← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 18810 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2005-06-24
2005-06-24 05:42 | User Profile
"Why, we could lick them in a month!" boasts Stuart Tarleton soon after the Confederates fire on Fort Sumter in Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind. "Gentlemen always fight better than rabble. A monthââ¬âwhy, one battle." At that point, young Mr. Tarleton is interrupted by Rhett Butler, a rather darker character in Mitchell's novel than the swashbuckling playboy created by Clark Gable on the screen. Butler points out that the Southerners do not possess what modern strategists would call the industrial and logistical infrastructure with which a modern war roust be foughtââ¬âthe cannon factories, iron foundries, railroads, and woolen and cotton mills that the North has in abundance. "But, of course, he says, "you gentlemen have thought of these things."
Of course they hadnââ¬â¢t thought of those things. What they had thought about were the glories of the coming conflict and the rights they were going to vindicate, and within a few years and a few more battles than Stuart Tarleton had anticipated, he and his twin brother were dead, along with most of the others who had listened to them, the Confederacy itself, and the society on which it rested. As for Rhett Butler, he not only survived but flourished, confident in his philosophy that there are two times when a man can easily make a fortune for himselfââ¬â once when a civilization rises, an once when a civilization falls.
ââ¬ËToday, 130 years after the disasters to which the chatter of valiant fools like Stuart ââ¬ËTarleton led, secessionism purports to rise from the ashes, this time embodied mainly in the league of the South, of which most of the editors of this magazine except me are members. Its leaders foreswear the use of violence, so we need not anticipate that the results will be similarââ¬âat least not until a good many more Southerners sign up than seem to have done so in the four years of the Leagueââ¬â¢s existence and until the federal government pays more attention to them than it has done to date. Nevertheless, if the physical extermination of 600,000 white men over the burning issue of whether four million black men are to be slaves or serfs is not on the agenda this time, secessionism promises to be no less a disaster for those of the American right than it was for the pretty belles and beaux of Mitchellââ¬â¢s novel. It is unfortunate that many of those gentlemen most dedicated to secession seem not to have thought of the weaknesses of their position any more than Stuart Tarleton and the other guests at the Wilkes barbecue had.
Two main forces appear to drive time resurrection of Southern secessionism. In the first place, the American right as a serious political movement has collapsed, leaving its most dedicated adherents with no obvious vehicle for pursuing its goals of dismantling the federal leviathan and ending the cultural and demographic inundation of the South and the rest of the nation. Second, a concerted onslaught against Southern and Confederate symbols and traditions, most clearly represented in the attacks on public display of the Confederate Battle Flag, rightly excites the wrath of Southerners who remain loyal to the memory of the Confederacy and the culture that the flag and the war have come to represent. Correctly lacking any confidence in the Republican Party or the neoconservative-dominated "conservative movement," Southerners of the right have decided to chuck it all and set off on their own, with the goal of invoking the traditions and identity of their own land and culture as the basis for resisting federal tyranny and their own racial and cultural destruction.
Yet neither of these two forces provides an adequate justification for secession, and neither suggests any realistic prospect of success. There are, to put it simply, two strong reasons why secession, for the South or any other part of the nation, is not a good idea: it is not practical; and even if it were practical, it would not be desirable.
Leaders of Southern secessionism often point to sister movements abroadââ¬â to secessionist movements in Northern Italy, Quebec, Scotland, the Balkans, and other placesââ¬âas well as to perennial discussions and controversies about a kind of secession in various states, cities, and regions in this country. But the foreign movements and those in the United States are irrelevant to what Southerners actually propose. Abroad, where secessionism has gathered significant support, it has done so because those pushing it can claim to be the heirs of real and ancient nations or at least of subnational regions that exhibit far more distinctiveness than the American South, today or at any time in its history, can claim. Scotland, Quebec, the Balkan peoples, and even Northern Italy all call boast of distinctive linguistic, religious, ethnic, and historical heritages, far more distinctive than those of the South, and some can point to some period in their past when they actually constituted autonomous states. Indeed, compared to some of these nations or regions, the American South under close scrutiny begins to vanish as a cultural unity. There is at least as much difference between Tidewater Virginia and East ââ¬ËTennessee or between northern and southern Louisiana as there is between Scotland and England or Northern and Southern Italy today.
