← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 14420 | Posts: 51 | Started: 2004-07-03
2004-07-03 19:34 | User Profile
[url=http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Guest-Column-29.html]Southerners and Nationalism[/url]
by Greg Kay
As the Southern Movement struggles along, stumbling over itself in the usual bumbling, squabbling manner that we have all come to know and shake our heads at, one is left to wonder "Why?" Not why we go on (Southerners are too stubborn to do anything else.), but why we fail? We have a demonstrably more liberty-minded philosophy in our States' Rights political creed than any other system on the face of the Earth. Even in this apostate age, we in the "Bible Belt" are the last, greatest bastion of Biblical Christianity left, not just in America but in the world. So why do we fail and keep failing?
The answer is simple and in the form of a question: "Who and what are we?" We not only don't know, but most of us don't even have a clue that we have to answer that one, overriding, all-important question. Unless and until we do that, our Cause is as truly lost as our critics claim and the whole movement is dead in the water.
Who and what are we? What is a Southerner and what is Dixie?
First, what is a Southerner? Is it a generic term referring to solely to long-time residence in a geographic area? Does simply living here make you a Southerner or does it take something else - like blood perhaps?
I submit that it does, and that the appellation of 'Southerner' is not a geographic term - it is an ethnic term, and that Southerners are part of that ethnic group that was first recognized as such in writings dating back to the 1850's - the Southern Race.
The quintessential Southern author Michael Grissom, in his greatest work, "Can the South Survive?", defined the word "Southerner" by its traditional meaning as the European inhabitants of the Southern States. Until the 1950's, 'Southerner' was the only word necessary to refer to this particular group. Other peoples, such as Negroes, live in the South, and sometimes in large numbers; however, as Grissom pointed out, the idea of 'Black Southerners' is a comparatively recent media invention originating outside the South, and 'Southerner' is certainly a term that Dixie's colored population has never sought for itself, for they see the term as defining the people whom they consider their adversaries. Despite the fact that on very rare occasions the exceptional individual with origins outside either definition - geographic or ethnic - may possibly, through a sustained, willing effort over time, be adopted into the Southern 'family' so to speak, and be either accepted or at least tolerated by other Southerners in their ranks, tradition, nature, observation, and common sense all tell us that the old definition is still the overwhelmingly correct one, and the sad fact that so many of our people are now willing to accept as Southern anyone from a Uruguayan to an Uzbek to a Ubangi who merely has the good fortune to live here is more of an example of the success of long-term Northern egalitarian brain-washing than it is of actual ethnic change.
Not only is the Southerner ethnically different from the non- Europeans who live in his native land, he is also very different from those other Western descendents who appear superficially like him in the Northern States - every bit as different as he is to his cousins in the Old World. Their close proximity does not really matter - after all, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are quite close together, and France and Germany border each other, but only a fool would insist that they are all "one people." What makes them so very different is not their cultures, but the different ancestral peoples and combinations of peoples who settled in those respective places, and fathered the races that the countries are now called after, which in turn gave rise to those cultures. A people are not the product of a culture; cultures are the products of people.
Likewise the differences between North and South; a simple study will indicate that, while the founding populations of both were European, they were formed by different combinations of peoples and in very different proportions. Over the generations, the peculiar combinations in the areas below the Mason/Dixon Line blended to form an ethnicity unique to the South and the South alone (Of course it has its own variations, but they are minor ones, like those of different members of the same family, rather than of entirely separate peoples.). This is the Southern Race; it is what has given Dixie its traditions and lifeways, and it was blood, rather than differing political ideals, that truly separated us from the North: a separation that began long before 1861.
It's not a question of locality either; as long as we maintained the same Southern ethnicity, Southerners would still be what we are if we were in Siberia rather than Savannah. The land and climate of the South did not 'make' Southerners what they are; it was the Southerners who made the South a reflection of themselves.
Which brings us to the second question, and one which underlies much of the strife in the movement, and is nearly as important to the basis of what we are doing as was the first query:
What is Dixie - this Confederacy of ours? Is it primarily a country...or is it a nation? They are two very different things, which may go together but not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to be both, but one or the other must form the basis of that state's establishment, and which one that is will determine its ultimate success or failure, as history has shown time and time again.
Was the Confederacy primarily a country? One of the factions of the Southern movement strongly hold that it was. A country is a construct of geography and political philosophy which define its boundaries and form the basis of its existence, rather than the dominant ethnic and associated socio-religious heritage of its inhabitants and are bound with ideas (which history has proven to be rather transient things) rather than natural associations. Countries attempt to bind divergent nations together in an unnatural cohabitation, which is why they are closely related to empires, and why they seldom prosper.
Take the country of Israel for example: it has been trying for over 50 years to forcibly tie together two nations - Zion and Palestine - and it simply does not work. The country of Iraq, given the opportunity with the abrupt removal of its government, is now showing signs of splitting into at least three different nations, all based around the ethnicity of the peoples formerly bound together there. Other good examples of countries are Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, both of whom are now largely dissolved back into the various nations that made them up; and Great Britain (not to be confused with the nation of England) which had already lost most of Ireland long ago, is in the process of losing the Northern Six Counties, as well as seeing rising separatist movements in Scotland and Wales (All three of which are nations, and as such are bound by instinct to seek the establishment of their own countries.). The United States is also a country, rather than a nation, and only two generations had barely passed since its founding when its government found it expedient to pin the nations that made it up together with bayonets. It has yet to stand the test of realistic historical time, and if it were actually a nation rather than a country, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
A nation, on the other hand, may or may not exist as a country (In extreme cases a nation may even exist in various lands in scattered exile, like the proverbial 'wandering Jew'.), although its nature is such that it invariably strives to do so. The proper definition of a nation, from the Holy Bible to the Oxford dictionary, is not a political philosophy or a land mass, but a people, bound together with a common heritage, religion, language and, most importantly, ancestry: in short, bound in blood, which time has proven to be a much stronger and more enduring chain than politics, documents, or even seas and mountain ranges.
The Confederate States of America met the definition of a country certainly - it had a defined territory, a government, a flag, a military, a diplomatic corps, and a constitution - but did it meet that of a nation? Despite politically correct protests to the contrary, there is no question that the dominant race and dominant force behind the religious and cultural views and traditions that define the South and make it what it is, are those people previously defined as Southerners: that particular breed of European people, indigenous to Dixie, and of a common ancestry, religion, language, and heritage, which amply fulfill all of the qualifications for that latter designation.
There is also no question that many if not most of our heritage-born lifeways and traditions are unique only to us and to no other people. Similarly, despite the diligent and obsessive efforts of the 'modern' churches and the currently prevalent transcendentalism of the old radical Abolitionists that they practice, there still remains a solid core of flint-hard Biblical literalism that is the religion we still have in common, and the one that still manages to stretch across many of even our most divergent denominations. This un-hyphenated, unbending, unapologetic, and distinctly Southern Christian attitude is the spiritual glue that holds us together.
Finally, we have a common language that the occupying powers of the United States have stigmatized but still haven't managed to beat out of us: our own Southern English, spoken here in all its shades like nowhere else.
We had and still have, at least for now, all of the requirements of a nation, and I submit that a nation - the Southern Nation - is exactly what we were and are, and our wonderful political ideals are simply a natural outgrowth of our identity as a people. We are Southerners, what ever we do and where ever we go, we will still be part of the Southern Nation as long as we remember who we are and act accordingly. Once we realize that, not only will we finally be on our way toward realizing our aspirations of having a country of our own once again, but in the meantime and even more importantly, this renewed realization of our nationalism and its accompanying sense of group identity will protect and preserve us as a distinct people; it will strengthen us in our struggle to reclaim our rightful place in the world, and it will fill us with a new and much- needed resolve to better ourselves both as individuals and as Southerners while we not only reclaim what is ours but reach out and build a future that will make us proud, and a country that will not make God ashamed. A country and a future not bound simply by geography or by politics, but restrained only by the will of Almighty God, by the depth of our Christian faith, and by our own innate drive and abilities.
How far can we go? Who today can say what our limits are? Perhaps, in the centuries to come, a young father with his wife and children much like our own, will say grace before a table of fried chicken and cornbread in a city called New Richmond, on a distant planet under the light of an alien star...and thank God that they're Southern!
