The
Breakup of America: Southern SecessionismAn
interesting defense of secessionism and political support for the breakup of America
has been offered by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy in their book
"The South Was Right!" [5] The Kennedy's debunk the myth
of an anti-racist North fighting a moral war to end slavery in the racist South.
Civil war history has been written by the victor and it is absurd to suppose that
the South went to war over an issue affecting only 6 per cent of the population.
The argument of the book is that the North invaded the South after the South's
declaration of independence. The authors thus see the North as an invading force
which stopped the South from exerting its independence. The North imposed a social
agenda upon the South beginning with the "revenge of the Negroes" during reconstruction
(halted by the Klu Klux Klan, although the authors do not touch on this topic)
and still imposes a social agenda on the South with an attempt to eliminate symbols
dear to the South constituting a form of "cultural ethnic cleansing".
The
Kennedy's put the case for the South to exist as an independent county with its
own culture. The Soviet empire collapsed with once-captive nations asserting their
right of self-determination. The authors plea:
"The South must put aside the
illusion that the current government is the legitimate outgrowth of the original
American Constitutional Republic. These illusions are used by our conquerors to
bind the South to this unequal union." [6] The South had
a Celtic culture, the North an Anglo-Saxon one, the Kennedys argue [7],
and the South had a healthy Celtic contempt for materialism. David Fisher in his
book "Albion's Seed" says that there were four immigrant patterns from the British
Isles: to the South, migrants from North Britain (Northern England and Scotland),
Northern Ireland and Saxon areas of South England and East Anglia (puritans) and
in the middle colonies, Quakers from the North Midlands of England. [8]
The cultural differences between North and South originated in Britain. American
revolutionist John Adams recognized these differences and said to his wife that
the union of these different peoples could not be held together "without the utmost
caution on both sides." [9] Thus the difference in culture
was recognized even in colonial times.
The Kennedy's also give an interesting
discussion of the legal right for the South to be free, outlining the fraudulent
methods used to enact the Fourteenth Amendment (the same Amendment used by the
US Supreme Court in its desegregation decisions). By 1867 the Amendment had been
rejected by 12 States and accepted by 22, with 28n States needed for ratification.
The North then set out to ratify the 14th Amendment by these illegal tactics:
"Expel the South from Congress (an open and flagrant violation of Section
V of the U.S. Constitution) Illegally used military forces to occupy peaceful
States (remember the war was over and new civil State governments had been established
and their Representatives and Senators sent to Congress). Disfranchised a large
portion of the population (i.e., those who had supported the Confederate government
- a violation of the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post
facto law). Declared that no Southern State could have its seats back unless such
State ratified the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e.) yielded to forced ratification).
Counted as ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment the States of Ohio and New Jersey,
both of which had rescinded their ratifications. In addition, the Oregon legislature
rescinded its ratification three months later due to the "illegal and revolutionary"
methods used by the proponents of enactment." [10] Congress
needed the Southern States' ratification to get back into the Union, but the States
could only legally vote on the ratification of a Constitutional Amendment if they
were governments - but Congress had declared the States not to be part of the
Union. So that ratifications of the 14th Amendment are void. [11]
Dr. James Owens, former Dean and Professor
Emeritus at the university School of Business, has proposed that States' secession
could avert European-American extinction. [12] America has
become a multiracial regime, with an outward façade of a superpower backed by
a coercive bureaucracy, all masking social filth and decay within. America's dissolution
is unstoppable - so let's stop America he says.
"America today is finally
and fully racially diverse, with soaring non-white procreation rates and immigration,
visbly segmented by color and cultures. Non-white languages (Hispanic, "black
English" etc.) and culture throughout many American cities and regions. Many (or
most) non-whites are Afro or Hispanic first, "American" second or not at all,
resist or reject traditional American culture - and yearn to replace it with their
own". [13] The scenario
of USA 2050 is a colored Congress presenting as yet un-thought of repressive laws
against Whites, a colored Leviathan eager to avenge historical wrongs that have
been entrenched by multicultural education. Owen observes: "With non-whites' increasing
political force, Euro-white extinction is inevitable. With submission of whites
and full-scale racial intermarriage and interbreeding, complete removal of a pure-white
genetic strain from America will happen within about a century. This could be
done by gradual miscegenation or more radically and perhaps ultimately, by a "final
solution" for Whites imposed by the forces of color he believes. It is too late
to chip-away at anti-White laws within the system or to roll back anti-White laws.