Within the United States, the periodic demands for breaking Staten Island off from New York City or East Kansas from West Kansas or Southern California from Northern California are not secessionist movements in the same sense as what the Southerners advocate. None of these other movements contemplates leaving the national political unity of the United States. It makes sense that over time some borders and jurisdictions will become outmoded, and to redraw the map every now and then to suit contemporary interests and needs is unobjectionable. But it is not secession in the sense that Southerners and most dictionaries use the term, and to cite such movements (none of which has so far been successful) as examples of the rising dissatisfaction with the unified nation-state is fallacious.
Nor do contemporary Southern secessionists make any compelling case for the separation of their own region from the larger national unity. Historically, the Southern people have had an arguable case for separation, and in 1860, with the prospect of their slave-powered economy being gradually gutted by Northern dominance, their case was more arguable than ever, though even then there was less than a universal consensus in the South for separation. Today, that case simply does not apply. The modern South has probably profited from federal largesse more than most other regions, and the argument for statesââ¬â¢ rights, which Southerners invoked from Jefferson to George Wallace, is silenced by the demands of Southern politicians for more farm subsidies, more defense contracts, more military bases, more federal highways, and - if we include blacks as Southerners, which the League readily does - more "civil rights," more affirmative action, more federal marshals to enforce them, and more welfare.
To find out how practical secessionism is in the South today, visit any large Southern cityââ¬âAtlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Richmond, Dallas, Fort Worth, let alone New Orleans and Miamiââ¬âand ask yourself if the residents (even those who are still recognizably American) are ready for another Pickettââ¬â¢s Charge. Itââ¬â¢s all conservative Southerners can do to keep the Battle Flag flying and Confederate monuments from being obliterated, and the most vociferous enemies of the flag and the monuments are not the "Yankees" of yore or even the federal government but Southerners themselves, either the manipulated blacks of the NAACP or white Southerners of Confederate antecedents like South Carolinaââ¬â¢s Republican Governor David Beasley. The South today and the Southerners who inhabit it are simply too well connected to Washington and the rest of the nation to contemplate any serious movement for the national independence of their region.
But even if secession were possible, it would be a bad idea. Today, the main political line of division in the United States is not between the regions of North and South (insofar as such regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and nonelite. As I have tried to make plain in columns in this magazine and many other places for the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultiara1 dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard. Today, the greatest immediate danger to Middle America and the European-American civilization to which it is heir lies in the importation of a new underclass from the Third World through mass immigration. The danger is in part economic, in part political, and in part cultural, but it is also in part racial, pure and simple. The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief.
The only prospect of resisting the domination of the ruling class and its antiwhite and anti-Western allies in the underclass is through Middle American solidarity, a solidarity that must transcend the differentiations of region, class, religion, party, and ideology. White Southerners are a vital part of the Middle American core, as are their Northern counterparts, and neither is the enemy of the other. Both regional sections of Middle America face the same threats, experience much the same problems, and ought to be joined in the same political-cultural movement to meet the threat together.
If, however, Southerners were to secede, they would be engulfed by the same forces that threaten the nation as a whole. By the year 2020, the Census Bureau reports, the only parts of the South that will have more than a 75 percent white population will be a thin strip of western Virginia, most of Tennessee, and northern Arkansas; the rest of the region, especially Texas and the Deep South, will be dominated by populations more than 50 percent nonwhite, in some places far more. If 80 percent of the white population of South Carolina were to support secession in a referendum, that would amount to Only 55 percent of the stateââ¬â¢s total population. I mention this racial dimension of the secession controversy not because of the obvious conflicts that will arise in its wake but to suggest that the majority populations of the South in the near future will either be blacks, who have only hostile memories of what secession and the historic South meant to them and their ancestors, or Hispanics, who will sympathize with secession only if it means union with Mexico. It is unlikely that either the black or the Hispanic populations will evince much sympathy for Jefferson Davis and his legacy.