[url=http://www.geocities.com/gregmkay/]Greg Kay's Homepage: The Militant South[/url]
2004-07-03 19:41 | User Profile
[url=http://www.littlegeneva.com/mt/archives/000291.html]Harry Seabrook commentary[/url]
"The cosmopolitan state has redefined citizenship, changing it from an ethno-racial claim to a matter of political designation, from a real nation to a proposition nation. Tanner writes: "Recently in the news we have seen unmistakable evidences of this transformation of citizenship - from the issuing of driving permits (a form of valid identification), to fresh news that work history in a foreign country, namely Mexico, can be used by illegal aliens to meet qualifications for U.S. Social Security benefits. Citizenship is dying the death of a thousand cuts. And this is the citizenship for which we are called to surrender our treasure, which is given over to aliens under effectively racial criterion and furthermore render to Caesar the blood of our children to water foreign deserts? What is such a citizenship worth to a member of the founding and building race?"
The modern Christian likes the word alien no more than he likes the word race. Such terms imply division, and we can have none of that if everyone is everyone. Samuel Huntington asks: Who are we? It's a question that Christians and Southerners had better answer correctly. From the wrong answer, it logically follows that some of these Christians have no right to call themselves Southerners at all. When they say, "I love the South," they must mean that they love a certain geographical area. When we say we love the South, we mean that we love the Southern people, who are white Christians descended from the north and west of Europe; the very same Americans who sought to preserve the old republic. Take them away and the South ceases to be Southern. Likewise, when white Christians have ceased, Western Civilization will have ceased. There is nothing particularly wrong with Asians, Mexicans, and blacks, but don't expect them to carry our heroes, myths, and traditions into the 22nd century. They have heroes, myths, and traditions of their own. God save the South.
Our opponents in this matter are essentially gnostics. They expect to identify themselves through their faith, which is a spiritual thing held above the gritty world below. Unfortunately for them, God didn't create us this way. We are both physical and spiritual beings, and the sacraments are the point at which the two converge. (The sacraments of the religion of Equality are democracy and capitalism.) Let us seek unity in the sacraments, not only for diverse racial groups but also for diverse theological disciplines. Above all, let us understand that to live in peace, it must be a scriptural peace - not peace as the world defines it, which is simply togetherness. The greatest example of togetherness in history was the Tower of Babel. Christ said He did not come to bring this kind of peace but a sword. "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you" (John 14:27). There are many members in one body, and this is why the peace of Christ is called the peace that passes understanding. The Babelist definition of peace is perfectly understandable. It doesn't work, but they have made it perfectly understandable, just as they have robbed the gospel of mystery."
2004-07-03 20:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][url=http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Guest-Column-29.html]Southerners and Nationalism[/url]
by Greg Kay
As the Southern Movement struggles along, stumbling over itself in the usual bumbling, squabbling manner that we have all come to know and shake our heads at, one is left to wonder "Why?" Not why we go on (Southerners are too stubborn to do anything else.), but why we fail? We have a demonstrably more liberty-minded philosophy in our States' Rights political creed than any other system on the face of the Earth. Even in this apostate age, we in the "Bible Belt" are the last, greatest bastion of Biblical Christianity left, not just in America but in the world. So why do we fail and keep failing?
**The answer is simple and in the form of a question: "Who and what are we?" We not only don't know, but most of us don't even have a clue that we have to answer that one, overriding, all-important question. **
(I think Kay speaks for himself here.)>
Unless and until we do that, our Cause is as truly lost as our critics claim and the whole movement is dead in the water.
Who and what are we? What is a Southerner and what is Dixie?
Answer
Not only is the Southerner ethnically different from the non- Europeans who live in his native land, he is also very different from those other Western descendents who appear superficially like him in the Northern States - every bit as different as he is to his cousins in the Old World. Their close proximity does not really matter - after all, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are quite close together, and France and Germany border each other, but only a fool would insist that they are all "one people." What makes them so very different is not their cultures, but the different ancestral peoples and combinations of peoples who settled in those respective places, and fathered the races that the countries are now called after, which in turn gave rise to those cultures. A people are not the product of a culture; cultures are the products of people.
Likewise the differences between North and South; a simple study will indicate that, while the founding populations of both were European, they were formed by different combinations of peoples and in very different proportions. Over the generations, the peculiar combinations in the areas below the Mason/Dixon Line blended to form an ethnicity unique to the South and the South alone (Of course it has its own variations, but they are minor ones, like those of different members of the same family, rather than of entirely separate peoples.). This is the Southern Race; it is what has given Dixie its traditions and lifeways, and it was blood, rather than differing political ideals, that truly separated us from the North: a separation that began long before 1861.
[url=http://www.geocities.com/gregmkay/]Greg Kay's Homepage: The Militant South[/url][/QUOTE]
This is Greg Kay, who I got to know very well over at Rebboard of Souther League. What he doesn't tell you here is what he specifically thinks this "unique southern ethnicity" is. Kay is one of the advocates of that silly doctrine of Southern Celtism, which, succinctly, holds that the Southern ethnicity is Celtism, the real enemy is the Anglo-Saxon, and the struggle of the Southern people against "Northern" domination identical to the (semi-PC) struggles of the other "Celtic Nationalist" movements, such as the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists and - no less - the IRA.
I think they are almost as silly, if it weren't so deceptive and ultimately destructive, as "Trisk" and his "Pan-European Folkish Nationalism" or whatever.
2004-07-03 23:26 | User Profile
Okie: He mentions Irish, but nothing on his site or in his links to support what you say. That's an ugly label you're trying to put on him, and I think you owe it to your credibility to post some proof, or remove the accusation.
You from the north by any chance?
2004-07-03 23:39 | User Profile
[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southernracerelations/[/url]
2004-07-04 00:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Okie: He mentions Irish, but nothing on his site or in his links to support what you say. That's an ugly label you're trying to put on him, and I think you owe it to your credibility to post some proof, or remove the accusation. Anyone familiar with the southern movement knows the depth and degree to which the silly little "Southern Celtic" movement penetrated. I think I even read something about it in Chronicles. It was encouraged by the very (at least formally) reputatable historian Forrest MacDonald, if you know anything about southron politicians. (Maybe he was too busy at the time with nuptials to his new jewish wife to give history the attention he usually does)
You can read between the lines and see it is pretty obviouswhere Kay is headed. Where else could it be. Although he doesn't cross his T's and dot his I's. As I said personally I've heard express his utter contempt for the British -he seems to have very strong ties and sympathies with the Irish and Irish Nationalism. So I'm sure I'm not misrepresenting him personally. As to his position, maybe he's more nuanced or haseven grown slightly now, I don't know.
Not that I think the Irish case is entirely without merit. Like all countries and nationalities British history certainly has its regrettable moments. But to sympathize with the IRA for a Nationalist is along the lines of sympathizing with Castro, the Sandinistas, or Stalin IMO.
You from the north by any chance?[/QUOTE] Like many here, yes bigod, I have some strong ties from up Nawth, although I reside like my avatar suggests in a warmer place now.
2004-07-04 01:51 | User Profile
As I said personally I've heard express his utter contempt for the British -he seems to have very strong ties and sympathies with the Irish and Irish Nationalism. So I'm sure I'm not misrepresenting him personally. As to his position, maybe he's more nuanced or haseven grown slightly now, I don't know.
Not that I think the Irish case is entirely without merit. Like all countries and nationalities British history certainly has its regrettable moments.
Progress can be made when the Irish and British realize we live in an age in which they are both threatened with collective extinction, and they'd better bond together because they have much more in common with each other than they do a Cambodian or Zulu tribesman.
2004-07-04 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Progress can be made when the Irish and British realize we live in an age in which they are both threatened with collective extinction, and they'd better bond together because they have much more in common with each other than they do a Cambodian or Zulu tribesman.[/QUOTE]
Try telling that to some of the Irish involved :lol:
Well, sometimes its been said "it takes brothers to truly hate" - and that's certainly true in conflicts like this. But its also true that there is a broad, if often not loud spoken, majority that recognizes this sort of thing.