Dr. Owen says Secession of the States is the only remaining option. After all
if the USA considers it good enough for the old Soviet empire, championing the
principle of national self-determination , then it is good enough for the USA.
Owen believes that if Oregon threatened secession "the USA would never dare reconstruct
a Lincoln-like massacre of a State such as Oregon." Our view: don't believe it
: Americans are naïve about the level of violence that their beloved nation commits
or could commit if pushed. The League of the
South, which seeks independence for the Southern States of the US has about 8,000
members including academics, lawyers and journalists who are sick of Washington-imposed
political correctness. We have yet to see them come to grips with Hispanic irredentism,
Chicano nationalism and the seeming demographic inevitability of Aztlan. Nevertheless
the movement is a source of potential allies in the future when the demographics
of America explodes. The South is at least decade behind the North in accepting
political correctism (feminism, etc.) Hence the "New Reconstruction" and war on
the South because it holds the old order. [14] Racial
Separatism
The best thought out treatment of secession based on racial
and ethnic separatism is Wilmot Robertson's "The Ethnostate". [15]
The author states the central problem and its solution as follows: "What is called
for is a new form of government that would transform socially destructive into
socially constructive forces. Race, now actively tearing countries apart, might
be helpful in putting them back together, but this time in the form of autonomous,
relatively self-sufficient collectivities that the author has chosen to designate
as ethnostates." [16] Secession
is an antidote to the one world trend. It is a form of devolution, the voluntary
separation of one part of the body politic from the whole: "Devolution proceeds
from the big to the small, from the roof to the foundation, from erratic electrons
to the stable nucleus. World revolution is an explosion. World devolution is an
implosion, a contraction, a recoiling from a unitary to a diversified world; from
top-heavy, ungainly empires and artificially contrived States to more manageable
"core" States, where society rests on the hard rock of genes and culture instead
of the quick sands of proletarian myths, egalitarian fantasies and retouched history.
To put it in crass political terms, devolution is the surrender or delegation
of powers formerly held by a central government to regional or provincial authorities."
[17] The ethnoState
is designed to accommodate different races, ethnocities and cultures that do not
mix together. This is essentially an advance from tribalism without the imperialism
and violence, because these regions are, if self-reliant, less prone to plunder
their neighbors. Other authors such as Leopold Kohr support secessionism for ecological
and population size reasons [18]: Robertson, admirably stands
his ground and holds that the ethnoState's Basic sine qua non is racial and cultural
homogeneity. In a world facing social breakdown, race can once more be a unifying
force: "Race, by providing a population group with a set of physical and mental
traits that distinguish it from other groups, is a strong force for unity. Since
every political and social entity must have some binding force, nothing would
serve this purpose better than ethnicity. The grand purpose of ethnostates is
to make the most of human differences by letting them develop and flourish in
their own unique settings uninfluenced by alien cultures and races. Using atomic
fission as a metaphor, the splitting of nations and empires can be looked upon
as the creation of a huge psychological force field, which keeps the human mind
radiating. The paper management and control of these bursts of imagination and
inventiveness should be a prime goal of political, economic and social leadership."