But the racial composition of the future South is significant also because the racial consciousness and solidarity non-whites will exhibit is already plain, in the frenetic, hate-driven language of their leaders and organizational vehicles, in their political behavior, and in the whole fabric of their subculture. It is a consciousness that readily identifies whites as an enemy and their institutions and values as alien and oppressive.
The only prospect of white Middle American resistance to this racial and political engulfment is our own solidarity; instead of snorting at white Northerners as "Yankees" who lack good table manners and the rudiments of culture, white Southerners should be standing firm with them in opposition to more immigration and more domination by the federal leviathan that serves as the political instrument of the overclass-underclass alliance. The key to resisting that domination does not lie in the dormant right of secession brut in the real federalism to which both Southerners and Northerners subscribed at the time the Constitution was ratified. It may be argued that the 10th Amendment is itself dormant, but it remains more alive than secessionism. The Supreme Court has cited the 10th Amendment in striking down a federal gun control law in the Lopez case in 1994 and the Brady law last year, and even poor old Bob Dole used to brag about carrying a copy of the amendment around in his vest pocket. Of course Mr. Dole didnââ¬â¢t understand or care what the amendment meant, but the fact that even he would invoke it means that it remains a living part of our Constitution. With its revival as a serious political tool, most of the dangerous and stupid overgrowth of the federal leviathan would disappear, and its disappearance would be welcomed not only by Southerners but by most Middle Americans of other regions who suffer from it.
I do not believe that secessionism will prosper as a serious political movement, but I do worry that it will prosper to the point of becoming a serious political distractionââ¬âa distraction from the imperative that Middle Americans now face of constructing their own autonomous political movement that can take back their nation rather than assisting the new underclass and the globalist ruling class in breaking it up. The time left for us to do so is shorter than it has ever before in our history, and until we outgrow the infantile disorder that secessionism offers, the construction cannot begin. If the gentlemen who talk of secession have not yet thought of these things, I invite them to do so soon. --- ### Sertorius *2005-06-24 12:39* | [User Profile](/od/user/26) Southerners today would do better to heed Jefferson Davis' words about carrying on the fight for States Rights and upholding the Constitution by other means. [QUOTE]President Jefferson Davis "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bencaudill.com/news/jun03/jun03.html[/url] --- ### JoseyWales *2005-06-24 13:45* | [User Profile](/od/user/1066) Okiereddust - good article and worthy of consideration. Im sending this one along to others. --- ### Okiereddust *2005-06-24 13:47* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) [QUOTE=Sertorius]Southerns today would do better to heed Jefferson Davis' words about carrying on the fight for States Rights and upholding the Constitution by other means. [url]http://www.bencaudill.com/news/jun03/jun03.html[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"The Principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form." President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.[/QUOTE] Interesting statement of vagueness. The problem is if you ask two southerners to give you their honest opinion as to what this specific principle was, you'll get two different answers, realistically. I can see realistically the objections Francis has to the secessionist movement as a hard and fast practical goal, just more of "the disasters to which the chatter of valiant fools like Stuart ââ¬ËTarleton led," which will simply lead to the dominance of types like Rhett Butler [QUOTE]At that point, young Mr. Tarleton is interrupted by Rhett Butler, a rather darker character in Mitchell's novel than the swashbuckling playboy created by Clark Gable on the screen. Butler points out that the Southerners do not possess what modern strategists would call the industrial and logistical infrastructure with which a modern war roust be foughtââ¬âthe cannon factories, iron foundries, railroads, and woolen and cotton mills that the North has in abundance. "But, of course, he says, "you gentlemen have thought of these things." Of course they hadnââ¬â¢t thought of those things. What they had thought about were the glories of the coming conflict and the rights they were going to vindicate, and within a few years and a few more battles than Stuart Tarleton had anticipated, he and his twin brother were dead, along with most of the others who had listened to them, the Confederacy itself, and the society on which it rested. As for Rhett Butler, he not only survived but flourished, confident in his philosophy that there are two times when a man can easily make a fortune for himselfââ¬â once when a civilization rises, and once when a civilization falls.