Heck, we see it in America, albeit on a joking level, even in little intra-state rivalries, such as University vs. State U. etc.
2004-07-04 12:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]
Like many here, yes bigod, I have some strong ties from up Nawth, although I reside like my avatar suggests in a warmer place now.[/QUOTE]
Enough said. That's what I thought.
2004-07-04 14:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]What he doesn't tell you here is what he specifically thinks this "unique southern ethnicity" is. Kay is one of the advocates of that silly doctrine of Southern Celtism, which, succinctly, holds that the Southern ethnicity is Celtism, the real enemy is the Anglo-Saxon, and the struggle of the Southern people against "Northern" domination identical to the (semi-PC) struggles of the other "Celtic Nationalist" movements, such as the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists and - no less - the IRA.[/QUOTE]
While its obvious "the real enemy" are our rootless cosmopolitan, pork-dodging, er, "friends," I still think that Kay and the other Southern Celticists are making a case that, from a historical standpoint, is not entirely without merit. The South WAS disproportionately settled by Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen, while the North WAS disproportionately settled by English, Germans, Dutch and Swedes. These modestly different ethnic groups created, as is the innate tendency of varying ethnicities, their own similar, but distinct cultures. Frankly, the Union of Lincoln DOES seem rather Anglo-Saxon in character, as compared to the more pastoral (Jeffersonian?) culture of the Southern cavalier. Its also interesting to note that however more esthetically pleasing the Southern/Celtic culture may be seen to be (and its pretty much my personal genetic destiny to prefer things Celtic), when the Celtic culture went up against the Anglo-Saxon culture, it was defeated and more-or-less enslaved, just as in Europe (the point being that if Anglo-Saxon culture defeated Celtic culture in Europe, there's every reason to think it would also tend to have an edge in North America, as it apparently did).
Southern Celticism may be right or it may be hogwash. I don't know enough about the relevant history to make a firm commitment (although I'm pretty sure its not complete crap; it may well be 2/3rds crap, however). What I don't understand is why this idea seems so objectionable to you. Is it because some are using it to further divide American Whites? While that may be a valid criticism, I think it is one that is refuted by the simple fact that we Southerners ARE NOT AMERICAN WHITES. We're foreigners living under American occupation. Once the occupation ends and we have national sovereignty (again), hopefully we can be as good friends with you as we intend to be with Canada....
2004-07-04 21:54 | User Profile
I have heard Southerners argue that the South has an Anglo-Celtic identity. This is thesis is what I associate with 'Southern Celtism.'
But I have never heard a Southerner argue that the South represents a Celtic struggle against the Anglo-Saxons. Are there some link available for this view?
Answer
This is Greg Kay, who I got to know very well over at Rebboard of Souther League. What he doesn't tell you here is what he specifically thinks this "unique southern ethnicity" is. Kay is one of the advocates of that silly doctrine of Southern Celtism, which, succinctly, holds that the Southern ethnicity is Celtism, the real enemy is the Anglo-Saxon, and the struggle of the Southern people against "Northern" domination identical to the (semi-PC) struggles of the other "Celtic Nationalist" movements, such as the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists and - no less - the IRA.
I think they are almost as silly, if it weren't so deceptive and ultimately destructive, as "Trisk" and his "Pan-European Folkish Nationalism" or whatever.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-04 22:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]While its obvious "the real enemy" are our rootless cosmopolitan, pork-dodging, er, "friends," I still think that Kay and the other Southern Celticists are making a case that, from a historical standpoint, is not entirely without merit. The South WAS disproportionately settled by Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen, while the North WAS disproportionately settled by English, Germans, Dutch and Swedes. These modestly different ethnic groups created, as is the innate tendency of varying ethnicities, their own similar, but distinct cultures. Frankly, the Union of Lincoln DOES seem rather Anglo-Saxon in character, as compared to the more pastoral (Jeffersonian?) culture of the Southern cavalier. Its also interesting to note that however more esthetically pleasing the Southern/Celtic culture may be seen to be (and its pretty much my personal genetic destiny to prefer things Celtic), when the Celtic culture went up against the Anglo-Saxon culture, it was defeated and more-or-less enslaved, just as in Europe (the point being that if Anglo-Saxon culture defeated Celtic culture in Europe, there's every reason to think it would also tend to have an edge in North America, as it apparently did).
Southern Celticism may be right or it may be hogwash. I don't know enough about the relevant history to make a firm commitment (although I'm pretty sure its not complete crap; it may well be 2/3rds crap, however). What I don't understand is why this idea seems so objectionable to you. Is it because some are using it to further divide American Whites? While that may be a valid criticism, I think it is one that is refuted by the simple fact that we Southerners ARE NOT AMERICAN WHITES. We're foreigners living under American occupation. Once the occupation ends and we have national sovereignty (again), hopefully we can be as good friends with you as we intend to be with Canada....[/QUOTE] Well, the first settlers to both North and South were English. In fact, what happened, it seems to me, is that in many respects the War Between the States was a continuation of the English Civil War that happened a couple of hundred years earlier. Remember, the Puritains were the decendants of Oliver Cromwell's Roundheads, and for the most part Southerners were decendants of the Cavaliers. They both set themselves up on the coast and though outnumbered by then in both north and south, by 1861 they were both the well entrenched establishment. The other groups like the Scots Irish and Welch, and the Dutch and Germans came later, but before the Revolution, and they settled inland for the most part.
To this day you can go to South Carolina or Virginia, and it is immediately apparant that Charleston on the coast, with its high church Episcapalian base is quite distinct from say, Greenville and Spartanburg of the Appalachain foothills with its Scots Irish low church Baptist and Methodist culture. You can see the same differences between the Virginia Tidewater and the Western Virginia mountains. The coast was and is old money and inland is the frontier.
When I read Culture of Critique I found it interesting that Cromwell was one of Freud's heros because he was the one that first let the Jews into the British Isles. Both the Jews and the Puritains were and are zealots in everything they do and believe......or NOT believe. Maybe that is the tie that binds.
Zionists+Puritains= THE ENEMY, possibly???????????
2004-07-04 22:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I have heard Southerners argue that the South has an Anglo-Celtic identity. This is thesis is what I associate with 'Southern Celtism.'
But I have never heard a Southerner argue that the South represents a Celtic struggle against the Anglo-Saxons. Are there some link available for this view?[/QUOTE]Read the quotes I gave again. I think the implication is reasonably clear as to where he is leaving himself room to go. He is stressing western ethnic particularism, not western ethnic unity.
I don't have time to investigate everything these guys put out or there various shifts and changes. The "rainbow confederates" being just one example. But if anyone has time he might check for any links to the various Celtic nationalist parties, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc. I'd be surprised if they aren't there.
I do specifically remember The League of the South used to link to the Parti Quebecois and the Northern League of Italy, as a general example of where they were headed, although they were much more logical than Kay's thinking as much as I was acquainted with him. I don't know if he has too many links himself though, he and his site strike me personally now as a little cryptic. But based on what he's said in the past I'm sure he must have done so at some time.
2004-07-04 23:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I have heard Southerners argue that the South has an Anglo-Celtic identity. This is thesis is what I associate with 'Southern Celtism.'
But I have never heard a Southerner argue that the South represents a Celtic struggle against the Anglo-Saxons. Are there some link available for this view?[/QUOTE]Read the quotes I gave again. I think the implication is reasonably clear as to where he is leaving himself room to go. He is stressing western ethnic particularism, not western ethnic unity.
I don't have time to investigate everything these guys put out or there various shifts and changes. The "rainbow confederates" being just one example. But if anyone has time he might check for any links to the various Celtic nationalist parties, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc. I'd be surprised if they aren't there.
I do specifically remember The League of the South used to link to the Parti Quebecois and the Northern League of Italy, as a general example of where they were headed, although they were much more logical than Kay's thinking as much as I was acquainted with him. I don't know if he has too many links himself though, he and his site strike me personally now as a little cryptic. But based on what he's said in the past I'm sure he must have done so at some time.
2004-07-04 23:44 | User Profile
I agree that Kay is stressing Western ethnic particularism. What I was implying was that it was Anglo-Celtic in nature, not purely Celtic.