[19]
While all of this
may seem like fantasy, Robertson is pleased to report that various radical racial
groups are not beyond co-operation towards common separatist goals: "Meetings
have been reported whereby American native Indians, American Blacks, and American
White racist radicals have all gathered together in a harmonious but revolutionary
atmosphere to project their common aim of separatism, involving Indian tribal
homelands as fully independent States, and separate regions for Blacks, Whites
and Hispanics. Louis Farrakhan and his Black Moslem entourage have gathered together
with American "Klansmen," for example, with the common aim of regionalism and
separatism, and they've both identified the stinking U.S. government as their
common imperial enemy." [20] Robertson
suggests that the decaying American Republic be divided up in the following way:
"With regard to the United States, the most sensible, peaceful and democratic
solution would be the division of the country into an Hispanic state in the Southwest,
a Cuban state in south Florida, a Black state somewhere in the rural South, and
a series of independent Jewish, Black and Asian enclaves in the cities and close-in
suburbs where these groups comprise sizable elements of the population. Indians
would keep their reservations, which would be combined into ethnostates and placed
largely under their control.
In respect to White, non-Jewish ethnostates,
the United States has no provinces or city states on the historical European model.
It does, however, have regions with historical and cultural traditions - the Deep
South, Appalachia, Texas Conce (an independent republic), New England, the Farm
Belt and the Northwest. Both geography and demography would qualify such areas
for ethnostatehood. Where the population has become a welter of different ethnic
factions in large metropolitan areas, neighborhoods could be the loci for political,
economic and social groupings. Though too small to qualify as ethnostates, they
would be accorded as much independence as reasonably possible." [21]
White separatism has also been proposed in
insightful essays by rabbi Mayer Schiller [22] and that
great defender of the Nordic/Nordish people, Richard McCulloch. [23]
Their argument is both simple and compelling: separation is necessary for survival
of the folk. These arguments have been opposed by the conservative Samuel Francis
[24] who in one article illustrates why American conservatism
is a racially suicidal philosophy. As Richard McCulloch has written a brilliant
rejoinder [25] we will not labor the point.
Francis
believes that separatism would be "un-American," it would alienate nationalism
and patriotism. But there is no need to, "we" are still the majority. Yes, but
not for long. Francis cannot come to grips with the fact that America is already
dead and that the country is already breaking up. Of course the constitution will
go - but so what. What is important is the survival of the American stock that
produced that Constitution and which is capable of producing an even better one,
free from racial genocide in their own homelands.
Francis has the typical
conservative narrow, reductionistical view of race. He can't see how race alone
could generate the consciousness needed to maintain an ethnostate and keep out
cheap colored labor. He claims that race must take on cultural and political flesh.
On this he is right. But he doesn't go far enough. Race must take on a metaphysical
and spiritual flesh and we will say more about that in another paper.
Finally,
Francis' position seems much behind the times. Modern America is already a mish-mash
of tribes or neo-tribes arising, Michel Maffesoli proposes from the break-up of
mass culture. [26] Neo-tribes or tribus have an "underground
centrality," "self-consciousness" and a stability which the larger State lacks.
As the nation-state seems to be doomed for ecological reasons alone, the tribe
will once again be resurgent. [27] It is time for the Nordic
people to re-tribalize - but this time without the fratricidal brothers' wars
that have been used by our traditional enemies to neuter us. Postscript
The
above essay was written in the late 1990s but for various reasons was not published.
Since that time there have been some important works which have explored American
secessionism and ethnic separatism in some detail.
Hans-hermann Hoppe in his
book "Democracy: The God that Failed," (2002) [28]
defends secessionism and immigration control from an "anarcho-capitalist"
position. Hoppe is skeptical of the legitimacy of the State as an institution
and believes that private organizations can carry on its functions better and
preserve the freedom of individuals. Secessionism and immigration control, are
he argues, logical consequences of libertarianism because truly free individuals
in association should be able to decide who they live with. Multicultural/multiracial
societies never remain peaceful for long and can only exist because of oppressive
State structures.
Although the present authors
do not agree fully with Hoppe's rejection of the State, his book is one which
all thoughtful people should read.
