Conference Reflections

Alabama

Here are some thoughts on the CofCC and League of the South conferences in June:

1.) White Nationalism vs. Southern Nationalism – After attending both the 2013 CofCC and League of the South conferences, I resolved to devote less time to this issue in the year ahead.

The only White Nationalist groups of any significance in Dixie are the CofCC and the Klan. Neither group poses a threat to Southern Nationalism. The League’s only real competitor in the South are the Rainbow Confederates in the SCV.

The legions of anonymous WNs on the internet similarly pose no threat to Southern Nationalism:

– First, the majority of WNs do not live in the South and are not our target audience, so we are not trying to convert these people to SN anyway

– Second, the WNs who do live in the South are generally sympathetic to secession, and most of these people are simply unaware that the League has changed its position on race in recent years and can now accommodate their concerns.

– Third, WN is powerless and this hasn’t changed in twenty years and shows no sign of ever changing in the future. Scientologists have more power in America than WNs. Arguing with WNs accomplishes nothing for SN because these people have no power or influence over the Southern people.

– Fourth, arguing with WNs over ideological differences is a form of time-wasting and a distraction from the hard work we need to be doing. Sure, it is fun to argue with, say, Harold Covington and his 10 followers in the Northwest Front (he defeated President Hunter Wallace in Montana with his fictional army), but every hour spent doing that could just as effectively be spent playing video games.

– Fifth, the existence of dissident movements elsewhere in America and Europe poses no real threat to us.

– Finally, I have already said all that needs to be said on this subject, and the most effective way to end this debate once and for all would be for the League to breakout in the real world, which isn’t going to happen through writing another essay on the internet about the flaws of WN.

2.) Site Redesign – A major goal for the year ahead will be to create a merged Occidental Dissent/Confederate Renaissance with a spiffier look and a shorter URL that will be easier to remember. I also want to improve the quality of the posts on the main page and the comment section.

3.) My Book – By this time next year, I want to have published my first book, Shattering The Golden Circle: The Failure of Free Society in Dixie, Haiti, and the Caribbean.

4.) Local Chapter – I’m planning to create a local chapter of the League and the CofCC. This is already in the works.

5.) Physical Fitness – I’m typing this post on the treadmill at the gym. I’ve made huge strides in this area and plan to be in far better shape at next year’s conferences.

6.) New Girl – There are a lot of SNs and WNs who might fail to see the wisdom of showing up at conferences and putting in the hours at the gym.

Well, I recently met a young woman at one of these conferences who shares my racial and political views, so I am quite happy it was me and not some other guy. That was the highlight of the two conferences. 🙂

7.) Social Events – If there is any takeaway lesson from the two conferences in June, it is that the social nature of these events needs to be emphasized over the academic lecture format for more people will show up.

There is no point in driving 600 miles to hear a speech that you have either heard a million times or can watch in your boxer shorts on YouTube. This is even more of a problem when speaker doesn’t have anything interesting to say.

When we have a “conference,” it needs to be more in the mold of the scene at Twelve Oaks in Gone With The Wind. After years of my best friend getting an earful of my political views, I finally got him interested in the League of the South when he realized that social gatherings are a way to meet interesting new people rather than the equivalent of sitting through a class to listen to political bullshit and history lessons.

Another takeaway lesson from both conferences is that we need a roundtable where we can all sit and talk and shoot videos and hear each other rather than being split up at several tables in a noisy restaurant.

Next time, it needs to be emphasized in advance that there will be an afterparty for socializing. My own preference would be to consolidate the best speeches into a single day and reserve the second day purely for social functions.

8.) Stage Control – This was an issue at both conferences. I wasn’t there the second day of the League conference, but I heard about it. This is another area where there is a lot room for improvement.

9.) Speech ContentPalmetto Patriot addressed this topic in his speech at the League conference. The content of speeches at a national conference should be about what we have done, what we are doing now, and what we are going to do in the future. The audience needs to be told what to do – the speakers have a year to come up with well-reasoned proposal – to advance White Nationalism or Southern Nationalism in their area.

10.) Women – This goes back to what I said about conferences being social events.