[/QUOTE] It strikes me that in the modern day south the personna of Rhett Butler is the dominant one among the elite, and insofar as someone is cleverly manipulating the southron movement to produce more people who talk like Stuart Tarleton, it up to date has been largely as a smokescreen for the Rhett Butler's in power to keep them from activities that more seriously threaten their ill-gotten gains. The symbology of southern secessionism is valuable to a certain extent, but as a practical matter it doesn't seem likely to result in anything like the original secession, where the south pretty much (albeit with a few exceptions as befits its individuality) rose up in unity to support seccession. This happened because, realistically, the southern elites with a unified voice supported the cause against the northern elites, albeit for their own interests. Today by contrast southern elites seem almost universally decrepit, and the real struggle of the southron movement is of the grassroots against their elites, just like the similar struggle that is occurring outside the south really - the M.A.R.'s of both sections against their respective elites. As we've found out in our struggles with what remains of the old southern elite leadership, like the SBC, etc. Pretty much like Francis says. --- ### Sertorius *2005-06-24 14:04* | [User Profile](/od/user/26) [QUOTE]Interesting statement of vagueness. The problem is if you ask two southerners to give you their honest opinion as to what this specific principle was, you'll get two different answers, realistically.[/QUOTE] Okie, If they know their history they know exactly what Davis meant. --- ### confederate_commando *2005-06-25 23:15* | [User Profile](/od/user/1026) [QUOTE]Yet neither of these two forces provides an adequate justification for secession, and neither suggests any realistic prospect of success. There are, to put it simply, two strong reasons why secession, for the South or any other part of the nation, is not a good idea: it is not practical; and even if it were practical, it would not be desirable.[/QUOTE] Sam Francis was wrong. Everybody but Jesus is wrong: Calvin was wrong about Usury, Robert E. Lee was wrong at Gettysburg, etc. That said, why did we Secede and form a Seperate, Independent Nation that was conquered in a brutal, insane, illegal, imperial War? So why did we leave? [COLOR=DarkRed]For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. [/COLOR] [url]http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm[/url] So y'all tell me what States Right we were leaving over... The Federal Compact of 1787 was NO defense against the encroachments of the Yankees then or now. And certainly, since Ape Lincoln tore it up to 'save the union' in 1861, IT IS A DEAD LETTER ISSUE. Sam speaks of the elites who Rule us. Indeed, and they pay lip service to it. There is no part of the Federal Compact of 1787, with or without its legal and illegal Amendments, [EXCEPT FOR THE FORMS THEREOF] that is not regularly violated. Patrick Henry warned us: [QUOTE]"I SMELL A RAT!" [/QUOTE] "These Immortal words were uttered by Christian Statesman Patrick Henry when he refused his invitation to attend the US Constitutional Convention in 1787" [url]http://www.ismellarat.com/[/url] The Enemy remains the same, in 1787, in 1860, in 1962 and Today. Francis says not practical and not desirable. Balderdash! Difficult, but imagine breathing the air of a Free Dixie, ahhhhhhhhhh.... The first part is correct--it'll not be short or bloodless. But, neither was it in Ireland for 800 years of Occupation, nor in Spain for the same period of Time. What of Ukraine? Or Poland, or Croatia, or Vietnam, etc. There is still a core of millions of Southrons, who live Dixie from the Chesapeake to the Rio Grande. White Anglo-Scots Protestant, even if truly mis-lead, OUR Ethno-Culture thrives even under Re-Construction II and being co-opted into the service of the Empire. Scotland survived Culloden. The South WILL Rise Again! How, y'all ask? Long term asymmetric resistance and wait for OUR chance. One White Christian in Dixie at a time. Surely there is a world of Hurt coming down on the UsA for 50 Million Baby Murders? What Southern State would not ban it Today, or Gays out in the open... Isn't that reason enough to leave. Yes, the Alien remains amongst us, but without FadGov bayonets, wouldn't Free Association re-assert itself and limit the minglers to the Lunatic Fringe where they belong. Ask y'allselves, is the World you leave