Another important book is Edgar J. Steele's
"Defensive Racism". [29] Steele is a high profile
criminal lawyer, known as the "Attorney for the Damned" and he hosts
a website at www.ConspiracyPenPal.com. In his book Steele gives a clearly written
non-technical account of racial differences. For the professional researcher there
is nothing new here, but there is not meant to be: anyone who can read will come
away understanding the basics of genetics and race differences. The book accepts
the standard view of Asian and Jewish intellectual supremacy which the present
authors have challenged in other papers.
Steele is not afraid to make racial
observations of the Jews which are politically incorrect and illegal to say outside
America. "Jewish sharp dealing in business and money matters is legion down
through history and in modern times," he says. [30]
Unafraid, he says elsewhere in his chatty book: "Fifty years ago the Zionist
financial cabal decided it was possible to take over America as completely and
thoroughly as it had Russia a mere half century prior to that time." [31]
He predicts that race-hate laws will eventually proscribe death for anti-Semitism.
[32] Steele will probably be a candidate for the death penalty
because he sees the Jews as "Masters of Disaster" who are as a group
"pernicious and harmful". [33] And Steele says
that he is not only anti-Zionist (critical of Israel) but - gasp - "anti-Semitic"
in the sense that an anti-Semite is someone that the Jews hate (Joe Sobran). [34]
Steele describes how he received death threats against himself and family from
a Jewish caller for legally representing Aryan Nations "against a set of
false charges." [35] At present such things can be
said in the United States, although there are race-hate laws on the agenda of
the books in some jurisdictions. Steele would have a hopeless time in, for example,
Canada, Britain, Germany, and France. Every taboo is broken by Steele. The Talmud
is quoted to show Jewish race'hatred of gentiles. Prominent Jewish spokesman Professor
Alan Dershowitz is cited for advocating "torture of American enemies"
and Canadian Jewish attorney Professor Alan Young is cited as advocating "expanding
the application of torture to American political dissidents," to "kick
start" our brains." [36] Finally, Steele goes
on to question the Holocaust. All this from someone who identifies not with the
"extreme right" but conservative values. As we have said, books like
this can only be published here in the States and we fear that the freedom to
question all taboos will soon be lost.
So does Steele. He sees the situation
of Whites as being in a "race war" "to the death. The death of
the White race." [37] To his credit Steele discusses
the financial question with some insight although he doesn't discuss the most
fundamental flaws in the financial system as exposed by C.H. Douglas and his social
credit successors. Interestingly enough, Steele quotes sources which estimate
that the Rothschilds control about three fifths of the world's wealth of about
$500 trillion in fiat money, the Rockefellers $100 trillion and another 11 rich
and powerful banking families (most Jewish) much of the rest. [38]
The
New America for Steele will be one in which White Gentile Americans will no longer
be strangers in their own land. This new land, based on ethnic separatism will
arise after America comes to a sticky end through imperial overreach and ultimate
economic collapse. America will fall apart and a great slab of it will become
Mexican, the new Hispanic Aztlan. A New Africa and New Israel will arise. Whites
will found a New America, while with no American protection, the Chinese conquest
of Australia and New Zealand will be complete. Interesting times, to put it mildly,
predicted by an interesting book. Read it and make up your own mind about the
truth of its assertions - while you still can. [39] |
Notes1.
James Kurth, quoted by Georgie Anne Geyer, "Americans No More," (Atlantic
Press, New York, 1996), pp.209-210.
2. Wilmot Robertson, "The Ethnostate:
An Unblinkered Prospectus for an Advanced Statecraft," (Howard Allen, Cape
Canaveral, 1992), p.96.
3. See M. Castells, "End of Millennium,"
volume III, (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1998); Lord Rees-Mog, "The End
of Nations," The Times, August 31 1995; M. Van Creveld, "The Fate of
the State," Parameters, Spring 1996, pp.4-18.
4. R. Premdas (et al eds.),
"Secessionist Movements in Comparative Perspective," (Pinter Publishers,
London, 1990); A.D. Smith, "Towards a Theory of Ethnic Separatism,"
Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol.2, no.1. 1979, pp.21-37.