Links to Celtic nationalist parties are fully in keeping with secessionist themes, Celtic or otherwise. Ditto for links to Quebeckers and the Northern League.
If you up the Celtic content--and (to add more fuel to the fire) there is lots among the French and the Northern Italians--you up 'particularist' content. The Celts didn't appreciate being invaded by the Romans or the Germans, and their culture seems based around 'the local,' in a very strong way. However, in America, I have never seen this Celtic content turn anti-English or anti-Germanic/Nordic. (At least, not outside of the [Catholic] Irish-American context--a context having little to do with the South.) Southerner Protestants just think they are a little more Celtic than their Northern Protestant neighbors.
Anglo-Celtic Southern, Quebecker, or Northern Italian separatist-drives don't strike me as being particularly silly. They can be silly, of course, but I think they are a net plus for the goals of most whites outside of these movements, as well as for whites within.
2004-07-05 00:34 | User Profile
Darkstar and GaConfed are correct, according to what I have seen and believe. It's nice to see people actually posting based on fact and not personal opinion, Okie. The south IS Anglo-Celtic. Actually Anglo-Celtic-Saxon, now. There are some damn fine English farmers near the VA mountains, and some damn hearty Germans. If push came to shove, they'd be wearing gray and not blue...I think THAT's what bothers Okie about this Southron business. Chances are Okie pishposhes any Southern movement, being a far more educated and sophisticated man of the north and all.
2004-07-05 04:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I agree that Kay is stressing Western ethnic particularism. What I was implying was that it was Anglo-Celtic in nature, not purely Celtic. Anglo-Celtic? Now if you could find some link where he expresses this viewpoint or uses this term I would be quite surprised.
Links to Celtic nationalist parties are fully in keeping with secessionist themes, Celtic or otherwise. Ditto for links to Quebeckers and the Northern League. Secessionist ands particularist, yes. Nationalist, not per se. Particularists can be a very diverse lot, such as the Parti Quebecois and others show. Overall from what I've seen they seem to be able to include anyone to the left of Hitler and the right of Chairman Mao. Nationalist can find some of their element there, but so can some of the most thoroughly PC.
However, in America, I have never seen this Celtic content turn anti-English or anti-Germanic/Nordic. (At least, not outside of the [Catholic] Irish-American context--a context having little to do with the South.) I hadn't seen this outside of the Irish-American-Catholic context either untilI heard Greg Kay talk. When I heard him he sounded like the most hardcore *Sinn Fein[/]IRA, minus the overt calls for violence.
Southerner Protestants just think they are a little more Celtic than their Northern Protestant neighbors. Pretty much what I'd always thought too.
Anglo-Celtic Southern, Quebecker, or Northern Italian separatist-drives don't strike me as being particularly silly. They can be silly, of course, but I think they are a net plus for the goals of most whites outside of these movements, as well as for whites within.
*Most paleo's think so also, hence the membership of all but one of [I]Chronicles[/I] editors in League of South. The one exception though is noteworthy - Sam Francis, who is very articulate on why he does not participate in LOS in an old article I think we at one time had here.
2004-07-05 04:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]While its obvious "the real enemy" are our rootless cosmopolitan, pork-dodging, er, "friends," I still think that Kay and the other Southern Celticists are making a case that, from a historical standpoint, is not entirely without merit. The South WAS disproportionately settled by Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen, while the North WAS disproportionately settled by English, Germans, Dutch and Swedes. These modestly different ethnic groups created, as is the innate tendency of varying ethnicities, their own similar, but distinct cultures. Frankly, the Union of Lincoln DOES seem rather Anglo-Saxon in character, as compared to the more pastoral (Jeffersonian?) culture of the Southern cavalier. Its also interesting to note that however more esthetically pleasing the Southern/Celtic culture may be seen to be (and its pretty much my personal genetic destiny to prefer things Celtic), when the Celtic culture went up against the Anglo-Saxon culture, it was defeated and more-or-less enslaved, just as in Europe (the point being that if Anglo-Saxon culture defeated Celtic culture in Europe, there's every reason to think it would also tend to have an edge in North America, as it apparently did). Well my and a lot of historians who study the ancient Celtic-German division is that the differences between Celt and German tend to have been exagerated throughout history for various political and ideological reasons, starting with the Romans, who conceptually wished to divide these peoples along the empire's Rhine boundary, between intra-empire Celts and extra-empire Germans.
I'm not saying the celtic south theory has some points to it, but it is limited in value, and easily can become diversionary.
Southern Celticism may be right or it may be hogwash. I don't know enough about the relevant history to make a firm commitment (although I'm pretty sure its not complete crap; it may well be 2/3rds crap, however). What I don't understand is why this idea seems so objectionable to you. Is it because some are using it to further divide American Whites?
Precisely. For anyone in the national movement who does not recognize the devastating impact of any threat to our unity is incompreshensible to me> While that may be a valid criticism, I think it is one that is refuted by the simple fact that we Southerners ARE NOT AMERICAN WHITES. We're foreigners living under American occupation. Once the occupation ends and we have national sovereignty (again), hopefully we can be as good friends with you as we intend to be with Canada....[/QUOTE]We Southerners are not American Whites. That statement by itself indicates its potential downfalls to the nationalist. We need to remove the hypenations, both from white and American.
Now everyone knows here I am, at least for a nationalist, very much a Hitler-skeptic, if not a Hitler-phobe, and generally emphasize the differences between the American and German national experiences. But there is acertain similarity, and a certain logic, when we encounter the particularist question.
Read Hitler and Mein Kampf on the (very similar) Bavarian question, and read how he exposes the efforts of Germany's enemies to stir up Bavarian resentment against the Prussian. In spite of the fact that he himself of course was Bavarian himself, he came down almost squarely on the side of Prussian and Reich unity.
2004-07-05 04:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]
Most paleo's think so also, hence the membership of all but one of Chronicles editors in League of South. The one exception though is noteworthy - Sam Francis, who is very articulate on why he does not participate in LOS in an old article I think we at one time had here.[/QUOTE]
Didn't Sam Francis call modern Southern secessionist talk "an infantile disorder?" I think, in fact, that was the title of his column on the subject.
2004-07-05 11:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Precisely. For anyone in the national movement who does not recognize the devastating impact of any threat to our unity is incompreshensible to me. We Southerners are not American Whites. That statement by itself indicates its potential downfalls to the nationalist. We need to remove the hypenations, both from white and American.[/QUOTE] This is ludicrous. It is precisely that "unity" that has destroyed the South. Here is the scenario this brings to mind for me: Someone tries to throw both you and themselves off a ledge, but you manage to grab the edge and hang on for dear life. That someone is now hanging onto your legs, still trying to pull you off the ledge to your death, and you are barely being able to resist. As he continues to tug on your legs, the bastard yells at you, "If we don't stick together, we are never going to get out of this!"
What has the South ever gotten from the North? The North first threatened to secede, then invaded the South when the South did so. The North decimated the South, occupied it, made it an economic vassal, destroyed its traditional culture, took it into numerous wars in which its sons did a disproportionate amount of fighting and dying, opened the floodgates of non-white immigration to swamp it, and is currently trying to destroy its very identity as a people and nation.
If those are the benefits of 'unity,' perhaps you'll excuse me if I would like to try separation.
2004-07-05 14:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=GaConfed]Well, the first settlers to both North and South were English. In fact, what happened, it seems to me, is that in many respects the War Between the States was a continuation of the English Civil War that happened a couple of hundred years earlier. Remember, the Puritains were the decendants of Oliver Cromwell's Roundheads, and for the most part Southerners were decendants of the Cavaliers.[/QUOTE]
There may be something to this as well (its relevant here to note that in the English Civil War, Celtic peoples - especially the Irish - were very much in the Cavalier camp). I know that Virginia, in particular, was associated with the supporters of the Tudor monarchy.
2004-07-05 20:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Deus Vult]Didn't Sam Francis call modern Southern secessionist talk "an infantile disorder?" I think, in fact, that was the title of his column on the subject.[/QUOTE]Yes, that was the title of his piece, I think. And it explains undoubtedly why he is not popular with segments of the Southern Independence Movement like Kay heads. :lol:
I'm tempted to get into a serious analysis of Francis's critique, but lets face it, there aren't many few people in the Southern movement who are serious. (Or WN movement for that matter) They just want to huff and puff and bluster. Not like certain dear departed OD members. :lol: People like Francis and his work are usually wasted.