How do we get our people to show up at these conferences? A good place to start would be to make an extra effort to get as many young women as possible to show up at our events, take a lot of photos, and show everyone on the internet how much of a good time we are having and what they are missing out on by not coming to our events.

11.) Goals – As a movement, we need clearly defined goals and tactics to achieve those goals. An unstated goal at the League conference was to boost youth turnout over the previous year and we accomplished that goal.

12.) Preparation/Advertising – Next year, we need to do a much better job advertising and getting people to plan in advance to show up at these conferences. I just showed up at the CofCC conference this year. I should have advertised the event well in advance.

13.) Urban South – As I said at our little afterparty, we can do a much better job at recruiting the White Southerners in our cities and suburbs.

About Hunter Wallace 10448 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

48 Comments

  1. “Well, I recently met a young woman at one of these conferences who shares my racial and political views, so I am quite happy it was me and not some other guy. [That was the highlight of the two conferences. :)”]

    Caution: Don’t give away your emotional world like this. She wants your mystery, not your honesty despite her protestations to the contrary. These types of overt displays of affection will have the cumulative effect of turning the modern woman off because it smacks of a man who does not inspire the affection of many women (not saying you don’t), and NO woman wants a man that no other woman wants.

    My own real-world observations, experiences and study confirm this truth, so reward her slowly and, when necessary, punish her swiftly.

    With that said, I want to attend a conference and your ideas are spot on.

  2. “But unless someone in WN or SN becomes rich and buys a significant media presence, nothing can change or will change.”

    Drudge shows how it can be done *if* the selection of links have added value to a particular audience.

    My browser homepage is a mainstream news site containing the news the MSM want people to be interested in. Then i have a lot of separate links to nationalist type sites which also deal in news but tailored to people who are already nationalist. A news site that was a bit of both could potentially draw (and shape) a wide audience. It would have some links to standard world news, financial, national, regional etc as the aim would be to get people to use it to get their news but also more specifically southern and southern nationalist inclined stories i.e. making sure Mrs Hunnewell got the same attention as Trayvon.

    A Southern Nationalist Drudge.

  3. Silver “Tear down this wall.”. Simple and effective words. I’m not looking for the “Turner Diaries” solution and I don’t have all the answers I just want freedom of speech for whites as starters , revolutionary enough.

  4. “I’m sick of the conflating of eminently sound (small “l”) libertarian economic principles…with wild statements about unrestricted immigration, homosexual marriage, and other such nonsense espoused by certain “libertarians” over the years.”

    I agree, Rudel, but the current state of politics precludes the separation of libertarian economics from “social libertarianism.” Which is why I lumped it in with its leftist twin anarchism.

    PGRT left of his own accord some time back.

    “I feel the Race is bound in Logos, and Logos, in Race.”
    Dialectical materialism tends to result in such atheist confusion. Not unlike YKW.

    “I know the Southrons care about Southrons. I care about Whites.”
    Maybe you should care more about your fellow northern whites. LOL.

    Deo Vindice

  5. One of the best reasons for Southerners to support SN over WN is that the little pet issues go away that plague White nationalism. One being the constant and tiresome debate in WN on whether Christianity should be “destroyed” or not. Other issues such as whether we should allow fags in our movements go away as well.

    These issues have no relevance in the South. Those issues are already set in stone for our people.

  6. Re: “the constant and tiresome debate in WN on whether Christianity should be destroyed or not. Other issues such as whether we should allow fags in our movements go away as well. These issues have no relevance in the South. Those issues are already set in stone for our people.”

    It is very good to hear that those issues are “set in stone” for many southern whites. Set in stone implies CONVICTION, which is not mere settled opinion but a position of unchanging, absolute certainty for which one is willing to die rather than deny.

    We will not support any movement that is anti-Christian or neutral toward sin, nor any movement that celebrates the use of African slavery, or white wage slavery, to “create immense wealth” or any that supports global imperialism or any kind of global-universalist (versus local and ethnic) “Christianity”.

  7. “Well, I recently met a young woman at one of these conferences who shares my racial and political views, so I am quite happy it was me and not some other guy. [That was the highlight of the two conferences. “]

    The mark of a ,beta.