5. J.R. Kennedy and
W.D. Kennedy, "The South Was Right!" (Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna,
1997).
6. above p.9. See also R. Semmes, "Memoirs of Service Afloat,"
(The Blue and Gray Press, Secaucus NJ, 1987); J.L.M. Curry, "The Southern
States of the American Union," (B.F. Johnson Publishing Company, Richmond
VA, 1890); A.N.Lytle (et al) "I'll Take My Stand," (Louisiana State
University Press, baton Rouge, 1983); F.L. Owsley, "Plain Folk of the Old
South," (Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1982); W. Rawle,
"A View of the Constitution of the United States of America," (H.C.
Carey and Lea, Philadelphia, 1825); R.L. Dabney, "A Defense of Virginia and
the South," (Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, 1977); E.A. Pollard, "Southern
History of the War," (The Fairfax Press, New York, 1978); M.A. Grissom, "The
Last Rebel Yell," (Rebel Press, Nashville, 1991); F.W. Springer, "War
for What?" (Bill Coats Ltd., Nashville, 1990); G. Fowler, "Abraham Lincoln
on the Warpath," The Barnes Review, July/August 1999, pp.51-57.
7. G.
McWhiney, "Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South," (The University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1988). For a more recent defense of Southern values
see Jim Goad, "The Redneck Manifesto" (Simon and Schuster, New York,
1997).
8. David H. Fisher, Albion's Seed, (Oxford University Press, Oxford
and New York, 1989), p.24.
9. above p.24.
10. J.R. Kennedy and W.D. Kennedy,
"The South Was Right!" (Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, 1997), pp.375-376.
11.
F. McDonald, "Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted?"
The Georgia Journal of Southern Legal History, vol.1, no.1, Spring/Summer 1991.
12.
J. Owens, "New American Nations," Right Now! July/September 1997, pp.12-13.
13.
J. Owens, "Racial Separatism in a New America," Speech at Council of
Conservative Citizens national Convention Atlanta, May 31 1997.
14. M. Hill,
"The South and the New Reconstruction," Chronicles, March 1997, pp.21-23.
15.
Robertson, op. cit. note 2.
16. above p.ix.
17. p.3.
18. L. Kohr, "The
Breakdown of Nations," (E.P. Dutton, New York, 1978).
19. Robertson, p.72.
20.
above pp.25-26.
21. as above
22. Rabbi Mayer Schiller, "Separation:
Is There an Alternative?" American Renaissance, vol.6, no.2, February 1995,
pp.1, 3-5.
23. Richard McCulloch, "Separation fro Preservation,"
American Renaissance, vol.6, no.2, February 1995, pp.5-6.
24. Samuel Francis,
"Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival," American Renaissance.
vol.6, no.6, March 1995, pp.1, 3-7.
25. Richard McCulloch, "The Preservationist
Imperative," American Renaissance, vol.6, no.6, June 1995, pp.1, 3-4.
26.
M. Maffesoli, "The Time of the Tribes: The decline of Individualism in Mass
Society," (Sage Publications, London, 1996).
27. M.W. Hughey, "New
Tribalisms: The Resurgence of Race and Ethnicity," (New York University Press,
New York, 1998).
28. H-H Hoppe, "Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics
and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order," (Transaction Publishers,
New Brunswick, 2002).
29. E.J. Steele, "Defensive Racism: An Unapologetic
Examination of Racial Differences," (Proper Press, Sagle, 2004).
30. at
p.40.
31. at p.69,
32. as above.
33. at p.85.
34. at p.87.
35.
at p.89.
36. at p.270.
37. at p.275.
38. at pp.332-333.
39. This work
is published using information which the authors genuinely believe to be true.
It is done reasonably and in good faith in the course of making statements for
a genuine academic and scientific purpose in the public interest. The essay aims
to give a fair and accurate report of matters of public interest, as well as give
fair comment on matters of public interest, the comment being an expression of
genuine beliefs held by the authors: Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) sub-section
18 D(a), (b) and (c). |