2004-07-05 20:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yes, that was the title of his piece, I think. And it explains undoubtedly why he is not popular with segments of the Southern Independence Movement like Kay heads. :lol:
I'm tempted to get into a serious analysis of Francis's critique, but lets face it, there aren't many few people in the Southern movement who are serious. (Or WN movement for that matter) They just want to huff and puff and bluster. Not like certain dear departed OD members. :lol: People like Francis and his work are usually wasted.[/QUOTE] What a troll.
2004-07-05 20:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Chances are Okie pishposhes any Southern movement, being a far more educated and sophisticated man of the north and all.[/QUOTE]Just like Sam Francis and his "Southern Independance, an Infantile Disorder" column.
Francis's viewpoint and agenda is the revolt of the Middle American Radicals, tending to view Southernism as a silly diversion. And I think he has a pretty good case. Sectional differences these days are pretty insignificant, although the South is somewhat more conservative. Culturally though there isn't that much difference between the blue collars of Dallas and those of St. Louis, or of North Carolina than Ohio or Pennyslvania, than with their respective elites.
If you'd put down your beer Billy Bob maybe you could do some serious thinking. :lol:
2004-07-05 21:09 | User Profile
I agree the concept of "southern secession" is incoherent in the current historical context.
However, the concept of "succession" could potentially be very valuable for our side if the elites make it impossible for "Middle America Radicals" to ever regain power at the national level.
When and if this happens, other options -- like succession at the local or state level -- may need to be considered.
2004-07-05 21:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]What has the South ever gotten from the North? The North first threatened to secede, then invaded the South when the South did so. The North decimated the South, occupied it, made it an economic vassal, destroyed its traditional culture, took it into numerous wars in which its sons did a disproportionate amount of fighting and dying, opened the floodgates of non-white immigration to swamp it, and is currently trying to destroy its very identity as a people and nation.
If those are the benefits of 'unity,' perhaps you'll excuse me if I would like to try separation.[/QUOTE]
Paleoconservatism has always had a very philosouthern view, dating back from the documents which influenced the "Chapel Hill clique" i.e. Fleming and Francis, that founded it - the southern agrarianism of I'll Take My Stand and Who Owns America?. IOt has always recognized the legitimate greviances of the South.
Not to the point of worshipping it as a diety though especially to all else, like some of Southerners do. The "rainbow confederates" are the perfect example of this tendency. Listen to them talk. After a while they'll tell you, all in the sense of good Southern Patriotism of course, that their wonderful southern heartland, far from being the bigoted, racist anti-semitic land it was pictured as, was actually a bastion of tolerance for jews and blacks, representing the tolerant southern spirit against the bigoted Nawth. They view the "Southern spirit" as something basically opposed to the Northern European spirit, representing the atitudes of lands like the Mediterranean and Latin America. (They haven't worked Africa in there, but give them time.)
Its enough to make any good Nationalist want to be a Nawthenaw.
And seriously, what has the South done for nationalism lately? Other than through Jerry and Pat rubber stamping the invasion of Iraq through the SBC, Chr Coal, etc? Most nationalist movements like Spotlight and the Ku Klux Klan of the 20's actually had their main strongholds in sections of the nawth like the midwest.
Southern identity has its place, but I don't think it has the importance or prominence its most prominent advocates place on it, especially when it becomes so dominant by itself that it eclipses other values. Such as when I hear southerners say we must get the support of southern blacks and hispanics to ever be successful, la de da.
2004-07-05 21:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]There may be something to this as well (its relevant here to note that in the English Civil War, Celtic peoples - especially the Irish - were very much in the Cavalier camp). I know that Virginia, in particular, was associated with the supporters of the Tudor monarchy.[/QUOTE]The Roundhead vs. Cavalier metaphor has always been a very popular metaphor for historians studying the Civil War. Like all historical parallels it has its strengths, but also its weaknesses, and definitely must be adjusted into current realities to have any real significance.
Of course to the neocons it is all sily anyway. You remember that antidote by Norman Podhoretz about the American Civil War being no more relevant to him, an Eastern European immigrant, than the War of the Roses?
Undoubtedly there are a great number of people in the Nawth, and the "New South" too, who feel exactly this way.
2004-07-05 21:36 | User Profile
On the contrary, it probably isn't silly at all to Podhoretz and the neocons .
They're probably very pleased that the Southern successionists have their guns trained on their fellow Gentiles, rather than on the Jew -- their real enemy.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Of course to the neocons it is all sily anyway. You remember that antidote by Norman Podhoretz about the American Civil War being no more relevant to him, an Eastern European immigrant, than the War of the Roses?[/QUOTE]
2004-07-05 22:42 | User Profile
'And seriously, what has the South done for nationalism lately?'
I am not sure what any part of the country has done for 'nationalism' lately. Southern whites do continue to oppose affirmative action, big government, and, yes, even mass immigration. Indeed, the issue of immigration will be won in the South, not out West or in the Northeast.
Lincoln is the god of neoconservatism. Never forget that. Lincoln spread 'democracy,' just as neocons want to today. And both the Lincoln fans and the neocons are engaged in the same project of hiding the true aims of the warfare they endorse: security and power for the instigators of war (e.g., to help Israel), but never anything more idealistic.
2004-07-05 23:33 | User Profile
Hey, where did all the recent posts on this thread go?
(Scratch that latest comment -they just mysteriously reappeared).
2004-07-05 23:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]'And seriously, what has the South done for nationalism lately?'
I am not sure what any part of the country has done for 'nationalism' lately. Southern whites do continue to oppose affirmative action, big government, and, yes, even mass immigration. Indeed, the issue of immigration will be won in the South, not out West or in the Northeast.
Lincoln is the god of neoconservatism. Never forget that. Lincoln spread 'democracy,' just as neocons want to today. And both the Lincoln fans and the neocons are engaged in the same project of hiding the true aims of the warfare they endorse: security and power for the instigators of war (e.g., to help Israel), but never anything more idealistic.[/QUOTE]Pick on Lincoln, but he didn't create the black problem in America.
You could make an argument in fact that the North in fact fought the nationalist program in the civil war. They fought after all for the right of the federal government to institue basic control over our borders regarding the trade of goods and the importation of slaves, against the South, which resisted all such efforts.
And Lincoln did speak up for a program to return slaves to Africa after the war. If you ever hear those southron sites gripe at Lincoln, they say this "just proves he and the Nawthanaws were racist", and the South the true friend of the Negro.
Not for nothing is Lincoln one of Buchanan's greatest heroes.
2004-07-06 01:26 | User Profile
If it is being said that Catholic Irish settled the south and are the original southerners, that is incorrect and laughable. The Scotch-Irish did that, to a large extent. There's a big difference. Let's keep our history straight. I've got a feeling there's a big catholic membership here that tends to skew facts in their favor.
2004-07-06 06:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]If it is being said that Catholic Irish settled the south and are the original southerners, that is incorrect and laughable. The Scotch-Irish did that, to a large extent. There's a big difference. Let's keep our history straight. I've got a feeling there's a big catholic membership here that tends to skew facts in their favor.[/QUOTE] Just my impression, but one thing about modern celtic nationalism is it seems to downplay little bits of history that go against its myths, like the long history of religious conflicts between the Irish. Now it is true these feelings have come on gone - possibly, from a little reading I've done, they weren't as great in the early part of our country's history as they were later on. But more likely, political opportunism plays tricks on people's memories, and makes them play tricks with historical interpretation.
2004-07-06 10:37 | User Profile
In what way do you see the Romans and later historians exagerating German-Celtic differences? If you try to read Irish or Welsh, and then try to read German, English, Swedish, etc., you will see that we are talking about some very different cultures. Of course, maybe historians have still exagerated these differences, but I am not entirely seeing this.