    • I’m 32 years old, bro.

      I can go out and meet a girl at the bar, but that’s not what I want right now. I’m more interested in advancing the White race.

    • Seriously, the way it goes is that you have sex a few times, and then you realize you are bored and have little in common, and then the cycle repeats itself. If you have game, you are better at it than other guys, but the result is the same.

  8. “The mark of a ,beta.”

    Statements like that are the mark of a rude, callow, youngster devoid of character.
    Dad wasn’t around much, was he? It shows.

    Deo Vindice

  9. Hunter Wallace says:
    July 6, 2013 at 5:28 am
    ‘The only thing that comes out of picking up a girl in a bar is having sex a few times … and that’s it.’

    Not the only thing. STD’s are often part of the experience.

    • Seriously, the way it goes is that you pick up a girl, have sex a few times, and then you realize you are bored because you have little in common, and the cycle repeats itself. If you have game, you are better at it than other guys, but the result is the same.

      This has nothing to do with romanticizing any particular girl. That’s my take on the bar scene. Before you know it, you will be in the same bar with multiple people you have had sex with, and they will be hooking up with other people after you, and you will be in there hooking up with someone a bunch of other guys have been through.

      It’s not a satisfying lifestyle. What’s more, if you go out and drink every weekend in the bar, you are going to get fat, too.

  10. “We will not support any movement that is anti-Christian or neutral toward sin, nor any movement that celebrates the use of African slavery, or white wage slavery, to “create immense wealth” or any that supports global imperialism or any kind of global-universalist (versus local and ethnic) “Christianity”.”

    Southerners don’t need your support. Or the support of the mouse in your pocket.
    Pride goeth before the fall.

    Deo Vindice

  11. I’m a WN from the North, but I fully support the Southron cause. I believe you guys have a rich heritage and identity, and I admit, I’m a little jealous. Us Northern whites have more work cut out for us in terms of establishing an Northern white American identity devoid of Yankee imperialism and Puritan-esque utopian ideals. The Rockies and its frontier culture may be the only place to cultivate such a thing. I’m not sure if the Rockies is quite the same as the Northwest Front’s envisioned Pacific Northwest White Republic, but I’m not particularly attracted to the NWF anyway.

    Best of luck to SNs.

  12. Like Southern Europeans.

    As I recall, you are the one who used to criticize WNs for the tendency to exclude southern Europeans. You really need to make your mind up.

    That said, yes, southern europeans, but southern europeans and beyond. If you take someone like John Derbyshire’s children I think it’s straightforward to claim they’re being “raised white” (regardless of whatever No-man may have to say about that phrase). And if they also look whitish (which is not impossibly unlikely, even some quadroons show no traces of black) and if, for “general purposes,” they are treated as white (especially by blacks – the dumb nigger Trayvon even thought Zimmerman was a “cracker,” though he may not have had a good look at him), then I think they’re exactly the kind of people who would have a tendency to take a stand against anti-white bullshit.

    Simmons,
    I’m not looking for the “Turner Diaries” solution and I don’t have all the answers I just want freedom of speech for whites as starters , revolutionary enough.

    That’s perfectly fine. First things first and all that, sure. But thinking beyond step one isn’t quite the waste of time you sometimes seem to think it is – although it can’t be denied that too many obsess over the finer points of step ten, so I guess your reminders serve a useful purpose.

  13. No silver.

    I was the one who attacked the WN move to call Jews and even some non-Jewish Middle Easterners “non-white” and then insist Southern Europeans are white. I never cared who got included or not. You can exclude Jews without arguing they are non-white.

    Basically what I said is this : “Ashkenazi Jews sure as hell pass a white test better than Italians, Greeks, some Spainards.”

  14. Metal Gear / Iceman says:

    ‘You can exclude Jews without arguing they are non-white.’

    I doubt Harold Meyerson believes he is White. Hunter linked to his op-ed piece in the Washington Post.

    Dr. MacDonald’s commentary on Meyerson’s article at O.O. is a must read.

