONG how about I inslave ur ass beat u to death fucker fu k u thw south would loose again soery to tell ya north would fucking bomb u dumbass inbreed moyher fucker go fu k ur sister agian she’s horny

  40. Rudel says:

    “Just wow.”

    Yes indeed, that post is excellent propaganda against gun control.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>