From what I can tell, the positing of any differences among white racial groups that is not based in 'Protestants good,' 'Catholics/Orthodox bad' has long been verboten in the US. And I have found that it is Jews who get must upset at consideration of such differences; presumably because they don't understand them at all and prefer the illusion of a socially-created whiteness they can sink into.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well my and a lot of historians who study the ancient Celtic-German division is that the differences between Celt and German tend to have been exagerated throughout history for various political and ideological reasons, starting with the Romans, who conceptually wished to divide these peoples along the empire's Rhine boundary, between intra-empire Celts and extra-empire Germans.
I'm not saying the celtic south theory has some points to it, but it is limited in value, and easily can become diversionary.
[/QUOTE]
2004-07-06 10:56 | User Profile
Yes, as a libertarian, I of course just love love love Northern protectionist techniques used to harm the South and benefit themselves. Sort of reminds me of what Jews and homosexuals do today. And that PB endorses Lincoln--wow, I'd better re-thinking things, now. Never saw that coming! What, Buchanan is a nation-state nut-case, who needs a nation-state identity to overcome his cave-man, Catholic origins? What a surprise!
Lincoln 'speaking up' for returning blacks to Africa counts for diddly-squat in American history, except perhaps to show that Whitey don't ever seem to get things right when it comes to black folk (i.e., it might help show that Lincoln was an inconsistent nut-case).
As to your claims that the Southern 'sites' will claim that 'the South was the true friend of the Negro'--this is about as meaningful as pointing out that a white nationalist site features a swastika. The issue we were discussing was 'What has the South done for 'nationalism'? Here, as with other important issues, you like to decide things based on your encounters with some of the stranger elements of disenfranshised movements (preferable as found on the Internet). I always wonder: maybe you'd prefer to live in DC? I hear the Republicans there can be quite suave, and are sure to avoid swastikas or postive claims about concerning Confederates. :-) Although, they will probably talk a lot about 'the jungle,' and some of the goyim will even grin knowing at sausage and bacon jokes.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Pick on Lincoln, but he didn't create the black problem in America.
You could make an argument in fact that the North in fact fought the nationalist program in the civil war. They fought after all for the right of the federal government to institue basic control over our borders regarding the trade of goods and the importation of slaves, against the South, which resisted all such efforts.
And Lincoln did speak up for a program to return slaves to Africa after the war. If you ever hear those southron sites gripe at Lincoln, they say this "just proves he and the Nawthanaws were racist", and the South the true friend of the Negro.
Not for nothing is Lincoln one of Buchanan's greatest heroes.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-06 12:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] The "rainbow confederates" are the perfect example of this tendency.
The rainbow confederates are in error. The principles of radical egalitarianism have become so engrained in Western societies that these people cannot conceive of any other way to defend their culture than by appealing to these principles. Are they incorrect? Certainly, but 140 years of brainwashing can do that to a person.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Its enough to make any good Nationalist want to be a Nawthenaw.
No, it isn't. The North has been foisting this leftist BS on the South for two hundred years, and now it is the South's fault because it is beginning to take hold? I don't think so.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] And seriously, what has the South done for nationalism lately?
The last major resistance against the new overlords anywhere in this country was in the South in the 60's. The military had to be sent in (again) to impose the federal will, if you'll remember. Perhaps you might want to reconsider accusing the South of flaccid acquiescence?
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Other than through Jerry and Pat rubber stamping the invasion of Iraq through the SBC, Chr Coal, etc? Most nationalist movements like Spotlight and the Ku Klux Klan of the 20's actually had their main strongholds in sections of the nawth like the midwest.
Yes, the military occupation and anti-Klan acts did have a way of discouraging that activity in the South.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Such as when I hear southerners say we must get the support of southern blacks and hispanics to ever be successful, la de da.[/QUOTE] Your double-standard is truly astounding. Southern nationalism is an "infantile disorder" because some Southerners think we need the support of minorities? Then what shall we make of "American nationalism" that gave recently-freed slaves the vote at the point of the bayonet? That allows millions of Mexicans to pour over our borders? That tells the South that prohibiting sodomy is unconstitutional? Championing the North (which is imposing the modernist disease) while chastening the South for insufficient resistance is just ridiculous.
2004-07-06 12:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Pick on Lincoln, but he didn't create the black problem in America.
I pick on Lincoln because he was a meglomaniacal evil sonfabitch bastard. Nobody alive at the time of the War of the Northern Aggression created the black problem in America, so this is a red herring.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] You could make an argument in fact that the North in fact fought the nationalist program in the civil war. They fought after all for the right of the federal government to institue basic control over our borders regarding the trade of goods and the importation of slaves, against the South, which resisted all such efforts.
Yes, you could make that argument, although it would be wrong. The North fought the imperialist program in the WBTS, as they fought for the 'right' of the imperial regime to demand tribute from the South, and then intentionally misinterpret existing treaties to provide a casus belli to invade that peaceful sovereign nation after it resisted.
The importation of slaves had been banned since 1808, and the vast majority of slave traders were Yankees. It is hardly accurate to say that the South rejected all such efforts.
Furthermore, the North didn't want 'basic control over our borders regarding the trade of goods.' They wanted trade laws structured to tax the South to pay for the industrialization of the North -- basically a form of mercantilism.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] And Lincoln did speak up for a program to return slaves to Africa after the war. If you ever hear those southron sites gripe at Lincoln, they say this "just proves he and the Nawthanaws were racist", and the South the true friend of the Negro.
Yes, Lincoln had the authority to discard habeas corpus, unilaterally declare war, and issue an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, yet all he could do was 'speak up' on behalf of Negro colonization. Not very convincing.
Again, your double-standard comes into play. It is the North that has been accusing the South of racism for 200 years. The accusations of racism agaisnt Lincoln merely serve to indicate that 'racism' was the general consensus at the time, and not merely a characteristic of the 'evil' South. I don't know of anyone who claims that the 'South was the true friend of the Negro,' unless they mean simply that the South meant the Negro no harm.
2004-07-09 03:12 | User Profile
Interesting thread, though I'm coming in late as usual. I think Greg has a very good take on some of the problems in the Southron Nationalism Movement. I'd also agree the Celtic South is overdone by many in it--demographics split closer to 50/50 Germano-Celt in the South, and WASP does fit very well as our overall Culture, from Race to Languague to Religion. Bashing Southerners is good sport for thrice-damned Yankees, but we'd been handlin' affairs quite nicely without 2 FedGov armed invasions. The mongrelized North has done nothing but spread the Heresy of Jacobin Egalitarianism since at least the Abolitionists. The South is the last, best Hope of Western Civilization--leading by example not Imperial Democracy. Yes, we have our silly negrophiles in the Movement, but 140 years of yankee brainwashing has eroded our People, and yes, we ARE a distinct Nation living under foreign occupation. Yankee Go Home! I'd not heard of anybody else pulling a trigger, so Southern "Nationalism"--based on the Southern Nation is as vibrant as any other, if not as wordly powerful as the Amerikan Nationalists led by the Shrub, El Presidente Bush, whom Sam Francis and the Republicans would elevate. Our God is not y'alls yankee dollar, and if there is but a remnant of us who will not bow the knee, then sobeit.
2004-07-10 02:07 | User Profile
I really don't have time to join any more forums, so would you do me the favor and post the following over there for me, please, and let me know how it goes? Thank you.
I think it would have saved a lot of time and effort, not to mention enthusiastic amateur psychoanalysis, to have simply wrote and asked me the questions you have about this article that I wrote a couple of years ago, instead of merely speculating. I'm not hard to find.
Are Northerners and Southerners ethnically different? Yes, just as, say, the English and Welsh are different, or the French and Spanish; all white people, but all made of different combinations of white ancestral stock, with all the socio/cultural baggage that entails.
Do I hold the English in contempt? No. I happen to have a great admiration for England and an appreciation for what, in my personal view, was the center of the best of civilization from the fall of Rome until fairly recent times. It's the British Empire I have the problem with; not with what they did in Africa or India (and could still be doing, which would be the best for all concerned), but with their tendency to war on and try to invade, subjugate, control, or hold onto any white nations - no matter how ethnically different ââ¬â that they come across, including not only the Celtic peoples near them but most of Europe, the American Colonies and the Boers of South Africa ââ¬â a tendency shared by so many Yankees and their United States, which is why I have a real problem with them too. We don't have to be linked by empire to work together.