    ‘Harold Meyerson hates White America’

    Excerpts:

    KM: Meyerson’s hatred for the White South is not at all surprising. He also hates the White North, East, and West.

    Virtually by definition, the multicultural future will have identity politics—just not for Whites if Meyerson has his way.

    KM: Buchanan also notes that “Harold looks forward to the day that a surging Latino population forces ‘epochal political change’ on a detestable white South.” Right. Meyerson was particularly thrilled by the 2012 election results from California, greeting the non-White political surge:

    Meyerson: There are many ways to illustrate the descent of the California Republican Party into oblivion. A starting point is the demographic breakdown of the members of Congress elected last week in the state.

    Assuming the leaders in the few remaining close races hold their leads, there will be 38 Democrats and 15 Republicans representing California in Congress come January. Of those 38 Democrats, 18 are women, nine are Latinos, five are Asian Americans, three are African Americans, four are Jews and at least one is gay. Just 12 are white men. Of the 15 Republicans, on the other hand, all are white men — not a woman, let alone a member of a racial minority or a Jew, among them.

    KM: Notice that Meyerson does not classify Jews with Whites. Would that Harvard did the same. Pretty clearly, Meyerson as a Jew, does not idenify with White America.

  15. “I was the one who attacked the WN move to call Jews and even some non-Jewish Middle Easterners “non-white” and then insist Southern Europeans are white. I never cared who got included or not. You can exclude Jews without arguing they are non-white.”

    Narrowing the definition of race down to skin tone is a residue of crackpot racial theories from the nineteenth century that ignore scientific advances that provide a better understanding of race and racial subgroups. DNA gives the lie to any concept of “racial purity.”

    Part of the problem is conflating the immigration which taking place today (“race replacement” or whatever) designed to obliterate cultural and racial differences with the healthy and normal exchange that naturally occurs between groups. The justifiable anger this induces causes many to lash out emotionally without much if any thought.

    If self-styled “Nordics” really want to maintain their “white purity” why don’t they abandon the alphabet, religions, and other cultural advancements they inherited from Semitic and Latin cultures and go back to using Odin’s runes in some imaginary racially pure aryan nation. At least it’s a way to rid themselves of the influence of and cultural contamination from their olive skinned nemeses from the Mediterranean.

    IMO, with the exception of Sub-Saharan african stock (negroes), there isn’t any real dysgenic effect from intergroup contact. The differences between negroes and the other racial groups is quite significant. Negro atavistic characteristics (low impulse control, lack of future time orientation, etc.) suggest to me that they require some sort of quarantine from the larger civilized society, be that the yoke of the slave, segregation, or transportation. There is simply too much evolutionary distance between the negro and other racial groups. I’d be happy to admit I’m wrong if anyone can produce real evidence to the contrary.

    Arguing about subgroup differences among “whites” is counterproductive and only muddies the water. Any idiot with two eyes in his head can see that Jews are white. DNA analysis reveals as much, however upsetting this may be to the Nordic Herrenfolk among us. The ultimate authority of der Fuehrer should not be questioned.

    It’s a bit silly to condemn inbreeding among ghetto Jews and yet infer that “Nordic” racial purity is somehow a desirable aim at the same time, if you ask me.
    But, if you want to stay stuck on stupid, I really don’t give a fat rat’s ass.
    Have it your way.

    Deo Vindice

  16. IMO, with the exception of Sub-Saharan african stock (negroes), there isn’t any real dysgenic effect from intergroup contact.

    This is commonsense, which evades deracinated people searching for an identity much the same way “muh pills” elude an Alzheimer’s patient.

  17. Iceman,

    That’s fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Nevertheless, I think my point would still stand even if no Jews existed in the world. That is to say, you have been very insistent, based on your interpretation of Coon, that southern Europeans are best classified as ‘white.’ In contrast – and I hesitate to say this, given the ‘baggage’ concerned – I have taken the Nordicist line (something very close to McCulloch’s distinctions) that by the time one gets to southern Europe a certain racial line (and maybe more than one) has been crossed (and most certainly with respect to southeastern Europe) – while still allowing, of course, that a sizable proportion of the population in those realms could fairly be classified white even according to Nordicist standards. Further, I assert this would be the principle that obtains if one were to generalize the position taken, on the whole, by the discussions that occur on non-WN race forums, which, for better or worse, are the best measure available of the racially-minded opinion on the matter. There is no unanimity of opinion there, but there is a general consensus.