y'alls Sons, better than what y'alls Father left y'all??? So yes, the real enemy remains the Re-Constructed Scalawag Southerner propped up by FedGov--remove the prop and... --- ### Angeleyes *2005-06-26 00:03* | [User Profile](/od/user/1513) [QUOTE=confederate_commando]Sam Francis was wrong. Everybody but Jesus is wrong: Calvin was wrong about Usury, Robert E. Lee was wrong at Gettysburg, etc. That said, why did we Secede and form a Seperate, Independent Nation that was conquered in a brutal, insane, illegal, imperial War? [/QUOTE] My friend, it was a brutal, insane, Federalist war. It was not illegal, under the Constitution. What it was, sadly, was inevitable. What was worse was Reconstruction, as it was undertaken. An opportunity to heal, per our Marshall Plan with Germany, was not undertaken in the 1860's and 1870's. It is a discredit to the American flag and its Constitution that "Reconstruction" was such a screw up, such a mess. The Founders deferred the matter of slavery to their heirs in order to get signatures on the Declaration of Independence, and on the Constitution, which left the immense disagreement between factions of how to deal with slavery, which had been as common in New York as in Virginia back in 1660, to be resolved IF, and that is a big IF, the nation was to remain one nation. Never forget, borders and nations are established under the following rubric: Might Makes Right. It is the rare border that is drawn otherwise --- ### confederate_commando *2005-06-26 00:24* | [User Profile](/od/user/1026) Hardly legal. How so? No Declaration of War by FedGov, and no Authority to invade the States, so either way if we were in or out [TRUTH], there was no legal basis for the War. Nations are ordained by God, not Man... [QUOTE]Genesis 10:32 NIV These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood. Exodus 19:5 NIV Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you [ Or possession, for the whole earth is mine. 6 You ] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." [/QUOTE] --- ### Okiereddust *2005-06-26 00:48* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) [QUOTE=confederate_commando]So y'all tell me what States Right we were leaving over... The Federal Compact of 1787 was NO defense against the encroachments of the Yankees then or now. And certainly, since Ape Lincoln tore it up to 'save the union' in 1861, IT IS A DEAD LETTER ISSUE. Sam speaks of the elites who Rule us. Indeed, and they pay lip service to it. There is no part of the Federal Compact of 1787, with or without its legal and illegal Amendments, [EXCEPT FOR THE FORMS THEREOF] that is not regularly violated. Patrick Henry warned us: "These Immortal words were uttered by Christian Statesman Patrick Henry when he refused his invitation to attend the US Constitutional Convention in 1787" [url]http://www.ismellarat.com/[/url] The Enemy remains the same, in 1787, in 1860, in 1962 and Today. Francis says not practical and not desirable. Balderdash! Difficult, but imagine breathing the air of a Free Dixie, ahhhhhhhhhh.... The argument over States Rights relates to the compact theory. Here is what Francis says about that [QUOTE][B]What was involved in the death of the old Constitution, in other words, was a bit more than a change of mind on the part of a lot of Americans or a plot carried out by a handful of ambitious and unscrupulous men. [/B] If the decline and fall of constitutional government in the United States had been only that, it might still be possible to change men's minds back, persuade them of the virtues of the old Constitution, and restore it. But the victory of the social, economic, and political revolutions that swept it away suggests that one of the main reasons for the failure of the old Constitution was that a declining number of social interests found it a useful instrument of government. [B]In virtually every confrontation in early American history between the compact theory and the unitary theory, the compact theory lost:[/B] The Federalists prevailed over the Anti-Federalists; John Marshall's views triumphed over those of his critics; Andrew Jackson triumphed over John C. Calhoun in the nullification controversy; and, of course, the Union prevailed over the Confederacy. And one reason for these victories is that lots of people stood to gain a great deal from a unitary government that could unify the country, suppress centrifugal pressures, establish a national market for profitmaking, and prevent the nation from disintegrating. Only the Southern states retained a strong vested interest in a decentralized republic and the doctrine of states' rights that helped guarantee it; and by the early 20th century, even these states were willing to compromise on their rights when they stood to gain from doing so. By the time of the civil-rights movement and its revolutionary demand for the fulfillment of Lincoln's egalitarian rhetoric, [B]the South's resistance to the unitary state had become so compromised [/B] by its own hunger for farm subsidies, defense contracts, highway funds, and other federally financed internal improvements [B]that its insistence on states' rights principles as the reason for its opposition to racial integration could no longer be taken seriously.