If there's anything else you're curious about, just email me at gregkay@ezwv with something in the subject line so I can tell what it's about (I don't use a preview, and a few of the "special people" have decided to bury me with spam, viruses, and worms. In order to get anything else done, I have to go through and delete quickly, and anything from someone I don't know with no subject goes instantly to the round file.), and I will be more than happy to get back to you.
Thank you.
Greg Kay
2004-07-10 08:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, Lincoln had the authority to discard habeas corpus, unilaterally declare war, and issue an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, yet all he could do was 'speak up' on behalf of Negro colonization. Not very convincing.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Lincoln was a member of the Colonization Society since the 1830s, which was dedicated to the ex/repatriation of the Negro, and which was founded by his personal political idol, Speaker Henry Clay. Lincoln was also a vocal supporter of the establishment of the state of Liberia in 1847, and his administration presided over the settlement of a small number of Blacks onto an island off the coast of Haiti. Who knows what might have been accomplished after the war, had he not taken a bullet to the head? Can't you just imagine Lincoln seeking a third term in office by seeking a mandate to rid the country of the Negro? Its not at all unlikely (the 1868 election was a referendum on race anyway, but sadly, that one went the wrong way, without Lincoln's leadership). He was still an evil bastard, of course, but we'd probably be much more apt to forgive his sins if he'd had a chance to do what he always claimed he wanted to do.
2004-07-10 10:00 | User Profile
It's all irrelevant. Lincoln knew all along that Americans would never let their cheap laborers go, not while they were still useful.
The only racially sane course was to the keep the black population subjugated indefinetly (though not necessarily through slavery), and encourage a low black birth rate. At some later point, a return to Africa or other non-US destinations might have become possible.
As it was, Lincoln armed the blacks, and drove his boot into the face of those who were trying to keep them in their proper place through orderly and paternal means.
Just as today, the race 'liberals' of the Union were the most dangerous for the blacks. Unlike today, it looks like they were net benefactors.... for blacks.
2004-07-10 17:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]It's all irrelevant. Lincoln knew all along that Americans would never let their cheap laborers go, not while they were still useful. Including southern Americans? Intersting assertion. After all, southerners were the only Americans who had any economic use for blacks. (Northerners of course preferred European immigrants)
The only racially sane course was to the keep the black population subjugated indefinetly (though not necessarily through slavery), and encourage a low black birth rate. At some later point, a return to Africa or other non-US destinations might have become possible.
Encouraging a lower black birth rate was at least one of the good things of the abolition of slavery. With slavery, slave owners had an strong economic interst in keeping the birthrate high, as it made money for them.
As it was, Lincoln armed the blacks, and drove his boot into the face of those who were trying to keep them in their proper place through orderly and paternal means.
Well the North viewed the process of "keeping them in their proper place" as just the act of closing the relief valves to a water heater. It just makes the eventual explosion all the more inevitable and severe.
I think there's a good chance that if the North hadn't intervened, the southern black slave population would have continued to grow and eventually rose up and made the spectacle of Haiti look like a Saturday afternoon tea party.
2004-07-10 17:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Can't you just imagine Lincoln seeking a third term in office by seeking a mandate to rid the country of the Negro? Its not at all unlikely (the 1868 election was a referendum on race anyway, but sadly, that one went the wrong way, without Lincoln's leadership). He was still an evil bastard, of course, but we'd probably be much more apt to forgive his sins if he'd had a chance to do what he always claimed he wanted to do.[/QUOTE] I don't know. Looked at seriously resettlement was a impossibly large undertaking. There actually was some talk early on in the slavery debate about resettlement. Calculations showed however it would require almost the entire net worth of the entire confederacy just to purchase the slaves at their market prices, without even taking into account the cost of transporting them and settling them, among other things.
Lincoln and the Republicans may have done some evil things, but when you put people between a rock and a hard place eventually they tend to do evil things. Southern advocates never account for the evil done to the cause of American whites by their own class of aristocratic slave owners, who used their slaves to built the bonfire higher while they merrily fiddled away.
Kevin MacDonald specifically cites the southern slave owning an elite as a sterling example of the principle sociobiological factor - the individualism of the elites - which has undermined and destroyed civilizations.
2004-07-10 17:47 | User Profile
North and South alike agreed that blacks had to stay in their proper place. I am not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you interpreted 'keep them in their place' to mean 'Hilter is good, kill the Jews, slavery forever!'? :-)
I agree that slavery needed to end, for both practical and moral reasons. Do I somehow argue otherwise? My points concerned Reconstruction and certain CW tactics, not abolition as a whole.
2004-07-10 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I agree that slavery needed to end, for both practical and moral reasons. Do I somehow argue otherwise? My points concerned Reconstruction and certain CW tactics, not abolition as a whole.[/QUOTE]
You certainly were seeming to.
[quote=darkstar]The only racially sane course was to the keep the black population subjugated indefinetly OK OK I'll give you a chance[quote=darkstar] (though not necessarily through slavery)
Do you really have something here, or are you just parsing your words regarding slavery? [quote=darkstar], and encourage a low black birth rate. At some later point, a return to Africa or other non-US destinations might have become possible.
As it was, Lincoln armed the blacks, and drove his boot into the face of those who were trying to keep them in their proper place through orderly and paternal means.
Just as today, the race 'liberals' of the Union were the most dangerous for the blacks You seem to be in the odd position of blaming Lincoln personally for what seems to have gone wrong, while advocating the exact same things that he and many other "race liberals" of the time did.
2004-07-10 19:55 | User Profile
I don't totally follow what you are saying. As you note, I my reference to 'subjugation' was not intended as a reference to slavery.
My complain against Lincoln is that took powers from whites and gave it to blacks, with little care about the results for the Southern population.
Let's assume the war was inevitable. Nonetheless, arming blacks, burning Atlanta, Reconstruction--these were not necessary. These events lead to the KKK, all the segregation laws, and many more negatives.
I don't think blacks should have gotten the vote, or otherwise been considered citizens. They should have been assigned a 'guest worker' status, and it should have been explicitly recognized that US citizenship involved questions of blood. To me, this is a kind of 'subjugation,' in that the blacks would be 'taxed without representation,' as the slogan goes (sorta). Perhaps certain segregation laws would have also been appropriate; although, again, I think the ones that actually came about were poor laws written by wrongly humiliated peoples.
Perhaps blacks could have been given territory in the US, similar to what the Indians got. Or perhaps just sent overseas (assuming they would consent to this).
I'd also not that between subjugation and what Northern authorities at times gave blacks, there is quite a space. For one, citizenship could have been given many decades later, after blacks had learned to live as free people.
Anything would have been better than the affront to, yes, Souther honor that occurred. What the Northerns did was very similar to what the Jews did in encouraging Muslim immigration into the West: force an anatagonist into contact with a mutually disliked element. Not an act of love, that much is for sure.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You certainly were seeming to.
OK OK I'll give you a chance
Do you really have something here, or are you just parsing your words regarding slavery? You seem to be in the odd position of blaming Lincoln personally for what seems to have gone wrong, while advocating the exact same things that he and many other "race liberals" of the time did.[/QUOTE]
2005-01-24 18:46 | User Profile
Southerners and Nationalism Guest column by Greg Kay
Southerners and Nationalism - by Greg Kay
As the Southern Movement struggles along, stumbling over itself in the usual bumbling, squabbling manner that we have all come to know and shake our heads at, one is left to wonder "Why?" Not why we go on (Southerners are too stubborn to do anything else.), but why we fail? We have a demonstrably more liberty-minded philosophy in our States' Rights political creed than any other system on the face of the Earth. Even in this apostate age, we in the "Bible Belt" are the last, greatest bastion of Biblical Christianity left, not just in America but in the world. So why do we fail and keep failing?
The answer is simple and in the form of a question: "Who and what are we?" We not only don't know, but most of us don't even have a clue that we have to answer that one, overriding, all-important question. Unless and until we do that, our Cause is as truly lost as our critics claim and the whole movement is dead in the water.
Who and what are we? What is a Southerner and what is Dixie?
First, what is a Southerner? Is it a generic term referring to solely to long-time residence in a geographic area? Does simply living here make you a Southerner or does it take something else - like blood perhaps?