    You’re well aware that, much to the consternation of WNs, particularly the ‘hardcore’ variety, there are no obvious or ‘scientific’ racial lines, yet if one cares about racial belonging and racial existence one is forced to draw the lines somewhere; and no matter how imperfectly it’s done it beats drawing no lines whatsoever. This is the racial reality we’ve inherited and it must be dealt with as it exists, rather than how one wishes it might be.

    With respect to Jews, I think the point you just made is undeniable: speaking solely in terms of race, it’s plainly silly to exclude Jews (or ‘Jewish genes’) while simultaneously insisting that southern Europeans are an integral part of anyone’s definition of white or European.

  18. “IMO, with the exception of Sub-Saharan african stock (negroes), there isn’t any real dysgenic effect from intergroup contact.”

    I think it depends on context.

    If you have a 98% homogenous population with a strong sense of identity and a cohesive culture then i agree.

    If you have a 50% population fragmented every which way by cultural poison and no sense of common identity then it matters a lot.

  19. DNA gives the lie to any concept of “racial purity.”

    That may be so, but it misses the point that much of the value of race resides in visual indentification. Race matters socially in large part because the implied understanding that takes place between individuals of the same race in any social interaction is “you and I, pal, we share something important in common.” The social interaction that occurs when that parameter is satisfied is significantly different (greatly superior, in my view) to a social interaction that occurs when that parameter is not satisfied. The social interaction can still be pleasant between members of different racial stripes, but it lacks, for want of a better way to put it, a ‘certain something.’

    And here we get down to the brass tacks. It’s simply a baseline fact of racial reality that certain European ‘types’ that are preponderant in northern Europe occur only sporadically, or at least far less frequently, in southern Europe, and with respect to a narrower range of those racial types, they essentially do not occur at all in the latter. Objective principles that would determine just how much this baseline fact should matter are notoriously difficult to establish, and not least because the issue is intensely emotional; regardless of what standards one applies in drawing a line those excluded, who would otherwise very much wish (or ‘deserve’) to be included, invariably rue the arbitrariness of the standard. And of course there is also what we could refer to as Himmler’s “A1 Jew dilemma”: sure, it is said, most Jews are blah blah blah [some form of ‘evil’], but this one, he’s A1. The problem is virtually everyone is going to have his A1 Jew or A1 Sicilian or A1 Greek and so on. Those individuals rated ‘not A1’ rightfully raise the issue of just what grounds they’re being made to suffer social disability on, and if one relents and includes them too then it defeats the purpose of drawing the distinction in the first place. It’s very a problematic phenomenon and the issue cannot be skirted; some acceptable way of resolving it simply has to be found.

    My approach has been to emphasize the value of racial belonging, as opposed to the standard WN fare of ‘superiority.’ If superiority is the principle given for taking a racial stand then it’s completely understandable that those who feel ‘close enough’ will clamor for inclusion while those who understand full well that they fall outside the racial parameters will decry racialism wholesale. Any reasonable appraisal of racial debate on the issue cannot fail to note that this precisely what occurs.

    But if racial belonging is the principle given for taking a racial stand then much of the opposition and obstructionism melts away. People who otherwise gave very little or no thought to racial issues find it much easier to cultivate a sense of racial identity and to assume a pro-racial-but-not-anti-white political stance because the risks vs benefit calculation of racialism is dramatically altered. It now matters much less (or even not at all) whether one is classified as ‘white’ or not, because the point is to enjoy racial belonging rather than to belong to a ‘superior’ racial grouping. If what I’m arguing here is correct then one can only conclude that supremacists WNs have been their own worst enemies.

    No-man,
    This is commonsense, which evades deracinated people searching for an identity much the same way “muh pills” elude an Alzheimer’s patient.