[/B] [B]The old Constitution, in other words, died because hardly anyone in the United States really wanted it to survive, and those who did were often not very serious about it and eventually became powerless to keep it alive.[/B] Today, it no longer matters how cleverly we refute the unitary interpretation or articulate the compact theory, because the document to which they pertain is effectively defunct, and its death is obvious not only in the triumph of the civil-rights movement but also in the victory of every constitutional fantasy concocted by the Supreme Court. Paleoconservatives today, who are virtually defined by their adherence to the Old Republic established by the original and real Constitution, therefore need to make a decision. [B]Their appeals to the old Constitution have now become not only politically and juridically irrelevant but have acquired the stale and arid odor of antiquarianism.[/B] [B]Their cause is no longer well served by regurgitation of archaic constitutional niceties and invocations to constitutionalist idols.[/B] The decision paleoconservatives need to make is whether to abandon all appeals to constitutionalism and make use of alternative modes of argumentation for what those appeals have traditionally tried to defend, or whether, acknowledging the death of the old Constitiution, they should begin working for a new constitutional structure that seeks to replicate as many of the positive attributes of the old Constitution as possible, including its guarantees of federalism and local autonomy. Which ever course they choose will be no less radical and revolutionary than the path that led to the destruction of the old Constitution. [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=80536&postcount=1]The Constitution, R.I.P.[/URL] [/QUOTE] Of course what Francis said about the compact theory could be said even more for the more extreme advocates of its principles, the anti-federalists, and the confederates insofar as they legitimacy fulfill their assertion to belong in its legacy. [QUOTE]The first part is correct--it'll not be short or bloodless. But, neither was it in Ireland for 800 years of Occupation, nor in Spain for the same period of Time. What of Ukraine? Or Poland, or Croatia, or Vietnam, etc. There is still a core of millions of Southrons, who live Dixie from the Chesapeake to the Rio Grande. White Anglo-Scots Protestant, even if truly mis-lead, OUR Ethno-Culture thrives even under Re-Construction II and being co-opted into the service of the Empire. Scotland survived Culloden. The South WILL Rise Again![/QUOTE] Well as the commy poet Brecht noted "The war will not last forever - but men will not last forever either". Its not going to happen in my lifetime, that's for sure. One must pick his causes. Southern particularism has its legitimate historical rights, but I would hate to see more substantial causes, like the survival of our whole civilization, hamstrung by dogmatic insistence on its tenats. [QUOTE]How, y'all ask? Long term asymmetric resistance and wait for OUR chance. One White Christian in Dixie at a time. Surely there is a world of Hurt coming down on the UsA for 50 Million Baby Murders? What Southern State would not ban it Today, or Gays out in the open... Isn't that reason enough to leave. Yes, the Alien remains amongst us, but without FadGov bayonets, wouldn't Free Association re-assert itself and limit the minglers to the Lunatic Fringe where they belong. Ask y'allselves, is the World you leave y'alls Sons, better than what y'alls Father left y'all???[/QUOTE]Well, I don't know. The fools I see ar dug in pretty deep > So yes, the real enemy remains the Re-Constructed Scalawag Southerner propped up by FedGov--remove the prop and...[/QUOTE]Again, I dunno. Where I see it the [QUOTE]Re-Constructed Scalawag Southerner propped up by FedGov[/QUOTE] is so pervasive that its like peeling an onion. Remove all the layers of it in the modern southern states and you don't have anything left to eat. --- ### confederate_commando *2005-06-26 00:53* | [User Profile](/od/user/1026) [COLOR=DarkRed]Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen! -Martin Luther[/COLOR] --- ### Walter Yannis *2005-06-26 04:26* | [User Profile](/od/user/57) [QUOTE]Today, the main political line of division in the United States is not between the regions of North and South (insofar as such regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and nonelite. As I have tried to make plain in columns in this magazine and many other places for the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultiara1 dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard. Today, the greatest immediate danger to Middle America and the European-American civilization to which it is heir lies in the importation of a new underclass from the Third World through mass immigration. The danger is in part economic, in part political, and in part cultural, but it is also in part racial, pure and simple. The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief.[/QUOTE] Wow. Thanks for posting this, Okie. SF is right that these old fights could distract us from the real work at hand, which is building European American solidarity. We will either hang together, or we will hang separately. --- ### confederate_commando *2005-06-29 02:16* | [User Profile](/od/user/1026) [QUOTE]In virtually every confrontation in early American history between the compact theory and the unitary theory, the compact theory lost: The Federalists prevailed over the Anti-Federalists[/QUOTE] Well...if not for the Anti-Federalists, we wouldn't have a States-Rights argument vis-a-vis the 10th Amendment, or our final hope in the 2nd, though granted they've been so gutted by :censored: FedGov which tells us what the null and void Federal Compact REALLY means anyway... [QUOTE]SF is right that these old fights could distract us from the real work at hand, which is building European American solidarity.[/QUOTE] Up to a point, true, but one can not simply erase long standing historical ethno-cultural differences. One major difference of course is that there never has been a White Nation, while there is a very real Southern Nation. We've been different since Colonial Days, different as Plantation Virginia and Townhall New England, different as Southern Summer and Yankee Winter... --- ### MarkFarrell *2005-08-09 13:00* | [User Profile](/od/user/1723) While European Americans continue to fight amongst themselves and waste time with such efforts, arguing about wars that have long since past, we are missing (and subsequently allowing) what is occurring here and now--not to mention the possible impact it may have on our future generations. The Civil War has ended so long ago--before you were born; before your parents were born; before your grandparents were born--and yet we still must forever dwell on such topics? Meanwhile, this nation goes to hell, as the neo-Kahns force their hellish ways on society, allowing an unprecedented illegal alien tidal wave to invade our lands, promoting laws that discriminate against European Americans in every facet of culture, and destroying every last right that we gave ourselves in the Consitution and Bill of Rights--all the while plans are being implemented for a war so great and so deadly that our disastrous Civil War will be but a drop in the bucket in comparison. Stay focused. [center]:crybaby:[/center] --- ### Quantrill *2005-08-09 14:44* | [User Profile](/od/user/1098) I agree that Southern secession is hardly the most pressing issue facing Southerners today. That said, however, Southerners rightly identify Lincoln's War as the inauguration of the imperial power that has destroyed our civilization over the past century, so one can hardly blame them for wanting to disassociate themselves from the cause of so many of their troubles. --- ### Ponce *2005-08-09 16:29* | [User Profile](/od/user/901) I feel like you do about white only, about the illegals, about the Jews and so on, but I know that nothing can be done, not because we don't care but because those in goverment have sold out this country. This land has a canser that's killing it and all we can do is to keep it confortable till it dies. I saw what was happening long ago and planned accordingly by thinking smart and moving out ot the city and way up in the hills. The link below is a sample of what is to come, I don't like gangs in my town no more than you do but disagree about keeping them away from their famlies and friends and about sending them to other areas in order to continue their activities. [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-09-cover-gangs_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno[/url] --- ### Texas Dissident *2005-08-09 16:46* | [User Profile](/od/user/1) [QUOTE=Ponce]This land has a canser that's killing it and all we can do is to keep it confortable till it dies.[/QUOTE] The cancer killing this land is purported immigrants like yourself living within its confines. We Southrons don't need or want your pessimism or input, Ponch. Period. Go back to Cuba. --- ### Ponce *2005-08-09 17:18* | [User Profile](/od/user/901) [QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The cancer killing this land is purported immigrants like yourself living within its confines. We Southrons don't need or want your pessimism or input, Ponch. Period. Go back to Cuba.