I submit that it does, and that the appellation of 'Southerner' is not a geographic term - it is an ethnic term, and that Southerners are part of that ethnic group that was first recognized as such in writings dating back to the 1850's - the Southern Race.
The quintessential Southern author Michael Grissom, in his greatest work, "Can the South Survive?", defined the word "Southerner" by its traditional meaning as the European inhabitants of the Southern States. Until the 1950's, 'Southerner' was the only word necessary to refer to this particular group. Other peoples, such as Negroes, live in the South, and sometimes in large numbers; however, as Grissom pointed out, the idea of 'Black Southerners' is a comparatively recent media invention originating outside the South, and 'Southerner' is certainly a term that Dixie's colored population has never sought for itself, for they see the term as defining the people whom they consider their adversaries. Despite the fact that on very rare occasions the exceptional individual with origins outside either definition - geographic or ethnic - may possibly, through a sustained, willing effort over time, be adopted into the Southern 'family' so to speak, and be either accepted or at least tolerated by other Southerners in their ranks, tradition, nature, observation, and common sense all tell us that the old definition is still the overwhelmingly correct one, and the sad fact that so many of our people are now willing to accept as Southern anyone from a Uruguayan to an Uzbek to a Ubangi who merely has the good fortune to live here is more of an example of the success of long-term Northern egalitarian brain-washing than it is of actual ethnic change.
Not only is the Southerner ethnically different from the non- Europeans who live in his native land, he is also very different from those other Western descendents who appear superficially like him in the Northern States - every bit as different as he is to his cousins in the Old World. Their close proximity does not really matter - after all, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are quite close together, and France and Germany border each other, but only a fool would insist that they are all "one people." What makes them so very different is not their cultures, but the different ancestral peoples and combinations of peoples who settled in those respective places, and fathered the races that the countries are now called after, which in turn gave rise to those cultures. A people are not the product of a culture; cultures are the products of people.
Likewise the differences between North and South; a simple study will indicate that, while the founding populations of both were European, they were formed by different combinations of peoples and in very different proportions. Over the generations, the peculiar combinations in the areas below the Mason/Dixon Line blended to form an ethnicity unique to the South and the South alone (Of course it has its own variations, but they are minor ones, like those of different members of the same family, rather than of entirely separate peoples.). This is the Southern Race; it is what has given Dixie its traditions and lifeways, and it was blood, rather than differing political ideals, that truly separated us from the North: a separation that began long before 1861.
It's not a question of locality either; as long as we maintained the same Southern ethnicity, Southerners would still be what we are if we were in Siberia rather than Savannah. The land and climate of the South did not 'make' Southerners what they are; it was the Southerners who made the South a reflection of themselves.
Which brings us to the second question, and one which underlies much of the strife in the movement, and is nearly as important to the basis of what we are doing as was the first query:
What is Dixie - this Confederacy of ours? Is it primarily a country...or is it a nation? They are two very different things, which may go together but not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to be both, but one or the other must form the basis of that state's establishment, and which one that is will determine its ultimate success or failure, as history has shown time and time again.
Was the Confederacy primarily a country? One of the factions of the Southern movement strongly hold that it was. A country is a construct of geography and political philosophy which define its boundaries and form the basis of its existence, rather than the dominant ethnic and associated socio-religious heritage of its inhabitants and are bound with ideas (which history has proven to be rather transient things) rather than natural associations. Countries attempt to bind divergent nations together in an unnatural cohabitation, which is why they are closely related to empires, and why they seldom prosper.
Take the country of Israel for example: it has been trying for over 50 years to forcibly tie together two nations - Zion and Palestine - and it simply does not work. The country of Iraq, given the opportunity with the abrupt removal of its government, is now showing signs of splitting into at least three different nations, all based around the ethnicity of the peoples formerly bound together there. Other good examples of countries are Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, both of whom are now largely dissolved back into the various nations that made them up; and Great Britain (not to be confused with the nation of England) which had already lost most of Ireland long ago, is in the process of losing the Northern Six Counties, as well as seeing rising separatist movements in Scotland and Wales (All three of which are nations, and as such are bound by instinct to seek the establishment of their own countries.). The United States is also a country, rather than a nation, and only two generations had barely passed since its founding when its government found it expedient to pin the nations that made it up together with bayonets. It has yet to stand the test of realistic historical time, and if it were actually a nation rather than a country, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
A nation, on the other hand, may or may not exist as a country (In extreme cases a nation may even exist in various lands in scattered exile, like the proverbial 'wandering Jew'.), although its nature is such that it invariably strives to do so. The proper definition of a nation, from the Holy Bible to the Oxford dictionary, is not a political philosophy or a land mass, but a people, bound together with a common heritage, religion, language and, most importantly, ancestry: in short, bound in blood, which time has proven to be a much stronger and more enduring chain than politics, documents, or even seas and mountain ranges.
The Confederate States of America met the definition of a country certainly - it had a defined territory, a government, a flag, a military, a diplomatic corps, and a constitution - but did it meet that of a nation? Despite politically correct protests to the contrary, there is no question that the dominant race and dominant force behind the religious and cultural views and traditions that define the South and make it what it is, are those people previously defined as Southerners: that particular breed of European people, indigenous to Dixie, and of a common ancestry, religion, language, and heritage, which amply fulfill all of the qualifications for that latter designation.
There is also no question that many if not most of our heritage-born lifeways and traditions are unique only to us and to no other people. Similarly, despite the diligent and obsessive efforts of the 'modern' churches and the currently prevalent transcendentalism of the old radical Abolitionists that they practice, there still remains a solid core of flint-hard Biblical literalism that is the religion we still have in common, and the one that still manages to stretch across many of even our most divergent denominations. This un-hyphenated, unbending, unapologetic, and distinctly Southern Christian attitude is the spiritual glue that holds us together.
Finally, we have a common language that the occupying powers of the United States have stigmatized but still haven't managed to beat out of us: our own Southern English, spoken here in all its shades like nowhere else.
We had and still have, at least for now, all of the requirements of a nation, and I submit that a nation - the Southern Nation - is exactly what we were and are, and our wonderful political ideals are simply a natural outgrowth of our identity as a people. We are Southerners, what ever we do and where ever we go, we will still be part of the Southern Nation as long as we remember who we are and act accordingly. Once we realize that, not only will we finally be on our way toward realizing our aspirations of having a country of our own once again, but in the meantime and even more importantly, this renewed realization of our nationalism and its accompanying sense of group identity will protect and preserve us as a distinct people; it will strengthen us in our struggle to reclaim our rightful place in the world, and it will fill us with a new and much- needed resolve to better ourselves both as individuals and as Southerners while we not only reclaim what is ours but reach out and build a future that will make us proud, and a country that will not make God ashamed. A country and a future not bound simply by geography or by politics, but restrained only by the will of Almighty God, by the depth of our Christian faith, and by our own innate drive and abilities.
CSA Martian ColonyHow far can we go? Who today can say what our limits are? Perhaps, in the centuries to come, a young father with his wife and children much like our own, will say grace before a table of fried chicken and cornbread in a city called New Richmond, on a distant planet under the light of an alien star...and thank God that they're Southern!
[url]http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Guest-Column-29.html[/url]
2005-07-04 05:31 | User Profile
Well today was sure a hot one, makes me think if the South had won the war then [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carrier"]Nov 26[/url] would be a national holiday.
2005-07-05 22:59 | User Profile
Air conditioning??? Arggh! Throw it away and ship it North and you'd see all the Snowbirds and other Damnyankees heading back where they belong. Gimme the Sultry Southern Summer...
:smile:
2005-07-06 04:08 | User Profile
Well with all due respect, Southerners are not a race. They have a majroity of European Americans just like the North. They both came a lot from Germany and England. That's the way it is.
But Southerners are a people. A people which have certain ideologies which are clearly different from Northerners.
2005-07-13 23:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]To this day you can go to South Carolina or Virginia, and it is immediately apparant that Charleston on the coast, with its high church Episcapalian base is quite distinct from say, Greenville and Spartanburg of the Appalachain foothills with its Scots Irish low church Baptist and Methodist culture.[/QUOTE]Ain't that the truth!