    It doesn’t just affect deracinated people searching for an identity; it also affects very much ‘racinated’ people rightfully wondering just where it leaves their group.

  20. It doesn’t just affect deracinated people searching for an identity; it also affects very much ‘racinated’ people rightfully wondering just where it leaves their group.

    I think you’re operating from a false cognate. A person with roots doesn’t wonder where their “group” is.

  21. IMO, with the exception of Sub-Saharan african stock (negroes), there isn’t any real dysgenic effect from intergroup contact.

    Again we’re seeing here the inherent arbitrariness of racialism. By ‘any real,’ of course, Apulieus means any significant dysgenic effect. But that’s a judgment call, and it’s one I’m willing to bet is driven more by emotion than scientific objectivity. While I’m convinced that it’s perfectly possible to happily accept being characterized as a ‘less than’ (be it individually or racially) it remains true that nobody wants to be characterized as a ‘less than’ (again, be it individually or racially). Human nature is to want to be superior, to be ‘better than,’ not less than. And indeed this explains much of the fascination with race among classical WNs. I’ve even had one WN tell me that apart from being superior he couldn’t think of any other reason to care about race. In contrast, I can think of a thousand reasons.

  22. I think you’re operating from a false cognate. A person with roots doesn’t wonder where their “group” is.

    He doesn’t wonder “where” his group is; he knows where it is (or what it is). But when the distinction of superiority/inferiority and its genetic basis is introduced people do wonder what the implications for their group are. That was my point. ‘Dysgenics’ is not just something that only affects deracinated people in search of an identity, as you claimed.

    Furthermore, judging by reactions on race boards, people ‘with roots’ not only question where genetic superiority/inferiority or ‘dysgenics’ leaves their group, it also causes many of them to question their group allegiance. I’ve observed this effect not only among Europeans but also among heavily mixed ethnicities in Latin America. For instance, Puerto Ricans or Mexicans once certain that a heavily black or heavy indio Puerto Rican or Mexican was their ethnic “brother” come to question their allegiance to that individual. This is stomach-turning stuff for equalitarians and, I have to suspect, a major reason behind their obstinate refusal to permit official recognition of HBD realities.

  23. IMO, with the exception of Sub-Saharan african stock (negroes), there isn’t any real dysgenic effect from intergroup contact.

    With all I said above, I want to add that I firmly believe in the value of focusing on negroes. Whether WNs care to think about it or not, it’s true that every race (or ethnicity or ‘racial group’) stands to benefit from excluding negroes – and this is true even largely mulatto countries like Brazil or Dominican Republic. If race is to again matter in society, the desirability of keeping out negroes is something any and every race can rally around and can act as a basis on which to support other races. Equalitarians can be counted on to resist bitterly, but Sub-Saharan Africans’ torrid birth rate will so substantially increase their numbers in the world – and this is a globalized world, as we’re incessantly reminded, so we should think globally – that it will seem less and less, as African numbers grow, that the rest of the world is ganging up on a ‘tiny minority’; instead it will seem more and more that the rest of the world is taking obviously appropriate measures in dealing with the African demographic explosion.

  24. Hunter Wallace says:

    ‘The Bible explicitly endorses slavery.’

    Well, the bible certainly has many references to slavery.

    Very briefly.

    Jews enslaved in Egypt and also many accounts of jews enslaving other peoples under the direction of God.

    Jesus comes along, tells them they are now out of God’s favor and pronounces horrible judgments against them.

    Romans commence to wipe most of them out, destroy their temple and leave the place a pile of rubble.

    The remaining jews are led away captive – slaves again.

    Most biblical scholars do not believe the New Testament endorses slavery contrary to some on this site. We’ve been through that, I’ll not go there again.

    Hunter says the bible endorses slavery. Present tense. He does not say endorsed.

    So, let me ask you theologians who use the bible to justify slavery a few questions.

    Is any particular race or nation under the direction of God to do so?

    Or doesn’t it matter to you?

    Can Christians enslave another group for fun and profit?

    Christians enslaving other Christians?

    For what length of time? Under what scenarios?

    How are the slaves to be treated?

    Do they have any rights? Who decides?