[/QUOTE] Well Tex you forgot that I am half gringo, with a name like O'Neal I have no choice, also I served in [B]your[/B] army for six years and for a certain civilian company for another seven year therefore I have earned the right to be here. You don't need my "input" yet I call it as I see it and rather than criticizing someone for what he say you should try to find out why that person feels that way, that's why we are now in big trouble with the rest of the world because we try to change them rather then convert them. I did try to go back to Cuba, as you well know, and like I said before "Castro told my dad that I was too Americanise to return to Cuba'.....Castro is wrong but I don't blame him. Tex? please keep an eye on your blood pressure, if you feel like you talk then you are in danger of never reaching your 36, or 37, birth date. --- ### Texas Dissident *2005-08-09 17:52* | [User Profile](/od/user/1) [QUOTE=Ponce]Well Tex you forgot that I am half gringo, with a name like O'Neal I have no choice, also I served in [B]your[/B] army for six years and for a certain civilian company for another seven year therefore I have earned the right to be here. Not necessarily, slick. Whether or not you should have been allowed to serve is debatable, but either way I am sure you were paid for your time and ultimately has no bearing on your supposed 'right' to be here. Just because any one of the world's poor, huddled masses comes to work for an American corporation for a number of years doesn't give them native rights and priveleges. It's a paycheck for services rendered, end of story. Have a great life back in your homeland. We Americans wish you well. Vaya con Dios. > You don't need my "input" yet I call it as I see it and rather than criticizing someone for what he say you should try to find out why that person feels that way... I care about how my kith and kin "feel". Beyond that my care level drops significantly. > I did try to go back to Cuba, as you well know, and like I said before "Castro told my dad that I was too Americanise to return to Cuba'.....Castro is wrong but I don't blame him. If at first you don't succeed, try and try again. > Tex? please keep an eye on your blood pressure, if you feel like you talk then you are in danger of never reaching your 36, or 37, birth date.[/QUOTE] Nothing wrong with my blood pressure, Chico. My health's fine, thank the good Lord, but I appreciate your concern. However, my tolerance for your incessant, inane non sequiturs is pretty much maxed out. *Especially* when they occur on important threads about my beloved Southland. --- ### Ponce *2005-08-09 20:03* | [User Profile](/od/user/901) [I]I care about how my kith and kin "feel". Beyond that my care level drops significantly.[/I] Tex? by what you wrote above you are telling the world what the main problem is with the US and the rest of the world. The US is beeing isolated more and more every day and gaining more enemys, as Bush said ......my way or the highway. The road to friendship is to understand someone and to learn from them as they learn from you. I am really surprised Tex that you haven't block me from this site as strong as your feelings are about me, could it be that you think that I make you look good? Every time that you try to talk me down people are learning who you are.......behave amigo. :thumbsup: --- ### Texas Dissident *2005-08-09 20:39* | [User Profile](/od/user/1) [QUOTE=Ponce][I]as Bush said ......my way or the highway. I have absolutely no problem with that kind of conviction in a man. In fact, I admire it. Would that we had more men in this country with that kind of character and resolution. > The road to friendship is to understand someone and to learn from them as they learn from you. I'm getting all choked up and misty eyed, Ponch. That's great advice for meeting folks at the rotary club luncheon, but it doesn't apply in the least to relations between nations. If you think your muslim camel jockey friends are the least bit interested in "understanding us", then you're very misguided. > I am really surprised Tex that you haven't block me from this site as strong as your feelings are about me... Don't flatter yourself or tempt me, Paco. If not for the fact that you evidently have no life outside of posting on this board, I wouldn't bother. But ten to fifteen non-sensical posts on completely unrelated threads every day, week after week and month after month is just too much. If I had a Cuban dollar for every thread you've killed I could probably afford a large goat farm back on your island of red commies. It's real simple, Ponch. Make sensible posts on topics actually related to the thread you are posting on. Here in America we call it 'self-discipline'. 'Course there's always the possibility you may be more at home on a communist Cuban political forum. You might consider... ---