    I was thinking about Stonelifter running off to Europe.

    For the sake of argument, suppose he is set upon by Gypsies or pirates or a group of Hajis somewhere who thought it would be cool to enslave him, his wife and child.

    Would that be condoned or endorsed by the bible?

    Or, what if the North having won the war decided to enslave the South, niggers and Whites alike?

    Any objections?

    After all, just as many Blues were praying to God for victory as the Greys.

    If the South had won would it have been okay for them to enslave the North?

    What about jews enslaving Whites, or niggers enslaving any group?

    What are the rules of the game? Who gets to decide?

    You can’t just throw out a statement – The bible endorses slavery- and let it go at that.

  25. Excellent comments, Silver.

    “Again we’re seeing here the inherent arbitrariness of racialism. By ‘any real,’ of course, Apulieus means any significant dysgenic effect. But that’s a judgment call, and it’s one I’m willing to bet is driven more by emotion than scientific objectivity.”

    Perhaps it is a judgment call with a significant subjective component. On the other hand, I think you discount the natural hybridization that is an ongoing part of the process of evolution among racial subgroups and is easily identifiable from the genetic evidence at hand.

    Few racial groups exist in isolation to others and those that do tend to display dysgenic characteristics due to the inbreeding that follows from their isolation.

    Perhaps Sub-Sarahan africans are simply a conspicuous example of this dysgenic effect, having developed in relative isolation below the torrid zone (aka Sahara desert). Still, one cannot disregard the genetic differences between negroes and the other races. All the other races have much more in common with each other than any one of them have with negroes.

    Of course there is more to English ethnicity and identity than its racial component. Common experience (history), customs, religion(s), and other cultural aspects are also at work.

    I also think you are conflating ethnicity with race to a degree. There are other factors beside race in the equation. The understanding that an individual is “one of us” is the result of more complex set of considerations, one of which is merely the acceptance that comes from the passage of time spent in close contact. Otherwise the occurrence of individual assimilation into particular subgroups and the hybrids that result from interbreeding that produce new subgroups would not occur.

    Genetically speaking, Englishmen are predominantly Celtic with an significant Germanic admixture with other smaller trace admixtures. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes definitely left their mark, but I am equally sure that the Romans and others also left their mark through the centuries.

    It is a matter of degree and not of kind. The evolution of this particular subgroup indicates a rather dynamic process that takes place over time. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

    The existence of racial subgroups seem to me to be part of an overall evolutionary differentiation that naturally occurs in any species. Group identity is malleable to a degree, but certainly not fungible as the liberal multiculturalists seem to think.

    Their viewpoint seems to be an extension of the blank slate theory error from the Enlightenment. Add to that the accompanying Enlightenment error of the noble savage and you have the rationalist justification for the despicable miscegenation that so many clear sighted whites find so repulsive.

    I’m certainly no geneticist, so I very well may be wrong on much as, like most of us here, I tend to rely upon my own personal observations and intuitions based upon my experience. I don’t think simpleminded and arbitrary distinctions count for much. You seem to agree.

    Good discussion. Hope it doesn’t get dragged down into the muck.

    Deo Vindice

  26. I don’t care to get drawn into any disputes here, but here goes my two cents:
    On the Bible endorsing slavery, I would just say the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery, nor does it forbid it. And above all it does not refer to slavery as an ”abomination” as most people today seem to believe it to be. On my now-inactive blog I once disputed someone’s calling historical slavery an abomination, and immediately was challenged by a Christian reader who wanted to know why I don’t agree with that popular view.
    I said because the Bible nowhere states it to be so.

    The move towards abolitionism in Europe and the U.S. was based more on European “Enlightement” values than on the Bible. It was based on humanism and the idea of universal human rights, and on some abstract notion that all people ”deserve” certain rights and ”deserve” democracy. All who read this blog must know that the Founding Fathers did not favor ”democracy” and in fact condemned it. Most said that not everyone was capable of democracy or ”liberty”. Nowadays most think everyone has a natural right to be ‘free’, whatever that may mean to them.

    As to what the Bible says on slavery, I’ll just cite a few Scriptures: Deuteronomy 15:1, Leviticus 25:53-54, Exodus 21:5 . The Bible regulates slavery while not forbidding or condemning it, and the book of Philemon in the New Testament is about a runaway slave, who is told by Paul to return and serve his master honestly, while his master is told to treat his slave kindly. That’s it. No talk of how evil slavery is or how it must be forbidden everywhere, as today’s ”Christians” insist. Nobody wants to be a slave and few people in this country want to enslave anybody. But since slavery somehow became the worst sin imaginable in most people’s minds, it will always be used as a bludgeon against us by anti-Confederates on both right and left, and of course by blacks, to condemn Whites in general. So it seems important to me that we put the issue back in perspective and in context, and take away its power over us.

  27. “Human nature is to want to be superior, to be ‘better than,’ not less than

    With all I said above, I want to add that I firmly believe in the value of focusing on negroes. Whether WNs care to think about it or not, it’s true that every race (or ethnicity or ‘racial group’) stands to benefit from excluding negroes….”

    Would not exclusion of negroes turn another group into the next underclass thus decidedly not benefiting every racial group, at least according to the human desire to not be the lowest rung of society?

  28. No, Silver is wrong. Blacks are a sideshow. The focus needs to be on challenging and ultimately displacing those with power. This number is mainly the White liberals (Yankee worldview in ODs parlance) and Jews, and the legions of white liberals who support them. Most blacks are just trying to get through the day and don’t bother anyone.

  29. “Most blacks are just trying to get through the day and don’t bother anyone.”

    Risible. What planet are you from?

    Deo Vindice

  30. Hey Apuleius-

    Your buddy Stonelifter, in an email to me, and referring specifically to Italians, said to me, “My ancestors biggest mistake was letting you half-niggers into this country”. What do you say about that?

  31. Don’t really care about your pathetic attempt to “drive the wedge,” Chris.

    Stonelifter and I were always on good terms. As far as I’m concerned we still are.

    Deo Vindice

  32. All I can say is if this site doesn’t primarily focus on southern nationalism then I view this site as a waste of time my time.

    I don’t care how people in the north or other white countries decide to govern themselves.

  33. VA says:

    ‘I don’t care to get drawn into any disputes here, but here goes my two cents:

    Sam: Let’s skip the rhetoric. Lay out your case in detail. Answer my questions directly please, one by one and I will have more respect for you.

    Let me refresh your memory .

    So, let me ask you theologians who use the bible to justify slavery a few questions.

    1) Is any particular race or nation under the direction of God to do so?

    2) Or doesn’t it matter to you?

    3) Can Christians enslave another group for fun and profit?

    4) Christians enslaving other Christians?

    5) For what length of time? Under what scenarios?

    6) How are the slaves to be treated?

    7) Do they have any rights? Who decides?

    I was thinking about Stonelifter running off to Europe.

    For the sake of argument, suppose he is set upon by Gypsies or pirates or a group of Hajis somewhere who thought it would be cool to enslave him, his wife and child.

    8) Would that be condoned or endorsed by the bible?

    9) Or, what if the North having won the war decided to enslave the South, niggers and Whites alike?

    10) Any objections?

    After all, just as many Blues were praying to God for victory as the Greys.

    11) If the South had won would it have been okay for them to enslave the North?

    12) What about jews enslaving Whites, or niggers enslaving any group?

    13) What are the rules of the game? Who gets to decide?

    Throughout history innocent people have been snatched from their homes by slavers and sold to buyers who often worked them to death.

    14) Is that practice sinful? Is that something Jesus would endorse?

  34. “I don’t care how people in the north or other white countries decide to govern themselves.”

    So does that mean that from now on mercenary southerners of global imperialism will only fight endless Banker wars to change governments in NON-white countries? Serbia was an anomaly, then?

    That comment on the “slave base of culture” was devastating, Sam. But White racialism (wait, there is no such thing as a white people or race, I meant “ethnoism”) is receiving a tremendous boost of popularity, especially south of the Line, from this re-discovery of the slave base of culture and that slavery is Divinely ordained.

Comments are closed.